Jump to content

Continued From Ccc


wandat24
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Are you referring to me? I can't imagine that's the case since I have more finds and more posts than you, and have been a member longer... But by the same token, I'm the one questioning the hide, and questioning soil samples that don't meet a standard that would be used by a lab, and therefore, I'm asking what they're used for and by whom?

 

Let me start by saying, I'm not really trying to start anything with this I just have a few questions of my own. Ok, scavok said a School team took the soil samples... How do you know they are not in standards that a lab would use?? I remember doing stuff like this in my Earth Science and we went out and just dug holes (many times not placing the dirt back) with regular shovels we found in the Ag building. MANY of these holes were in fact square, due to the Ag guys liking those square headed shovels and due to the fact we wasn't sending them off to a lab we was testing them in class. If you would read more carefully you would understand that a School team did it, and then common sense would tell ya that it could be a smart teacher doing a hands on experiment.

As for me say a troll, as I’m sure many people here already know, a troll can be someone rooting around in a thread/forum looking for a way to start trouble. Now, sad as it might be, I am one that like trolls and take the "bait" almost all the time. Not to really start trouble myself, but to put my 2bits worth in and to make clear what I would otherwise leave up to the reader to decide what it means.

 

So, as I said before, I don't see an issue to keep going on and on about. The reviewer didn't care, which it's THEIR "Jobs" to care, so what is the point to all this?????

 

Edited to add:: what does the Post amount matter, and I doubt you spend as much time "researching" on this site as I do.. and as i have decided myself the amount of finds don't much matter to how well you understand this hobby

Edited by wandat24
Link to comment

Are you referring to me? I can't imagine that's the case since I have more finds and more posts than you, and have been a member longer... But by the same token, I'm the one questioning the hide, and questioning soil samples that don't meet a standard that would be used by a lab, and therefore, I'm asking what they're used for and by whom?

 

Let me start by saying, I'm not really trying to start anything with this I just have a few questions of my own. Ok, scavok said a School team took the soil samples... How do you know they are not in standards that a lab would use?? I remember doing stuff like this in my Earth Science and we went out and just dug holes (many times not placing the dirt back) with regular shovels we found in the Ag building. MANY of these holes we in fact square, due to the Ag guys liking those square headed shovels and due to the fact we wasn't sending them off to a lab we was testing them in class. If you would read more carefully you would understand that a School team did it, and then common sense would tell ya that it could be a smart teacher doing a hands on experiment.

As for me say a troll, as I’m sure many people here already know, a troll can be someone rooting around in a thread/forum looking for a way to start trouble. Now, sad as it might be, I am one that like trolls and take the "bait" almost all the time. Not to really start trouble myself, but to put my 2bits worth in and to make clear what I would otherwise leave up to the reader to decide what it means.

 

So, as I said before, I don't see an issue to keep going on and on about. The reviewer didn't care, which it's THEIR "Jobs" to care, so what is the point to all this?????

 

Edited to add:: what does the Post amount matter, and I doubt you spend as much time "researching" on this site as I do.. and as i have decided myself the amount of finds don't much matter to how well you understand this hobby

 

Soil samples need equal amounts of soil at each layer. soil_sampling_auger_tube.jpg

 

But I wouldn't really know, I only sign-off on a few hundred a day during certain months...

 

When I go out to the university Ag sites here, I see 30 or so for every few acres, every single one of them cored with a coring tool.

 

I would like to see ONE legitimate example of a hole dug with a shovel by a university (not a backyard Gardener)that was a soil sample and that would _exactly_ fit a 30cal ammo can. 'Cause I call BS.

 

Until then, I stand by "gullible"

 

[edited to add: If he shows a photo of them coring with a shovel, and a dozen or so identical holes with slices missing from them (remember, the slice would have to go in for analysis), then I'll also accept that. Otherwise, he's just BSing to keep from having a buried cache archived...]

Edited by Adrenalynn
Link to comment

Are you referring to me? I can't imagine that's the case since I have more finds and more posts than you, and have been a member longer... But by the same token, I'm the one questioning the hide, and questioning soil samples that don't meet a standard that would be used by a lab, and therefore, I'm asking what they're used for and by whom?

 

Let me start by saying, I'm not really trying to start anything with this I just have a few questions of my own. Ok, scavok said a School team took the soil samples... How do you know they are not in standards that a lab would use?? I remember doing stuff like this in my Earth Science and we went out and just dug holes (many times not placing the dirt back) with regular shovels we found in the Ag building. MANY of these holes we in fact square, due to the Ag guys liking those square headed shovels and due to the fact we wasn't sending them off to a lab we was testing them in class. If you would read more carefully you would understand that a School team did it, and then common sense would tell ya that it could be a smart teacher doing a hands on experiment.

As for me say a troll, as I'm sure many people here already know, a troll can be someone rooting around in a thread/forum looking for a way to start trouble. Now, sad as it might be, I am one that like trolls and take the "bait" almost all the time. Not to really start trouble myself, but to put my 2bits worth in and to make clear what I would otherwise leave up to the reader to decide what it means.

 

So, as I said before, I don't see an issue to keep going on and on about. The reviewer didn't care, which it's THEIR "Jobs" to care, so what is the point to all this?????

 

Edited to add:: what does the Post amount matter, and I doubt you spend as much time "researching" on this site as I do.. and as i have decided myself the amount of finds don't much matter to how well you understand this hobby

 

Soil samples need equal amounts of soil at each layer. soil_sampling_auger_tube.jpg

 

But I wouldn't really know, I only sign-off on a few hundred a day during certain months...

 

When I go out to the university Ag sites here, I see 30 or so for every few acres, every single one of them cored with a coring tool.

 

I would like to see ONE legitimate example of a hole dug with a shovel by a university (not a backyard Gardener)that was a soil sample and that would _exactly_ fit a 30cal ammo can. 'Cause I call BS.

 

Until then, I stand by "gullible"

 

[edited to add: If he shows a photo of them coring with a shovel, and a dozen or so identical holes with slices missing from them (remember, the slice would have to go in for analysis), then I'll also accept that. Otherwise, he's just BSing to keep from having a buried cache archived...]

 

I can go for that, but my classes was in high school and we did it pretty much for fun and to waste time, our teacher was concerned with the exactness of anything, so it could still be a school thing, wouldn't you agree? I'll be headed off to bed soon, it's almost 2.30 (2.17) here in OKla lol. Will continue tomorrow

Edited by wandat24
Link to comment

I was watching this exchange in the other thread and thought I'd drop in with my two cents.

 

Could it be possible that you BOTH are right?

 

For the type of work Adrenalynn is apparently involved in, the core sample is the only way to go.

 

However, a "School team" doesn't necessarily mean some college level engineering group took the sample for specific scientific purposes. MANY schools take their kids out just to get them involved in their environment. A lot of them use the GLOBE program to help out (globeDOTgov) or just plain old creativity. Hands-on science and learning is a GOOD thing.

 

And believe it or not, at some level you really can learn a lot from a generic shovel full of soil. Even more from several of them in a sample area. Shovels are cheap and fit most school budgets pretty well. Easier than core sampling tools and engineering lab tests. Plants, animals, insects, soil types, moisture content ... all kinds of stuff is in there that some kids may never have actually thought about. And the people that are getting those kids involved should be congratulated - but that's a different topic.

 

So someone found a hole an put a can in it. Big deal. Go caching and have some fun.

Link to comment
I was watching this exchange in the other thread and thought I'd drop in with my two cents.

 

Could it be possible that you BOTH are right?

 

For the type of work Adrenalynn is apparently involved in, the core sample is the only way to go.

 

However, a "School team" doesn't necessarily mean some college level engineering group took the sample for specific scientific purposes. MANY schools take their kids out just to get them involved in their environment. A lot of them use the GLOBE program to help out (globeDOTgov) or just plain old creativity. Hands-on science and learning is a GOOD thing.

 

And believe it or not, at some level you really can learn a lot from a generic shovel full of soil. Even more from several of them in a sample area. Shovels are cheap and fit most school budgets pretty well. Easier than core sampling tools and engineering lab tests. Plants, animals, insects, soil types, moisture content ... all kinds of stuff is in there that some kids may never have actually thought about. And the people that are getting those kids involved should be congratulated - but that's a different topic.

 

So someone found a hole an put a can in it. Big deal. Go caching and have some fun.

 

 

This is what I'm really trying to point out. I know how all the different core and soil samples are taken when being used in a professional lab or in a college lab. Then I also know how a good teacher doesn't care about the grade of a sample (s)he just cares that they're getting hand on stuff.

For someone to just assume another person is lying and then keeps on and on about how wrong they are is just wrong in it self.

Link to comment

Well, I guess that would bring us to the topic of teachers that should be thrown in the dumpster... "Today we're going to learn to take soil samples. We just won't learn how to take a soil sample. We'll go out of our way to corrupt the sample and to make it as worthless as humanly possible, but hey, it burns one more day in my year".

Link to comment

. . . . ."Today we're going to learn to take soil samples. We just won't learn how to take a soil sample. We'll go out of our way to corrupt the sample and to make it as worthless as humanly possible, but hey, it burns one more day in my year".

 

Sounds like many Public Schools I know of - Surprised?

Link to comment

Sounds like if one has children in the public school system there, then they should be charged with child abuse for not leaving...

 

[edited to make the statement more generic and conceptual. Think "self moderation".]

Edited by Adrenalynn
Link to comment

I'm trying to understand this whole topic. Now let me understand this from what I've read so far.

 

Someone placed a ammo box in a hole.

 

A hole that was dug by a bunch of high school kids

 

A hole made by using a square bladed shovel

 

A square bladed shovel that cut a perfect hole large enough for an ammo can to fit.

 

An ammo can that was then covered with dry grass.

 

That was placed in a hole.

 

A hole that was made by using a square bladed shovel

 

A square bladed shovel that was use by a bunch of school kids

 

A bunch of school kids that were being taught about soil samples

 

Soil samples that the square headed shovel made, that the ammo box was placed in that was covered with grass.

 

A ammo box that was hidden in a hole and covered with dry grass that was then sent into Geocaching.com.

 

A ammo can that was then given an okay by the modarator for that region.

 

So then what is the problem?

 

It it because the school team used a square headed shovel to dig the hole that was just big enough for the ammo can to sit into, that was then covered with dry grass and placed into Geocaching.com for anyone with enough smarts to find?

 

I'm confussed.

 

Maybe it's because its such a great cache? Or is it the fact that the hole was just the perfect size for the ammo can?

 

Did they say 'perfect fit' or that the ammo can 'fit perfectly', which might mean the hole was a little bigger than what was needed to hide the ammo box, that it did not break any said rules set forth by Geocaching.com.

 

Maybe the cacher involved was just lucky in finding a great place to hide the ammo box.

 

We hide our under lamp posts, in hollow trees, under water, in brush. Some even hide them in caves, under rocks, or they hang them thirty feet up in a tree. We cover them with leaves, sticks and pine needles, and we camo them so they won't be that hard to find.

 

Should we ban doing that, just because it makes our caches to hard to find? Should we just throw them out in the street, or hang them from our porch lights? Then we can do a 'drive by' and log them. Why get out of the car?

 

We seeked, we saw, we logged.

 

The only trouble I see is someone has a great cache hidden, and it's going be a hard one to find, unless you look really, really hard for it. But isn't that what this game is all about?

 

That elusive find. That one that almost got away. The one that made you stay just a few minutes longer, because you hate to see a DNF on your log book.

 

Or it it the hole? Now that's another subject all its own.

 

Let's all blame the hole! If it wasn't for the hole there would never have been a hide.

 

Yeah! I blame the hole!

Link to comment
Well, I guess that would bring us to the topic of teachers that should be thrown in the dumpster... "Today we're going to learn to take soil samples. We just won't learn how to take a soil sample. We'll go out of our way to corrupt the sample and to make it as worthless as humanly possible, but hey, it burns one more day in my year".

 

We was NEVER told that we was going to take soil samples. We was told that we was going out back the school to dig a few holes to get some dirt that we can play with, err ummm test.

Link to comment
I'm trying to understand this whole topic. Now let me understand this from what I've read so far.

 

Someone placed a ammo box in a hole.

 

A hole that was dug by a bunch of high school kids

 

A hole made by using a square bladed shovel

 

A square bladed shovel that cut a perfect hole large enough for an ammo can to fit.

 

An ammo can that was then covered with dry grass.

 

That was placed in a hole.

 

A hole that was made by using a square bladed shovel

 

A square bladed shovel that was use by a bunch of school kids

 

A bunch of school kids that were being taught about soil samples

 

Soil samples that the square headed shovel made, that the ammo box was placed in that was covered with grass.

 

A ammo box that was hidden in a hole and covered with dry grass that was then sent into Geocaching.com.

 

A ammo can that was then given an okay by the modarator for that region.

 

So then what is the problem?

 

It it because the school team used a square headed shovel to dig the hole that was just big enough for the ammo can to sit into, that was then covered with dry grass and placed into Geocaching.com for anyone with enough smarts to find?

 

I'm confussed.

 

Maybe it's because its such a great cache? Or is it the fact that the hole was just the perfect size for the ammo can?

 

Did they say 'perfect fit' or that the ammo can 'fit perfectly', which might mean the hole was a little bigger than what was needed to hide the ammo box, that it did not break any said rules set forth by Geocaching.com.

 

Maybe the cacher involved was just lucky in finding a great place to hide the ammo box.

 

We hide our under lamp posts, in hollow trees, under water, in brush. Some even hide them in caves, under rocks, or they hang them thirty feet up in a tree. We cover them with leaves, sticks and pine needles, and we camo them so they won't be that hard to find.

 

Should we ban doing that, just because it makes our caches to hard to find? Should we just throw them out in the street, or hang them from our porch lights? Then we can do a 'drive by' and log them. Why get out of the car?

 

We seeked, we saw, we logged.

 

The only trouble I see is someone has a great cache hidden, and it's going be a hard one to find, unless you look really, really hard for it. But isn't that what this game is all about?

 

That elusive find. That one that almost got away. The one that made you stay just a few minutes longer, because you hate to see a DNF on your log book.

 

Or it it the hole? Now that's another subject all its own.

 

Let's all blame the hole! If it wasn't for the hole there would never have been a hide.

 

Yeah! I blame the hole!

 

It'll be hard toget ya up to par on this, this is continued from the CCC forum. Adrenalynn Was saying that one cache should be archived 'cause a pointy object was used to make the hole. The owner of the cache did state it was bigger then the ammo can, bnut took advantage of a good hiding spot. I'm trying to point out that even though it's not up to "specs" (if you will) doesn't mean that the school students wasn't taking dirt, soil or what have ya, samples. Because MY class used the square headed shovels to make the holes we go our dirt from.

 

edited for spelling, bet I didn't get them all!

Edited by wandat24
Link to comment

Maybe you should read the original thread, Drgnsrealm. No where was it stated that it was dug by "high school kids". It's people trying to make up excuses for burying a cache.

 

Reviewers rarely if ever know a cache is buried until someone brings it to their attention.

 

Yes, it was stated that it was a "perfect tight fit".

 

The excuse was made after the heat was turned on for burying a cache, not before.

 

I couldn't give a sh** less that maybe someone somewhere DNF'd it. Morons digging holes is the kinda thing landmanagers get all testy about. Hence the purpose and reason for the prohibition. Groundspeak trying to make cachers look responsible to land managers. And cachers going out of their way to try to take a dump on the money Groundspeak invests in that pursuit.

 

If a land manager even suspects that maybe that hole came from burying a cache, there is a better than even chance that whole freakin' state ends-up off the cache maps for anything outside of lamp post hides . . . They get *really* testy about that...

Edited by Adrenalynn
Link to comment

The problem with the hide is NOT the hide itself...it's the perception it gives. As anyone who's looked through the threads from the beginning can see, the PERCEPTION given by the hide is that someone used a shovel to make a hole that the ammo can fit in. In reality, it doesn't really matter WHO made the hole, but the fact it's very obviously NOT a natural hole in the ground means that:

 

1) new geocachers finding this hide will think digging holes like this is acceptable

2) any park/city/property owner finding/seeing pictures of this cache think this is what is done regularily

 

I'll admit it's a great hide, and I'm on the side beliving the hider did not dig the hole and just found it and used it...in reality, at first thought I could see any of us doing the same if we're out looking for a place to hide a cache...the thought at that time is "well, the holes already here, I'll just make use of it".

 

The problem is the PERCEPTION that this hide gives to outsiders and insiders alike...make sense? *goes back to lurking and trying to distract himself*

 

Celticwulf

Link to comment

. . . If a land manager even suspects that maybe that hole came from burying a cache, there is a better than even chance that whole freakin' state ends-up off the cache maps for anything outside of lamp post hides . . . They get *really* testy about that...

 

So, did this happen in this case? (If not, then I fail to see the point)

Could it? (is it on park land, where a manager just hasnt found it) - If not, then again im lost-

 

Oh well. Burying caches isnt cool - but worrying about things that may never be relevant isnt either.

Link to comment

. . . If a land manager even suspects that maybe that hole came from burying a cache, there is a better than even chance that whole freakin' state ends-up off the cache maps for anything outside of lamp post hides . . . They get *really* testy about that...

 

So, did this happen in this case? (If not, then I fail to see the point)

Could it? (is it on park land, where a manager just hasnt found it) - If not, then again im lost-

 

Oh well. Burying caches isnt cool - but worrying about things that may never be relevant isnt either.

 

maybe a quote from the cool cache containers thread where this all started would help people get a grasp on the situation being discussed:

 

Large Ammo Can, where is it?

 

Hiding Spot Photo.

 

Spoiler: You can actually see it when you look at it, here it is uncovered.

 

Edited for URL typo.

 

*wanders back to lurk again*

Celticwulf

Link to comment

My third find was this cache. It was a tupperware container sitting in a hole and covered by leaves. There were several similar holes in the area and it took me quite a while to find the cache. Interestingly, I found it three days after it was archived with a note that stated that it was 'removed'. About a year later, I returned to the location and (after searching for about thirty minutes) removed the soggy container.

Link to comment

The reason I started this thread was to take it away from the CCC forum. What I seen was someone (as it was mentioned in the thread) was "hijacking" it to argue and complain about a cache that was well hidden. I'm trying to make it clear that the hider found the hole (as the hider stated) and that should of been the end of the story.... But, instead they kept going on and on about it. I felt that if we (as I am actually enjoying hearing Adrenalynn's points on it) were going to continue the discussion we should move it away from where it didn't belong.

 

It was later stated that it wasn't a perfect fit....

Edited by wandat24
Link to comment

ok never mind it didn't work.. to see where it all started go here it's down close to the bottom

starts with

Large Ammo Can, where is it?

 

Hiding Spot Photo.

 

Spoiler: You can actually see it when you look at it, here it is uncovered.

 

Edited for URL typo.

 

Not to mention that in the first pic you can see other spots where dirt has been removed, and in the second pic you can see the can isn't in the spot that the other dirt was removed

Edited by wandat24
Link to comment

The problem with the hide is NOT the hide itself...it's the perception it gives. As anyone who's looked through the threads from the beginning can see, the PERCEPTION given by the hide is that someone used a shovel to make a hole that the ammo can fit in. In reality, it doesn't really matter WHO made the hole, but the fact it's very obviously NOT a natural hole in the ground means that:

 

1) new geocachers finding this hide will think digging holes like this is acceptable

2) any park/city/property owner finding/seeing pictures of this cache think this is what is done regularily

 

I'll admit it's a great hide, and I'm on the side beliving the hider did not dig the hole and just found it and used it...in reality, at first thought I could see any of us doing the same if we're out looking for a place to hide a cache...the thought at that time is "well, the holes already here, I'll just make use of it".

 

The problem is the PERCEPTION that this hide gives to outsiders and insiders alike...make sense? *goes back to lurking and trying to distract himself*

 

Celticwulf

 

Well said. Let one dingdong get away with it and a whole bunch of dingdongs will be doing it next week.

Link to comment

Really who cares,

 

So someone found a hole in the ground and put an ammo can in it. The cache was approved. End of story.

 

Maybe the cache hider "failed to mention" to the reviewer that it was hidden in an "unnatural" hole in the ground.

And I CARE. You let one person get away with hiding a cache like this and pretty soon it becomes standard. Holes will be dug all over the place and everyone starts stretching the truth about how the hole actually got there. Geocaching rules clearly state to me that I cannot bury a cache. But there will always be the nimrods who take a mile when given an inch. Seems to me they did exactly that in this case. Maybe TPTB need to (re)clarify that rule a little more so stuff like this doesn't happen.

Link to comment
. . . . and pretty soon it becomes standard. Holes will be dug all over the place and everyone starts stretching the truth about how the hole actually got there.. . . .

 

And the world could end tomorrow.... :)

 

ya never know, but have ya read my signiture??

 

The problem with the hide is NOT the hide itself...it's the perception it gives. As anyone who's looked through the threads from the beginning can see, the PERCEPTION given by the hide is that someone used a shovel to make a hole that the ammo can fit in. In reality, it doesn't really matter WHO made the hole, but the fact it's very obviously NOT a natural hole in the ground means that:

 

1) new geocachers finding this hide will think digging holes like this is acceptable

2) any park/city/property owner finding/seeing pictures of this cache think this is what is done regularily

 

I'll admit it's a great hide, and I'm on the side beliving the hider did not dig the hole and just found it and used it...in reality, at first thought I could see any of us doing the same if we're out looking for a place to hide a cache...the thought at that time is "well, the holes already here, I'll just make use of it".

 

The problem is the PERCEPTION that this hide gives to outsiders and insiders alike...make sense? *goes back to lurking and trying to distract himself*

 

Celticwulf

 

Well said. Let one dingdong get away with it and a whole bunch of dingdongs will be doing it next week.

 

I see your point as well, both of ya.. but if everyone reads the guidelines then why would they start digging holes??

Edited by wandat24
Link to comment

don't forget this post by the hider..

Large Ammo Can, where is it?

 

Hiding Spot Photo.

 

Spoiler: You can actually see it when you look at it, here it is uncovered.

 

Edited for URL typo.

 

Congrats on finding a nice rectangular hole already in the land that you could use!

 

Thank you! It was kindly donated by the nearby school taking dirt samples. It is not a snug fit mind you.

 

:)

What's the dif between this and a fake drain cap for a below-suface-but-not-buried cache?

Link to comment

Just have to add my two cents. I think maybe it should be archived. Not because it violates the guidelines... I'm willing to take the owner's word that they found a preexisting hole to stick it in.

 

Assuming it isn't common knowledge that soil samples are taken in that area, there is a fair ol' chance that someone is going to come around and see 'hey its a burried cache'.

 

What might this mean?

 

Well if its a seasoned cacher...Probably nothing. They'll probably go 'hey that's cool, but probably shouldn't be there, I wonder what the owner has to say about it' then they e-mail the owner and get the facts.

 

If its a newbie? They may very well go "Hey that's a cool way to hide a cache, I should place one just like it"

 

If its a land manager? "What the f*ck are these people doing digging holes in my park they better get the heck out of here"

 

If its a land manager from another park who is a geocaching newbie? "Guess they don't follow their own guidelines, maybe I *shouldn't* have let them cache in my park".

 

The point is that while these scenarios may not in fact occur, the fact that they are reasonably possible potential events lead me to think that the owner should archive their cache.

Link to comment

I see your point as well, both of ya.. but if everyone reads the guidelines then why would they start digging holes??

 

I would actually be on the side more worried about option 2 than option 1.

 

I do buy the hiders story, based on other things I remember seeing happen back when I was in school. I'm assuming the cache in question is located somewhere the school either owns or has permission from people to do the bio samples he talks about. I'm also one who understands the concept of placing an object (ie cache) into a natural depression and then covering it with natural objects around (ie leaves/sticks). With time, the natural objects start to look like real ground cover, and a "magical" perfectly fitting hole has been formed for your cache.

 

The issue as I see it is that the picture really LOOKS like the hole was dug specifically for the ammo can, which could lead others (think Park Board members or certain governing bodies) to believe that ALL geocaches are placed in such a manner.

 

Personally, if the hole WAS dug by others as stated, AND the cacher has permission to place cache there, I don't see a valid concern...only a perception of inpropriety. This does not however mean that I believe cacher A can run out and dig a hole in the woods while cacher B waits a week to then "discover" the hole and hide a cache there :)

 

*sucks at lurking*

Celticwulf

Link to comment

I see your point as well, both of ya.. but if everyone reads the guidelines then why would they start digging holes??

 

I would actually be on the side more worried about option 2 than option 1.

 

I do buy the hiders story, based on other things I remember seeing happen back when I was in school. I'm assuming the cache in question is located somewhere the school either owns or has permission from people to do the bio samples he talks about. I'm also one who understands the concept of placing an object (ie cache) into a natural depression and then covering it with natural objects around (ie leaves/sticks). With time, the natural objects start to look like real ground cover, and a "magical" perfectly fitting hole has been formed for your cache.

 

The issue as I see it is that the picture really LOOKS like the hole was dug specifically for the ammo can, which could lead others (think Park Board members or certain governing bodies) to believe that ALL geocaches are placed in such a manner.

 

Personally, if the hole WAS dug by others as stated, AND the cacher has permission to place cache there, I don't see a valid concern...only a perception of inpropriety. This does not however mean that I believe cacher A can run out and dig a hole in the woods while cacher B waits a week to then "discover" the hole and hide a cache there :)

 

*sucks at lurking*

Celticwulf

 

I gotta say I do agree it may not be the best thing to do. I did find the cache (under scavok's profile). GCVBEX, well not gonna say for sure it is, but will say after reading it and the note posted by scavok i would bet it is. Anywho though. I do agree with you I actually agree with every one. Including myself. There's MANY ways it coulda been made and there's MANY things to say scavok dug the hole, but if scavok says it was there already, why not believe it??

 

edited to add: Headed out to play at the park with the kids, ya'll behave yourselfs

Edited by wandat24
Link to comment

wowo this got out of hand :wub:

 

Atleast it gets my #posts up so that i can appear to be an experienced geocacher :)

 

Maybe it would appease the people if I moved it 4 feet south and 10 feet west into a hole that is perfectly natural, about 6 feet deep and covered in thorny weeds?

 

I've learned my lesson, don't share cool hides in the forums.

 

There will be no more argumentive posts from me. If you don't like it don't hunt it, if you like it it will be there.

 

Happy caching!

Link to comment

...

Soil samples need equal amounts of soil at each layer. soil_sampling_auger_tube.jpg...

 

You and I don't use the same kind of sampling equipment. My holes can involve a backhoe. Small ones are 4" diameter, normal about 6" but every now and then you just can't get around needing a good backhoe.

 

Somehow I don't think we are even in the same profession.

 

Other than sampling equipment I don't even know what this topic is about. Not enough background info was moved forward into this thread.

Link to comment

wowo this got out of hand :). . . .

Maybe it would appease the people if I moved it 4 feet south and 10 feet west into a hole that is perfectly natural, about 6 feet deep and covered in thorny weeds?

I've learned my lesson, don't share cool hides in the forums.

There will be no more argumentive posts from me. If you don't like it don't hunt it, if you like it it will be there.

Happy caching!

 

Bold added by me- to add "any other controversial, outside the box, different, LNT, or otherwise" topic.

Best to post little, read often-or avoid all together. You can get advice and info by networking with knowledgable cachers. Identify them and approach them in PM, or profile. This forum is not usually the place.

 

Whoever that was that tried the "I have more posts than you". . . . .well that was classic..... :wub:

Link to comment

wowo this got out of hand :wub:. . . .

Maybe it would appease the people if I moved it 4 feet south and 10 feet west into a hole that is perfectly natural, about 6 feet deep and covered in thorny weeds?

I've learned my lesson, don't share cool hides in the forums.

There will be no more argumentive posts from me. If you don't like it don't hunt it, if you like it it will be there.

Happy caching!

 

Bold added by me- to add "any other controversial, outside the box, different, LNT, or otherwise" topic.

Best to post little, read often-or avoid all together. You can get advice and info by networking with knowledgable cachers. Identify them and approach them in PM, or profile. This forum is not usually the place.

 

Whoever that was that tried the "I have more posts than you". . . . .well that was classic..... :)

 

Yea I made that post at school then raced home cuz I knew it wasn't right. I should have said:

I've learned my lesson, apparently controvercial = wrong, and we all know not to post anything that we know is wrong.

 

ooo 41 posts now! :laughing:

 

EDIT: changed phrasing and added smilie so we all know i'm just kidding :wub:

Edited by scavok
Link to comment

...

Soil samples need equal amounts of soil at each layer. soil_sampling_auger_tube.jpg...

 

You and I don't use the same kind of sampling equipment. My holes can involve a backhoe. Small ones are 4" diameter, normal about 6" but every now and then you just can't get around needing a good backhoe.

 

Somehow I don't think we are even in the same profession.

 

Other than sampling equipment I don't even know what this topic is about. Not enough background info was moved forward into this thread.

 

Sure - and we can go to the 3000ft ice-cores too...

 

They come in different sizes, but unequal and/or contaminated is pretty much a universal, wouldn't you agree? (We submit ours for building permits that require soil sampling, environmental impact studies, etc. We got a stop notice on a fence construction once for inadequate soil samples. Approved by one inspector, shot down by another. On a *fence*.)

Link to comment

...

Soil samples need equal amounts of soil at each layer. soil_sampling_auger_tube.jpg...

 

You and I don't use the same kind of sampling equipment. My holes can involve a backhoe. Small ones are 4" diameter, normal about 6" but every now and then you just can't get around needing a good backhoe.

 

Somehow I don't think we are even in the same profession.

 

Other than sampling equipment I don't even know what this topic is about. Not enough background info was moved forward into this thread.

 

Sure - and we can go to the 3000ft ice-cores too...

 

They come in different sizes, but unequal and/or contaminated is pretty much a universal, wouldn't you agree? (We submit ours for building permits that require soil sampling, environmental impact studies, etc. We got a stop notice on a fence construction once for inadequate soil samples. Approved by one inspector, shot down by another. On a *fence*.)

 

OK, so what does any of this have to do with cache you are so against?

 

Maybe it would appease the people if I moved it 4 feet south and 10 feet west into a hole that is perfectly natural, about 6 feet deep and covered in thorny weeds?

 

Does that satisfy your issues? If not, what will?

 

My advice is to log off. Go do something else.

Im taking it. . . . .

Link to comment

"Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate. "

 

Did a shovel make that hole, yes or no? The hider says yes. Boom. End of discussion, thank you for playing.

Link to comment

LMFAO! *note to self lmfao, may be offensive to some, and should use lmbo instead*. Man oh man This is wonderful. Oh, Renegade Knight, I tried to move all the posts from the other thread, but the quote wouldn't work and i didn't feel like redoing it and was tired. So, instead I posted this link it's close to the bottom, but that's where it starts then goes on and on. then i started this thread in hopes that I could take this topic away from hijacking the CCC topic (hense the name as well). I'm also tired of using my microsoft word to do my spell checking because I don't have the deal downloaded for the spell check here so if i spell something wrong, please ignore it and use what ever word makes more since lol :wub:

 

Any who glad to see you foud your way over here scavok, of course I'm sure I did blow this out a bit more then it shoulda been, but i truely wanted to make my point, understand everyone else's and say I agree with everyone.

Link to comment
"Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other "pointy" object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate. "

 

Did a shovel make that hole, yes or no? The hider says yes. Boom. End of discussion, thank you for playing.

 

That is ment at the time it was hid if something was used to make it... I kinda like the thorn idea... It would remind me of most of them I find around here ya ought to see my arms and legs :wub: lots of new "war"scares coming!!!

 

**please note I am stating "That is ment at the time it was hid if something was used to make it." as that is how it was explained to me by a cacher that's been at it well over 3 years. thank you

 

edited to add:: If memory searves me right scavok said a shovel made it, but it wasn't made by him

Edited by wandat24
Link to comment

"Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate. "

 

Did a shovel make that hole, yes or no? The hider says yes. Boom. End of discussion, thank you for playing.

 

Bold was added by me.

 

No pointy thing was used in order to hide the cache. A pointy thing (if you call a flat shovel pointy) was used to dig a hole that had absolutely nothing to do with geocaching in the least bit. I made use of a pre-existing man-dug hole. I'm not trying to cover anything up that is wrong. If using a perfectly good hole is against the rules then I await the say so from a reviewer and will be more than happy to move the cache. No problem, no questions asked.

 

I agree with your post Adrenalynn, end of dicussion (if it were up to me anyway :wub:).

Edited by scavok
Link to comment

"Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate. "

 

Did a shovel make that hole, yes or no? The hider says yes. Boom. End of discussion, thank you for playing.

 

Bold was added by me.

 

No pointy thing was used in order to hide the cache. A pointy thing (if you call a flat shovel pointy) was used to dig a hole that had absolutely nothing to do with geocaching in the least bit. I made use of a pre-existing man-dug hole. I'm not trying to cover anything up that is wrong. If using a perfectly good hole is against the rules then I await the say so from a reviewer and will be more than happy to move the cache. No problem, no questions asked.

 

I agree with your post Adrenalynn, end of dicussion (if it were up to me anyway :wub:).

 

So a shovel was not used in order to make the hole? Or are you saying the cache could have been hidden under the dirt independant of the hole being made? Prehaps by some magic-matter-displacement technology?

 

Surely I can plant a few pounds of explosives in order to place a cache. Explosives aren't terribly pointy, generally...

Link to comment

This one seems pretty clear. The cache hider says that they used an existing hole to hide the cache. There's no rule against this in the guidelines, and I've seen a few hidden this way myself. I have a cache hidden in an existing hole myself.

 

I think it's bad form to insinuate the cache hider is being untruthful about the circumstances of his/her hide unless there is specific facts in evidence that prove they are lying. (for example, that they dug a hole for the purpose of hiding the cache)

 

But by all means, continue discussing. I hate when people try to end a conversation prematurely. :wub:

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...