+scavok Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 "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 ). 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... Man talk about being blunt, you missed the point entirely. (i made a funny) YES, A SHOVEL DUG THE HOLE, THE HOLE (DUG BY A SHOVEL) WAS NOT DUG (YES, DUG BY A SHOVEL) FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIDING THE CACHE (WHICH IS IN A HOLE, DUG BY A SHOVEL FOR A SEPARATE PURPOSE). And maybe you didn't even see the picture? There is no dirt on top of it at all, just some dead grass. Is camo not allowed now??? Link to comment
wandat24 Posted April 28, 2006 Author Share Posted April 28, 2006 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. Thank you! But as you can see, saying that Adrenalynn is a troll is true.. scavok just agreed to what Adrenalynn was saying and then Adrenalynn just keeps it going... WTF!? *note to self wtf may be offensive to most, should use what the heck from now on*. Link to comment
wandat24 Posted April 28, 2006 Author Share Posted April 28, 2006 "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 ). 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... Man talk about being blunt, you missed the point entirely. (i made a funny) YES, A SHOVEL DUG THE HOLE, THE HOLE (DUG BY A SHOVEL) WAS NOT DUG (YES, DUG BY A SHOVEL) FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIDING THE CACHE (WHICH IS IN A HOLE, DUG BY A SHOVEL FOR A SEPARATE PURPOSE). And maybe you didn't even see the picture? There is no dirt on top of it at all, just some dead grass. Is camo not allowed now??? Please, review my pic again (again as i mentioned in the e-mail, I hope it's ok I modified your pic):: Link to comment
wandat24 Posted April 28, 2006 Author Share Posted April 28, 2006 (edited) man looking at it again myself i see atlest 5 more spots i could point out that it could be at *man i swear i can't spell to save my a*** Edited April 28, 2006 by wandat24 Link to comment
+Adrenalynn Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 So I pulled-up the kinda cool image processing package IPTK5 from Reindeer Graphics. I used to use it a lot for machine vision applications. I then set-out to measure that hole vs. the can. Statistically, it's pretty impressive. I used an arbitrary but consistant scale that we'll simply call "units". We find the shape of the hole vs can: Breadth: 1.18384 1.18359 (units) Length: 4.38417 4.38416 (units) I find that to be an amazing statistical anomoly... A higher resolution photo might help to rectify the anomoly ... Link to comment
wandat24 Posted April 28, 2006 Author Share Posted April 28, 2006 So I pulled-up the kinda cool image processing package IPTK5 from Reindeer Graphics. I used to use it a lot for machine vision applications. I then set-out to measure that hole vs. the can. Statistically, it's pretty impressive. I used an arbitrary but consistant scale that we'll simply call "units". We find the shape of the hole vs can: Breadth: 1.18384 1.18359 (units) Length: 4.38417 4.38416 (units) I find that to be an amazing statistical anomoly... A higher resolution photo might help to rectify the anomoly ... getting a bit too high teck for all this aren't we? ****here troll troll troll, where ya at??? aw THER YOU ARE!**** Link to comment
+Adrenalynn Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 (edited) I may have missed that last sentence in his reply. I need to go back and look. Edited April 28, 2006 by Adrenalynn Link to comment
+Adrenalynn Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 (edited) ****here troll troll troll, where ya at??? aw THER YOU ARE!**** Who's the troll? I'm posting technical data and you're name calling. [edit corrected to make plural since it is multiples there-of now. . .] Edited April 28, 2006 by Adrenalynn Link to comment
wandat24 Posted April 28, 2006 Author Share Posted April 28, 2006 ****here troll troll troll, where ya at??? aw THER YOU ARE!**** Who's the troll? I'm posting technical data and you're name calling. [edit corrected to make plural since it is multiples there-of now. . .] aw didn't realize it was made before you got your reply done.... Not sure who the troll is hmmm lets think.... I guess in a way i could be.... depends on how ya look at it i guess Link to comment
+Adrenalynn Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Man talk about being blunt, you missed the point entirely. (i made a funny) YES, A SHOVEL DUG THE HOLE, THE HOLE (DUG BY A SHOVEL) WAS NOT DUG (YES, DUG BY A SHOVEL) FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIDING THE CACHE (WHICH IS IN A HOLE, DUG BY A SHOVEL FOR A SEPARATE PURPOSE). And maybe you didn't even see the picture? There is no dirt on top of it at all, just some dead grass. Is camo not allowed now??? I'm sorry, I must have missed "for the purpose of..." in the rules. So if I go out and dig a hole for the purpose of digging a hole, then come back tomorrow and put a cache in it - well, as far as the land managers (and Ground Speak) are concerned - that's quite all right, correct? After all, I dug it for the purpose of digging it. I decided later to put a cache in it. I appreciate the clarification of the intent of the posted rules! Thanks! Link to comment
+Googling Hrpty Hrrs Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 That picture does not clearly show the dimensions of the hole due to all the straw. Could the hole had been dug during the hiding of this cache? Yes, certainly. Have you, or better yet, can you, prove this as fact? No, on both accounts. Link to comment
+Adrenalynn Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 ****here troll troll troll, where ya at??? aw THER YOU ARE!**** Who's the troll? I'm posting technical data and you're name calling. [edit corrected to make plural since it is multiples there-of now. . .] aw didn't realize it was made before you got your reply done.... Not sure who the troll is hmmm lets think.... I guess in a way i could be.... depends on how ya look at it i guess Would you say you are "sowing discord"? I'd suggest a peek at the Troll-O-Meter Link to comment
+scavok Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 impressive, does it take into consideration all the grass that is hanging off of the sides of the hole? Make sure you see how much is hanging off the side of the can which just barely overlaps that grass around the hole, it is actually a couple inches difference on all sides. Since you like it techinical... ammo can is roughly 12 x 6 = 72 square inches We'll say 2 inches to be conservative in space around the can in the hole which means adding 4 inches to each dimension 16x10=160 square inches. So really you say its close in size, I say the hole is more than twice the size of the can. Link to comment
+Adrenalynn Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 That picture does not clearly show the dimensions of the hole due to all the straw. Could the hole had been dug during the hiding of this cache? Yes, certainly. Have you, or better yet, can you, prove this as fact? No, on both accounts. The cut lines look pretty clean to me. There are multiple skeletals for each that can be sampled. Link to comment
+Sagefox Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Here is a big THANK YOU to Wandat24 for extracting this diversion from the Cool Cache Containers topic. It certainly didn't belong over there. Link to comment
+Googling Hrpty Hrrs Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 The cut lines look pretty clean to me. There are multiple skeletals for each that can be sampled. Seems like a lot of work just to prove someone's lying about a cache. Link to comment
+Adrenalynn Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 impressive, does it take into consideration all the grass that is hanging off of the sides of the hole? Make sure you see how much is hanging off the side of the can which just barely overlaps that grass around the hole, it is actually a couple inches difference on all sides. Since you like it techinical... ammo can is roughly 12 x 6 = 72 square inches We'll say 2 inches to be conservative in space around the can in the hole which means adding 4 inches to each dimension 16x10=160 square inches. So really you say its close in size, I say the hole is more than twice the size of the can. Yeah, actually I rejected features smaller than the breadth of the hole. And I'm not seeing 2" on each side of that can. The straw draping the sides of the can spreads across the bed as it's put back into its hole. Link to comment
+scavok Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Man talk about being blunt, you missed the point entirely. (i made a funny) YES, A SHOVEL DUG THE HOLE, THE HOLE (DUG BY A SHOVEL) WAS NOT DUG (YES, DUG BY A SHOVEL) FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIDING THE CACHE (WHICH IS IN A HOLE, DUG BY A SHOVEL FOR A SEPARATE PURPOSE). And maybe you didn't even see the picture? There is no dirt on top of it at all, just some dead grass. Is camo not allowed now??? I'm sorry, I must have missed "for the purpose of..." in the rules. So if I go out and dig a hole for the purpose of digging a hole, then come back tomorrow and put a cache in it - well, as far as the land managers (and Ground Speak) are concerned - that's quite all right, correct? After all, I dug it for the purpose of digging it. I decided later to put a cache in it. I appreciate the clarification of the intent of the posted rules! Thanks! Hey N/P. I guess if you like digging (yourself into) holes.... Link to comment
wandat24 Posted April 28, 2006 Author Share Posted April 28, 2006 (edited) Here is a big THANK YOU to Wandat24 for extracting this diversion from the Cool Cache Containers topic. It certainly didn't belong over there. not a problem... like i said i wanted to see all points, and get everything clear.... and i'm having fun... maybe too much?? *darned spelling again* Edited April 28, 2006 by wandat24 Link to comment
+Adrenalynn Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 The cut lines look pretty clean to me. There are multiple skeletals for each that can be sampled. Seems like a lot of work just to prove someone's lying about a cache. I'm not proving anything. I'm just presenting my findings, and responding to the examination there-of. Now, where was I: Oh - if it were 2" on the front breadth of the can, then the can would be visible in the picture. Very little material is hanging over. Unless the material was removed from the hidden-vs-visible photos. Link to comment
+Adrenalynn Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Man talk about being blunt, you missed the point entirely. (i made a funny) YES, A SHOVEL DUG THE HOLE, THE HOLE (DUG BY A SHOVEL) WAS NOT DUG (YES, DUG BY A SHOVEL) FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIDING THE CACHE (WHICH IS IN A HOLE, DUG BY A SHOVEL FOR A SEPARATE PURPOSE). And maybe you didn't even see the picture? There is no dirt on top of it at all, just some dead grass. Is camo not allowed now??? I'm sorry, I must have missed "for the purpose of..." in the rules. So if I go out and dig a hole for the purpose of digging a hole, then come back tomorrow and put a cache in it - well, as far as the land managers (and Ground Speak) are concerned - that's quite all right, correct? After all, I dug it for the purpose of digging it. I decided later to put a cache in it. I appreciate the clarification of the intent of the posted rules! Thanks! Hey N/P. I guess if you like digging (yourself into) holes.... Hmm. Nope. I just rechecked and "purpose of" hadn't magically appeared in "Off-limit (Physical) Caches" Link to comment
wandat24 Posted April 28, 2006 Author Share Posted April 28, 2006 (edited) ok, call me stupid if you'd like but how can you be sure: is acurate <sp?who cares?> enough to even use? How do WE know you didn't modify it to help your point??? it is clearly DIFFERENT from the original picture as to the relationship of the ammo can and the hole Edited April 28, 2006 by wandat24 Link to comment
+scavok Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 (edited) Huh? No look, the can sits in the hole with a little more than an inch of overhanging grass, the hole has a little more than an inch of overhanging grass. When the can is in the hole the grass overlaps just enough to not see space between the grasses. It is more than enough of a gap for stuff to blow into it, get under the can as it is found and raise the top of the cache above the level of the ground so I have to go and maintain it every couple of days. See how there is more grass on the handled end of the can? It's because it doesn't sit level in the hole either. Quick edit to add: Hmm. Nope. I just rechecked and "purpose of" hadn't magically appeared in "Off-limit (Physical) Caches" Ok sorry, change that "purpose of" to "in order to" Edited April 28, 2006 by scavok Link to comment
+wingnut16 Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Well, I just read most of this thread and I have got to say WOW. I have seen groups of people kick a dead horse in forum before, but this is truely amazing. If I owned the cache in question I would remove it, sell my GPS on ebay, and move across the country after reading this thread. Maybe I didn't read enough and maybe I do not understand all the details, but CSI style software to measure cache photos is a little nuts in my humble opinion. I think the cache should be removed, but email to the ower and the approver in the area should have been enough, if not, continue to kick the dead horse I am going cacheing. Link to comment
+Adrenalynn Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 (edited) ok, call me stupid if you'd like but how can you be sure: is acurate <sp?who cares?> enough to even use? How do WE know you didn't modify it to help your point??? it is clearly DIFFERENT from the original picture as to the relationship of the ammo can and the hole Simple, really. A person can acquire the same tools, or similar tools, and reproduce (or not!) my results. If not, then we'll need to explore why they were not reproducible. That's peer-review. Prehaps the science teacher, whilst wasting your time [see prior postings], happened to mention it in passing once or twice? [edited to add:] The relationship and scale of hole to can was unmodified. You can simply overlay it upon the first to confirm. We can take this further if scavok confirms the particular caliber of ammo can in the picture as it will then give a scale-reference once we get the calipers out and measure some features. Further, a barrel correction was imposed (a test that is acceptable in a US Federal court of law) to correct for lens dispersion. -------------------------- ..[clip]...but CSI style software to measure cache photos is a little nuts in my humble opinion. Sorry, I thought my forum title spelled out a warning or two to that effect? I think the cache should be removed, but email to the ower and the approver in the area should have been enough Actually, what started all this was my terribly simple reply in the original thread that [to effect] "it looks buried to me" and "should be archived, IMHO" (possible paraphrase - been a few days now) Edited April 28, 2006 by Adrenalynn Link to comment
+scavok Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 (edited) edit: nevermind, I'm letting it go. I thought what started it was something like "convenient for you to find a rectangle hole" and I said "thanks" ah, the memories Edited to add: I think what wandat was meaning was that the perpective seems a little off. In editing the photo you placed the can behind the hole but as it is effectively moved further away without making it appear smaller, which makes it seem large enough to almost fill the hole rather than leave the gap that it really does. I have no idea how far away i was standing so I couldn't tell you how much to resize the can part. I'm just extrapolating what I thought his post meant, I've never measured caches using computer imaging software . I have no idea what calibur it is, I went to the military store and asked for "a big one" and found the size in inches from a google result for a previous post. I've only every seen 2 or 3 sizes I think, they come in more? Edited April 28, 2006 by scavok Link to comment
+Adrenalynn Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Then let's just simply do this: I'll leave it now. Point over-made. You go see what your reviewer says about a buried cache, and we'll just run with that! 'fair' enough? Link to comment
wandat24 Posted April 28, 2006 Author Share Posted April 28, 2006 ok i looked at the two pics again.... I am tired, after not sleeping much last night, my lil one has her sleeping messed up... I'll have to look again tomorrow... may be seeing it strange.... Link to comment
+scavok Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 (edited) Then let's just simply do this: I'll leave it now. Point over-made. You go see what your reviewer says about a buried cache, and we'll just run with that! 'fair' enough? Hey yes, I have no personal qualms with anyone I'd just like to say. From a handful of posts ago, "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." If it is wrong to use a hole in this method I'll even appeal to have it specified in the rules. I will contact the publisher and post here when I get a reply either way edit just to add that I will put all perspectives in the email, not just mine. I think this is actually kind of important, no? I'll post my email to the publisher here as well. In the morning that is... I have homework to do now Edited April 28, 2006 by scavok Link to comment
wandat24 Posted April 28, 2006 Author Share Posted April 28, 2006 (edited) Then let's just simply do this: I'll leave it now. Point over-made. You go see what your reviewer says about a buried cache, and we'll just run with that! 'fair' enough? Hey yes, I have no personal qualms with anyone I'd just like to say. From a handful of posts ago, "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." If it is wrong to use a hole in this method I'll even appeal to have it specified in the rules. I will contact the publisher and post here when I get a reply either way edit just to add that I will put all perspectives in the email, not just mine. I think this is actually kind of important, no? I'll post my email to the publisher here as well. In the morning that is... I have homework to do now I honestly have to say that I was worried I'd get someone mad at me (perhapse I have) when I started this thread, but i didn't want it to keep going in the CCC thread, and I wanted to see everyone's actual thoughts and such on it.... I'm sure most of ya think I'm nuts, as i said I had fun with this one....... But all well lol. I'll leave it opened for now, and after you post the e-mail stuff I'll close it down. Hope ya'll have a good night! Sleep well all Edited April 28, 2006 by wandat24 Link to comment
wandat24 Posted April 28, 2006 Author Share Posted April 28, 2006 Can I ask an off topic (to this) question ?? Well I did make the thread.. . Does anyone actually think the forum post numbers tells how well you are at caching ? and the number of finds, I can understand they could... but how many people actually spends time day in day out looking into all the rules, regulations and such? I have a lot of time on my hands, being a stay at home mom of two and they play on their own alot, so i come here and read.... maybe not just this site (the forums and the caching information, plus the cacherU site etc etc), but other stuff as well (LOVE useless information).... I'm getting where I read everything more then once now.... Gotta get a new time killer.... Gotta say right now that I'm glad we didn't really "burn" each other, much.... Anywho Headed to bed soon (hopefully) , tomorrow's errands day so I will be on late... Cache (err umm Catch) ya'll tomorrow (Friday) sometime! Link to comment
+scavok Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Email Sent: ------------------------------------------------------------ Publisher LaPaglia, This may already have been called to your attention by other cachers, but I have been asked to contact you concerning the validity of my claims that my cache is placed correctly according to the rules on geocaching.com. The final stage of my multi is a large ammo can placed in a hole that was dug with a shovel. The hole was in fact dug with a shovel but was not dug for the purpose of hiding the cache. The hole was dug by students of the nearby college taking dirt samples sometime last spring. There are many of these holes around the cache site. Some believe that since it is in a man made hole that it should not be allowed. I feel that since the rules say "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", and that this hole was not dug for the purpose of hiding the cache, it should be allowed just as all caches hidden in fake drain caps and other below-surface-but-not-buried caches are hidden. But as you are the publisher it is up to you If you decide to not allow it, I would like to know how I can appeal to have the rules modified to specify this kind of situation since I know of (in my short caching history) at least a dozen caches of this kind in my immediate area, the owners of which should be notified that they need to modify their caches. Thank You, SCAVOK ------------------------------------------------------------ I will post the reply when I receive it. Since my cache is currently disabled anyway (because of my class going out into the field again, proven by the posts in the cache page from some cachers I ran into), I will wait to see if I can place it back in its hiding spot or to toss it into that thorny natural hole I mentioned Link to comment
+Adrenalynn Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Can I ask an off topic (to this) question ?? Well I did make the thread.. . Does anyone actually think the forum post numbers tells how well you are at caching ? and the number of finds, I can understand they could... but how many people actually spends time day in day out looking into all the rules, regulations and such? I have a lot of time on my hands, being a stay at home mom of two and they play on their own alot, so i come here and read.... maybe not just this site (the forums and the caching information, plus the cacherU site etc etc), but other stuff as well (LOVE useless information).... I'm getting where I read everything more then once now.... Gotta get a new time killer.... Gotta say right now that I'm glad we didn't really "burn" each other, much.... Anywho Headed to bed soon (hopefully) , tomorrow's errands day so I will be on late... Cache (err umm Catch) ya'll tomorrow (Friday) sometime! Since you asked: My time varies. I have a rather well developed memory. If I see someone once, it's there forever, so I don't have to dig out rules and such frequently... I do feel the more caches you've found, the more experience you have with different types of hides and finds and the challenges they present. Link to comment
wandat24 Posted April 28, 2006 Author Share Posted April 28, 2006 Since you asked: My time varies. I have a rather well developed memory. If I see someone once, it's there forever, so I don't have to dig out rules and such frequently... I do feel the more caches you've found, the more experience you have with different types of hides and finds and the challenges they present. Well, my lil one still thinks she isn't tired again yet lol. I would agree that the number of finds will ditermine how well you are. No argument at all there . I have no memory problems at all.... just get bored and read what ever I run across at the time. I either read over the rules and such, caches i want to hunt, threads, and so on. As I said I'm starting to re-read some things lol. I even go back to my finds and read logs made after mine. Link to comment
+The GeoGadgets Team Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 I'm sorry... rules is rules. I may not have thousands of finds. I may not have posted a thousand posts or more in the forums - I have a life and would rather FIND and HIDE caches than post about it - BUT (yes, Wanda, there is a BIG BUT in this)... There are rules to abide by in Geocaching and they are there for a REASON. I guess some of us haven't been Geocaching long enough to remember the episode of Law and Order (if you bother to watch TV) that highlighted (for a few moments) a person (who was actually Letterboxing, but hey) finding and logging (using a stamp, but some of us do that and are still Geocachers) a Geocache that was BURIED somewhere in Central Park (since the episodes usually take place in New York I assume that it was there). Immediately the hew and cry went out that YES, it is cool to Geocache, but NO, you aren't supposed to BURY them. I still get asked about that when I tell folks I'm a Geocacher (I do a lot of Geocaching demonstrations for groups), and it gets old explaining to people that it really is against the RULES to bury them. Now, back even further, there was a hew and cry when a very IRRESPONSIBLE 'geocacher' (lower case used intentionally) actually drilled a one-inch hole in a living tree to hide a 35-mm film container. dadgum, that was just WRONG. Do I need to explain why? Gawd, I sure hope not. Even if you spell in the forums like you speak (which some may take as cute - but it is as offensive to me as people drilling holes in trees to hide a cache, or typing 'u r' instead of 'you are' - $&it - that is just bloody LAZY, and almost as offensive as people who don't know how to turn off the caps lock function), you have to realize that this is a bad thing. Almost as bad as run-on sentences, yuck. My point (and yes, Virginia, there is one), is that you can't just dismiss bad behavior and say, "oh shucky-darn, shouldn't we oughta just go cachin'?" and call it good. Bad behavior in caching as in life is just that, BAD. If we just shrug and let it go on, then pretty soon caching will become littering. And then we'll be banned from hiding caches anywhere other than in Wal-Mart parking lots and magnetized Liquid Ice containers under power boxes at the local Piggly-Wiggly will become the norm. Hell, people won't even bother to keep the ziplocks zipped for the logbooks. Oh, hell. Caching is already that way. Might as well throw away my hiking boots and stay home and read a book. I'm sorry, but the same folks that will bury and cache and call it good will drill a hole in a tree and think that is okay, too. Those are the same people that won't discipline their children so that they grow up to be the cement shoes on the rest of society. That is like saying the rules apply only to those who get caught. Slap them on the wrist as long as it is still a hard find. Trailer-trash caching. I suppose it was as inevitable as the degradation of the English language. Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 (edited) I'm sorry... rules is rules.... There are rules to abide by in Geocaching and they are there for a REASON. Agreed. I guess some of us haven't been Geocaching long enough to remember the episode of Law and Order (if you bother to watch TV) that highlighted (for a few moments) a person (who was actually Letterboxing, but hey) finding and logging (using a stamp, but some of us do that and are still Geocachers) a Geocache that was BURIED somewhere in Central Park (since the episodes usually take place in New York I assume that it was there). Immediately the hew and cry went out that YES, it is cool to Geocache, but NO, you aren't supposed to BURY them. I still get asked about that when I tell folks I'm a Geocacher (I do a lot of Geocaching demonstrations for groups), and it gets old explaining to people that it really is against the RULES to bury them. It wasn't Central Park. It turns out that there is quite a bit of green space in and around NYC, but I get your point and you are right, sort of. Now, back even further, there was a hew and cry when a very IRRESPONSIBLE 'geocacher' (lower case used intentionally) actually drilled a one-inch hole in a living tree to hide a 35-mm film container. dadgum, that was just WRONG. Do I need to explain why? Gawd, I sure hope not. ... Jeremy archived those caches very quickly and gave a memorable little rant, but this is not the same issue. Back to the topic... Let's say that I want to hide a cache. I fill the ammo box full of trinks, toss in a log book, a pen, and a muggle sheet and off I go. I wander into the woods and come upon a hole that is larger than the can. I set the can into the hole. I then pack loose soil around the can, thereby making the hole smaller, can-sized. I then scatter the local ground clutter (leaves, sticks, dead grass, whatever) over the top for camo and I take the coords. I list the cache on GC.com. Please point me to any guideline that I may have broken. Edited April 28, 2006 by sbell111 Link to comment
+Segerguy Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 (edited) "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 ). Thanks for placing that ammo can in that great big nasty hole. I might have tripped in it when I visit that area, then I would have to sue the Land Manager, who would have to close the park, then nobody would be able to enjoy that park. You did everybody a favor!!!!!!!! Edited April 28, 2006 by Segerguy Link to comment
+Celticwulf Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Let's say that I want to hide a cache. I fill the ammo box full of trinks, toss in a log book, a pen, and a muggle sheet and off I go. I wander into the woods and come upon a hole that is larger than the can. I set the can into the hole. I then pack loose soil around the can, thereby making the hole smaller, can-sized. I then scatter the local ground clutter (leaves, sticks, dead grass, whatever) over the top for camo and I take the coords. I list the cache on GC.com. Please point me to any guideline that I may have broken. *delurks cause he's curious about this as well...* Or in regards to some of the standard "geobeacon" style(at least in my area) with leaves and fallen logs...over time these break down into dirt and make it look like the cache was "buried"...but it wasn't initially...so is this still an issue? *lurk mode back on* Celticwulf Link to comment
+Googling Hrpty Hrrs Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 sbell clearly has grasp of the guidelines as they are written. You are correct with your example- there is nothing wrong with that hide. So in regards to this particular cache, it comes down to proving the cache hider is lying about whether he used an existing hole or not. I have not seen the kind of definitive evidence necessary for me to call someone a liar. And though I don't know the cache hider, his e-mail to his reviewer seems to be a rational, measured response. On a different note- After re-reading this thread, some of the snobbery exhibited here is truly laughable. Some of us are just legends in our own mind, I mean, er, time. Link to comment
Pto Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Did a shovel make that hole, yes or no? The hider says yes. Boom. End of discussion, thank you for playing. -You've been playing with yourself this whole time. . . Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 ... Does anyone actually think the forum post numbers tells how well you are at caching ? and the number of finds, ... Post count is just an indicator of how much you like to post. I'm sure it's useful for something but I don't know what. Find count does give you a general idea of how experieced a cacher should be. I use the word should because there are newbies who can find things I can't, but whenever I think I'm 'bad' (and my skunk ratio is increasing over time) I just have to see a newbie in action to remember that I have learned a few things. Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Email Sent: ------------------------------------------------------------ Publisher LaPaglia, This may already have been called to your attention by other cachers, but I have been asked to contact you concerning the validity of my claims that my cache is placed correctly according to the rules on geocaching.com. The final stage of my multi is a large ammo can placed in a hole that was dug with a shovel. The hole was in fact dug with a shovel but was not dug for the purpose of hiding the cache. The hole was dug by students of the nearby college taking dirt samples sometime last spring. There are many of these holes around the cache site. Some believe that since it is in a man made hole that it should not be allowed. I feel that since the rules say "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", and that this hole was not dug for the purpose of hiding the cache, it should be allowed just as all caches hidden in fake drain caps and other below-surface-but-not-buried caches are hidden. But as you are the publisher it is up to you If you decide to not allow it, I would like to know how I can appeal to have the rules modified to specify this kind of situation since I know of (in my short caching history) at least a dozen caches of this kind in my immediate area, the owners of which should be notified that they need to modify their caches. Thank You, SCAVOK ------------------------------------------------------------ I will post the reply when I receive it. Since my cache is currently disabled anyway (because of my class going out into the field again, proven by the posts in the cache page from some cachers I ran into), I will wait to see if I can place it back in its hiding spot or to toss it into that thorny natural hole I mentioned Now I see the bigger picture. It explains why the hole has no spoils pile around it. The students carted it off. By the rules this cache is fine. Pre-existing holes have always been allowed though the exact nuance of how the pre-existing hole was made hasn't been discussed at any length. The key person for hole making is the cacher. That's a no-no. I wouldn't think twice about placing a cache in a rock chuck hole, a sink hole, bore hole, or in the case of my yard a gopher hole (anyone know how to get rid of these things email me!). However now that you have emailed Lapaglia you should get an answer. Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 The geocaching guidelines have always been kept simple so that they can be easily understood by new cachers. However the guidelines were not developed in a vacuum and in my opinion need to be interpreted by the reviewers with an idea to intent. Immediately following the list of reasons (which is not inclusive) for a cache to be immediately archived, it states There may be some exceptions. If your cache fits within one of the above areas, please explain in notes to the reviewer section of the cache page. For example, if you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate it in the notes for the benefit of both the reviewer and people seeking out the cache. This probably gives the reviewer some leeway. If a hole dug with a shovel pre-existed it might be usable. If the hole was dug with the permission of the property owner/manager it might be a reason for an exception. The "no buried" caches rule has been around for awhile. My guess is that someone asked permission to hide a cache. The land manager asked "are these things ever buried?". "I supposed they could be", came the reply. "I can't have people coming and digging up the park, so no - you can't hide a cache here." Hence we have a rule against digging with a shovel or other pointy object to either find or hide a cache. A less restrictive rule would probably serve the same purpose but might be confusing to a new cacher reading it. Finally, one could take the idea of not allowing the use of a pre-existing hole to an extreme. All lamppost hides violate this rule since someone dug a hole (probably using a back-hoe) in order to erect the lamppost Link to comment
+scavok Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Email received from Michael (LaPaglia): ------------------------------------------------- In this case, the hole was there before you got there and you made use of an existing hole so it is fine. The problem we run into is that there are people who will dig a whole one week and then come back the next and "find" an existing hole to use for their cache. It is very hard to totally control the hiding of caches below ground level as we do not physically check the placement of each cache. We depend on the finders to let us know if a cache is hidden in a way that is against the guidelines. Thank you for asking. Your cache placement is fine. Michael ------------------------------------------------- Link to comment
+Segerguy Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Email received from Michael (LaPaglia): ------------------------------------------------- In this case, the hole was there before you got there and you made use of an existing hole so it is fine. The problem we run into is that there are people who will dig a whole one week and then come back the next and "find" an existing hole to use for their cache. It is very hard to totally control the hiding of caches below ground level as we do not physically check the placement of each cache. We depend on the finders to let us know if a cache is hidden in a way that is against the guidelines. Thank you for asking. Your cache placement is fine. Michael ------------------------------------------------- I knew you were gonna Win!!!! Link to comment
+Kit Fox Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Email received from Michael (LaPaglia): ------------------------------------------------- In this case, the hole was there before you got there and you made use of an existing hole so it is fine. The problem we run into is that there are people who will dig a whole one week and then come back the next and "find" an existing hole to use for their cache. It is very hard to totally control the hiding of caches below ground level as we do not physically check the placement of each cache. We depend on the finders to let us know if a cache is hidden in a way that is against the guidelines. Thank you for asking. Your cache placement is fine. Michael ------------------------------------------------- This should end the debate. The only advice I have is to mention on the cache page that the hiding spot was there before you hid the cache. Link to comment
+Adrenalynn Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Cool! Good on you! I'm gettin' out the pick and shovel to go make some holes I don't intend to put caches into today. Link to comment
+The Leprechauns Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 (edited) Cool! Good on you! I'm gettin' out the pick and shovel to go make some holes I don't intend to put caches into today. I read the news today oh boyFour thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire And though the holes were rather small They had to count them all Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall. Consider a multicache. Edited April 28, 2006 by The Leprechauns Link to comment
+Segerguy Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Cool! Good on you! I'm gettin' out the pick and shovel to go make some holes I don't intend to put caches into today. I could see that comin' a mile away!! Link to comment
+vree Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Cool! Good on you! I'm gettin' out the pick and shovel to go make some holes I don't intend to put caches into today. you sure are cranky about this one. if the reviewer says it's okay then this one appears to fit the guidelines. it doesn't provide license to go out and bury caches. let it go. Link to comment
Recommended Posts