Jump to content

Caches Below Grade...


Ichabod

Recommended Posts

I have found several caches that were placed below ground level. I think, given the gc guidelines, that everyone agrees that digging is a BIG no-no, however, what do you all think of caches that are placed below grade?

 

Here are three examples I have come across, all of which made it difficult for me to find (because I assumed no one will place a cache like this ... that's what I get for assuming :D )

 

#1: Sprinkler head. I think most people have seen these, involving pushing a sprinkler head into the ground, you pull the top off to reveal the micro.

 

#2: A fake clean-out PVC tube with a cache inside. Unscrew the top and pull out the cache. It appeared that the PVC was just pushed into the ground.

 

#3: PVC cylnder encased in concrete and pushed into the ground. There is a custom top to the PVC that is opened to reveal the cache. I don't quite know how they could have done this one without digging, unless the ground was really soft at the time, or it went into an existing hole.

 

For arguments sake, let's assume that no digging occured to place any of these caches, and no digging is needed to retrieve them. How do you feel about these?

 

:)

Link to comment

For me, the biggest concern I'd have is would it encourage somebody who was off a few feet to mistakenly damage something, because they thought it was the cache.

 

Example, suppose I gave you a hint about the cache that it was a sprinkler head, and you got out there, and indeed found a sprinkler head. You soon discover that you got the wrong one. Now you've unintentionally damaged city or private property. Meanwhile, the real cache sits hidden 10 feet away.

 

I know other folks disagree, but I've got no problem with gettting permission, then going out into the woods, digging a square hole the size of an ammo can, so the can top sits level with the ground, then covering it with some leaves. I've found a few like that. They were tricky to find.

 

But on the other hand, somebody could tear up all the ground cover (with their hands), trying to find the cache (though tapping the ground with a stick would have revealed the cache, and no shovel was used).

 

In fact, I'd have to ammend my assessment. Here's a good test: "Would it encourage somebody who was off a few feet to mistakenly damage something, because they thought it was the cache?"

 

The counter-sunk ammo can may encourage moving all the leaves around. While that won't end the forest as we know it, it doesn't exactly leave no trace. (though a certain amount of bushwacking, trail making is expected to occur on any cache).

 

I've seen a 5 gallon bucket set into the ground about half way. The difference is, when you got to the cache, you could still tell where the cache was, without rooting around.

 

On any cache, I would expect folks to be moving stuff around every brush pile and tree trunk in the area, so countersinking isn't horribly worse than that.

Link to comment

I don't think pushing a spike or spike like object into the ground is akin to digging.

 

For instance, its no longer considered proper for campers to dig drainage trenches around their tents or pit toilets. A LNT advocate would go bananas if they saw that. But I've never heard of anyone, including LNT advocates, who speak against the use of tent stakes.

 

As another example, once an archaeologist begins digging, he knows he is destroying the site and carefully records in detail the results of the digging. But the same archaeologist will walk around with a ground probe (a long, narrow metal bar) and stick it in at random because its not really damaging anything.

 

I've never encountered these countersunk ammo cans or buckets, but if someone dug a hole to place them, it is a blatant violation of the guidelines and the caches should brought to the attention of a reviewer and archived.

 

I don't see an issue however with pushing a stake or a PVC pipe into the ground.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

The other thing to note for me is a sprinkler head where one does not belong is a good idea, a sprinkler head where there are others could cause me to vandalize a real one.

 

I am alwasy concerned I may get electricuted when searching for a good hidden container but when I see an electrical outlet deep in the woods at the coordinates I am not as worried. (a bit off topic)

Link to comment

We have a cache that is underground. We dug the hole and lined it with bricks.

It is located on our private property and states such on the cache page. We are assuming

this is not a rule infraction.

 

Certainly not, and honestly, I have found several caches on private property that were under a watering system access panel, or other such box in the ground. I don't think anyone has any problems with caches like this on private property or where permission has been obtained. My question was more to public property.

 

I also totally agree with the sprinkler head issue. There have been times where I have come to a cache location and discovered a sprinkler head that didn't seem to belong there, only to discover that it was actually a sprinkler head. And this may be my concern about caches like this, is that they tend to encourage mucking about with things that we shouldn't be. The mock clean-out PVC cache mentioned above, really had me going, because it could have been an actual clean-out!

Link to comment

as long as you dont have to "dig" up a cache then i'm cool with it. if its in a hole and covered by some sticks and leaves thats just a good hiding spot but digging up a cache a couple feet underground is not cool.

 

If it was an existing hole, its a good hiding spot. If the cache owner dug the hole, it is a cache that should be archived.

Link to comment

as long as you dont have to "dig" up a cache then i'm cool with it. if its in a hole and covered by some sticks and leaves thats just a good hiding spot but digging up a cache a couple feet underground is not cool.

 

If it was an existing hole, its a good hiding spot. If the cache owner dug the hole, it is a cache that should be archived.

 

I'd find fault with this. How do you know it wasn't an existing hole? Maybe it got filled in (after the cache was placed, making it a snug fit).

 

Furthermore, in the cases of the embedded caches i've found, they've been around a while. The fact that they haven't been archived (aka reported by a cacher as a violation) would indicate that they've been tried by the court of public opinion and found innocent.

Link to comment

as long as you dont have to "dig" up a cache then i'm cool with it. if its in a hole and covered by some sticks and leaves thats just a good hiding spot but digging up a cache a couple feet underground is not cool.

 

If it was an existing hole, its a good hiding spot. If the cache owner dug the hole, it is a cache that should be archived.

 

I'd find fault with this. How do you know it wasn't an existing hole? Maybe it got filled in (after the cache was placed, making it a snug fit).

 

Furthermore, in the cases of the embedded caches i've found, they've been around a while. The fact that they haven't been archived (aka reported by a cacher as a violation) would indicate that they've been tried by the court of public opinion and found innocent.

 

Its possible that the hole was naturally filled in. I have one where that happened. It states on the page that the hole was a natural depression so there is no doubt. That's where you have to take the word of the owner.

 

As far as public opinion, there are long time caches obviously hidden on private property right behind no trespassing signs that aren't reported. Do we let those go just because everyone was more interested in getting another smiley than doing what is right?

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

One of the longest currently active caches is a 5 gal bucket which was dug in and placed in a hole with only the lid exposed at ground level. The lid identifies it as a geocache. No digging or disturbing anything to find it. It's been there since May 11, 2000 and has nearly 500 finds.

We found a 4" PVC pipe dug into a sloping hill side with the screw off cap and about 6" of the pipe exposed. Up the hill about 50 ft was an in ground pool. Nothing else on the hill side except the PVC which some might think was a drain for the pool.

The sprinkler head covering dug in PVC of various diameters is common. We've found several like that.

Edited by Wadcutter
Link to comment

I've never found a sprinkler head caches in an area that had other (real) sprinkler heads.

I wouldn't hide one like that either. And if I came to a spot where I thought that was the case, I would likely walk away without checking the sprinkler heads for the cache unless one of them said "geosprinkler" or something equally obvious.

Link to comment

I have a cache that is in a tree stump that the center is rotted out deep enough that the top of the container sits near ground level.

 

All I did was set the container down inside it and cover with some bark that was on the ground near by.

 

Jim

Kc8bdr

Link to comment

I have done many caches that were below grade. Some were easily gotten to by moving leaves or other debris off the cache with a hand swipe. I've definitly seen the fake sprinkler heads and the fake termite traps. The most elaborate was an ammo box below grade surrounded by concrete blocks to form a nice little bunker with a cammo cover on the spot ..... and this was obviously dug by someone who may or may not have been the actual cache owner.

The important thing is that I have never needed a shovel to find a cache! :anitongue: ImpalaBob

Link to comment

I have done many caches that were below grade. Some were easily gotten to by moving leaves or other debris off the cache with a hand swipe. I've definitly seen the fake sprinkler heads and the fake termite traps. The most elaborate was an ammo box below grade surrounded by concrete blocks to form a nice little bunker with a cammo cover on the spot ..... and this was obviously dug by someone who may or may not have been the actual cache owner.

The important thing is that I have never needed a shovel to find a cache! :anitongue: ImpalaBob

 

Agreed!

 

I believe the intent of the rule is that we should not be out there with a shovel & axe trying to find caches, digging everywhere, like in the movie "Holes." It is not right to dig up the ground looking for the cache.

 

holes_still.jpg

holestitle.jpg

 

It should be acceptable to hide a portion of the cache below ground level as long as the finder is not required to move dirt to find / access / read / sign the cache.

Link to comment
The important thing is that I have never needed a shovel to find a cache! :anitongue: ImpalaBob
Agreed!

 

I believe the intent of the rule is that we should not be out there with a shovel & axe trying to find caches, digging everywhere, like in the movie "Holes." It is not right to dig up the ground looking for the cache.

 

It should be acceptable to hide a portion of the cache below ground level as long as the finder is not required to move dirt to find / access / read / sign the cache.

Both of these posts provide inaccurate representation of the guidelines. See this section of the guidelines, specifically the below quoted part:

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.

BOLD emphasis added by me.

 

So regardless of what you think the guidelines say, they're pretty clear that there is to be no digging, whether by the hider or the seeker.

 

Hope that clears it up for you and anyone else reading this thread.

Link to comment

 

So regardless of what you think the guidelines say, they're pretty clear that there is to be no digging, whether by the hider or the seeker.

 

Hope that clears it up for you and anyone else reading this thread.

 

That has also been my intrepretation, but awhile back it took me a second trip to a cache because I just wasn't expecting a 5 gallon bucket buried in the ground. It was actually a clever hide and needed no digging on the part of the finder. Often ammo cans are "snuggled" into a shallow hole.. maybe a only a couple inches deep to make a less obvious bulge. Maybe the "pointy object" was the ammo can itself so is that illegal? And micros? Doesn't take much "digging" to bury a micro and it happens all the time. When I search I don't dig to find a cache, but can't ignore the possibility that the hider did.

Link to comment
That has also been my intrepretation, but awhile back it took me a second trip to a cache because I just wasn't expecting a 5 gallon bucket buried in the ground. It was actually a clever hide and needed no digging on the part of the finder.

 

Again, it doesn't matter whether the finder needs to dig.

 

Remember, cache reviewers do/can not visit each site prior to listing the cache. Caches are listed based on the information available at the time (or via Q&A with the hider prior to listing). If a cache is buried, you can/should report the cache to the reviewer via email so that it can be looked into.

 

Quiggle

Link to comment

Bear in mind, I suspect the shovel rule has changed since I last read the hiding rules (3 years ago)...

 

Anyway, here's some silly what ifs hoping to garner exceptions, just play along:

 

what if I find a whole, dug by a hole-digging animal, and I put my ammo can in it, then sprinkle leaves over the top?

 

What if I stuff the dirt from the hole, around the ammo can, packing it in (thereby implying you just open the lid, and not remove the can).

 

What if I bring a bag of dirt for the same purpose (maybe it's an old hole)?

 

What if, while caching, my dog digs a hole that would be perfect for a cache?

 

What if my dog's name was Shovel, because of his digging prowess?

 

What if I found a hole that was dug by some crazy teenagers trying to reach china?

 

What if I found an old hole that was dug by some crazy pioneers trying to reach china (or water)?

 

How deep of a hole that I did not dig is too deep to hide a cache in?

A dried up well?

Carlsbad Caverns?

Carlsgood Caverns?

A fox hole?

A rabbit hole?

A black hole?

 

Does that hole have to be natural? Or Pre-Existing?

Do animal dug holes count as natural?

Is a hole natural if a homo sapien did not dig it?

 

Note I'm playing devil's advocate here. I have not hidden any caches. I do not own an animal that digs holes. I do own several shovels, but I'm too lazy and self-conscious to bring a shovel with me anywhere.

 

It seems like one could come up with a plausible "it was like that when I placed it" hole scenario.

Link to comment
Bear in mind, I suspect the shovel rule has changed since I last read the hiding rules (3 years ago)...

 

Anyway, here's some silly what ifs hoping to garner exceptions, just play along:

I want to play!

what if I find a whole, dug by a hole-digging animal, and I put my ammo can in it, then sprinkle leaves over the top?

Fine with me

What if I stuff the dirt from the hole, around the ammo can, packing it in (thereby implying you just open the lid, and not remove the can).

That would appear to meet the guidelines.

What if I bring a bag of dirt for the same purpose (maybe it's an old hole)?

Ditto

What if, while caching, my dog digs a hole that would be perfect for a cache?

I assume that this would be OK.

What if my dog's name was Shovel, because of his digging prowess?

Our cat's name is Shadow because of her hiding ability. We also have dogs named Darby and Sable. Weither my pet's names nor your's would keep us from hiding a cache.

What if I found a hole that was dug by some crazy teenagers trying to reach china?

As long as you aren't one of the crazy teens, it would be OK.

What if I found an old hole that was dug by some crazy pioneers trying to reach china (or water)?

As long as you aren't one of the crazy pioneers, it would be OK.

How deep of a hole that I did not dig is too deep to hide a cache in?

How wide is the planet?

A dried up well?

Sure, use an appropriate terrain rating.

Carlsbad Caverns?

Sure, but you better get permission.

Carlsgood Caverns?

Ummm, OK.

A fox hole?

As long as you didn't dig it, soldier.

A rabbit hole?

As long as he isn't home.

A black hole?

How could you list it, afterwards?

Does that hole have to be natural?

Please define 'natural'.

Or Pre-Existing?

Yes.

Do animal dug holes count as natural?

To me, they do.

Is a hole natural if a homo sapien did not dig it?

In my opinion, yes.

 

edited because I was having trouble with quotes.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

So per sbell111's replies, if they were considered "official":

 

It's ok to bury a cache, so long as I did not dig the hole myself.

 

After all, I can use my Shovel (the dog) to dig the hole, but I can't use my shovel to dig the hole.

 

Given the myriad ways I reveal (that I interpret sb111 to say they're valid) for burying a cache legally that might still look like I had done so illegally, the situation is murky enough to suggest that the rule as written is in need of work.

 

As I see it, the rule should either bar below-surface caches (with exceptions), or stick to the simple "no digging needed to find cache" rule.

 

My reasoning is because I can find a ton of ways to skirt the no shovel rule, and make someone doubt I didn't use a shovel, that it causes controversy. Any rule that causes controversy, ought to be a candidate for reworking.

 

In that same vein that folks out there play this game anyway they want, who the heck is writing these rules? Who is approving them? Does the approving party represent the will of the people? Or is it solely being done by the owners of gc.com?

Link to comment
So per sbell111's replies, if they were considered "official":
Obviously, my posts are of my opinions, unless I cite appropriate guidelines.
It's ok to bury a cache, so long as I did not dig the hole myself.
How do you define 'bury'? My definition is 'to place in the earth and cover with soil'. Using this definition, it would not be OK.
Given the myriad ways I reveal (that I interpret sb111 to say they're valid) for burying a cache legally that might still look like I had done so illegally, the situation is murky enough to suggest that the rule as written is in need of work.
I disagree. The guidelines are clear.

 

If you were to dig a hole and place a cache in it, you would be in violation of the guidelines.

If you placed a cache in a pre-existing hole, you would be OK.

If you covered the cache in the hole with dirt, you would be in violation of the guidelines.

If you dug a hole and claimed that the hole was pre-existing, you would be in violation of the guidelines and you would have no honor.

In that same vein that folks out there play this game anyway they want, who the heck is writing these rules? Who is approving them? Does the approving party represent the will of the people? Or is it solely being done by the owners of gc.com?

The guidelines presented by GC.com were approved by the owners of GC.com. In order to use GC.com, we promise to abide by their guidelines.

 

Groundspeak is a private company, not a democracy.

Link to comment
It's ok to bury a cache, so long as I did not dig the hole myself.

No, you can't have your friends dig a hole, and you put a cache in there and submit it.

 

Given the myriad ways I reveal (that I interpret sb111 to say they're valid) for burying a cache legally that might still look like I had done so illegally, the situation is murky enough to suggest that the rule as written is in need of work.

It's actually quite clear if you're not looking for loopholes to get around it. No need at all for a rewrite.

 

As I see it, the rule should either bar below-surface caches (with exceptions), or stick to the simple "no digging needed to find cache" rule.

Or the even simpler "no digging to hide or find the cache", which is the way it's written.

 

My reasoning is because I can find a ton of ways to skirt the no shovel rule, and make someone doubt I didn't use a shovel, that it causes controversy. Any rule that causes controversy, ought to be a candidate for reworking.

Wouldn't it just be easier to leave the cache above grade, and not cause controversy? Anybody can hide a cache underground and make it difficult. If you're looking to make a cache difficult above ground, just use a nano out in the woods. ;)

 

In that same vein that folks out there play this game anyway they want, who the heck is writing these rules? Who is approving them? Does the approving party represent the will of the people? Or is it solely being done by the owners of gc.com?

Represents the will of land managers, at least this specific guideline. Do some reading on NPS and geocaching and you'll get an idea as to why this one is of particular importance.

Link to comment

From my experience in organizing other activities on public land, environmental concerns tend to be the most difficult to negotiate. Agencies have some hard and fast rules that don't really bend with different situations or different realities. So to avoid a bunch of problems and avoid time it would take to research the rules on each and every potential cache site, geocaching.com has made a statement that caches will not be buried. Seems like an astute move to me. Much better than being banned from using large tracts of public land. Why not spend some time figuring out a unique hide that is within the rules? ....deleted my idea.. I'll use it first ;)

Link to comment

I have a cache that sits in a natural depression in the ground. I filled in the sides with pine straw to reduce the possibility that the eyes will catch the unnatural straight lines of the ammo can or the corners. It is positioned such that it appears to be just a mild bump in the landscape. It is cammoed on top to blend in with the surroundings and essentially invisible.

 

Of course, it has a fairly good hint to help cachers zero in on the location.

Link to comment

From my experience in organizing other activities on public land, environmental concerns tend to be the most difficult to negotiate. Agencies have some hard and fast rules that don't really bend with different situations or different realities. So to avoid a bunch of problems and avoid time it would take to research the rules on each and every potential cache site, geocaching.com has made a statement that caches will not be buried. Seems like an astute move to me. Much better than being banned from using large tracts of public land. Why not spend some time figuring out a unique hide that is within the rules? ....deleted my idea.. I'll use it first :D

 

That's the key. Remember the reason for the rule and find a way to hide your cache that is within the rules instead of trying to find a way around them.

 

Do you really want to be the person who gets geocaching banned in your state because you let your dog dig a hole for you to hide your cache in?

Link to comment

I've found caches in the Dominican Republic and in Mexico that were buried under several inches of beach sand, and though the caches continue to exist today, they were listed prior to the below grade restrictions.

 

These caches were both placed in sugar sand. The sugar sand was more concealment than cover, and the caches were both easily located by simply shuffling through the sand at the indicated coordinates.

Link to comment
I've found caches in the Dominican Republic and in Mexico that were buried under several inches of beach sand, and though the caches continue to exist today, they were listed prior to the below grade restrictions.

 

These caches were both placed in sugar sand. The sugar sand was more concealment than cover, and the caches were both easily located by simply shuffling through the sand at the indicated coordinates.

I've found caches that were "buried" in landscaping bark, leaves, and other loose material. I could see a beach cache like those being similar. Where do you draw the line between "burying" a cache and concealing it with local materials? GC.com seems to decide based on whether "a shovel, trowel or other 'pointy' object is used to dig".
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...