Define "Buried"

[PutnamEco]

I had a really tough time trying to find a cache. (2 DNFs 1 hunt for 1 hour, 1 for 2 hours, and then for about 3 hours working a very methodical search pattern, with a "pointy stick" to . coordinates where off. and hint was vague. and to add insult, was only rated 1 and a half "stars" ) It was an ammo can in a small depression completely covered with leaf litter.

 

Reviewing the rules, specifically

 

"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."

 

There was no way, that I could think of, short of breaking out a metal detector, to find this cache, without a "pointy stick"

then upon further investigation of the "rules" I came across,

 

"Please do not bury the container unless you have express permission of the landowner or manager. If the cache is far enough away from trafficked areas, your cache should be fine. An exception would be covering the cache with dead branches, bark, etc. to conceal the container."

 

I'm confused, What say you?

[+edscott]

I say I can move leaf litter without a pointy stick and that leaves are really not so different from bark and sticks. Problem is they sometimes blow away and make it all too easy.

[+Wacka]

If the depression was not dug and is natural, it's OK. Whenever I see leaf litter near ground zero, I poke with my hiking staff.

[+Blue Power Ranger]

There are a few DNFs on that cache so I assume it is probably a little more difficult than one would expect on a 1.5.

 

The cache description contains the rather clear hint...

You will see three palm trees in a row. The cache is next to the middle palm tree.

I guess there must have been several places that matched that?

 

A covering of leaves is pretty typical, I certainly wouldn't consider it a violation of the "buried" guideline.

 

_________

 

Edit: I just read that whole cache page. I would have a bigger gripe than whether or not this is buried. This is a Regular but the first sentance of the description reads:

 

The above cords are not correct. Please read the entire page to find the correct cords.

 

Jeez I HATE that! No wonder folks get confused. That is a

not a

 

also...

 

If you grab a "GEOCOIN", (PLEASE) leave the same amount of "GEOCOINS" in return.

and...

 

If you do not plan on leaving any travel bugs/geocoins, (PLEASE) do not take any.

 

Lots of reasons not to love that particular cache. I'd go back and clear that sucker out of TBs and Coins. Free the prisoners!

Edited March 2, 2007 by Blue Power Ranger

[PutnamEco]

Maybe I should clarify. this area is by a highway with broken glass and other trash around. (I picked up a hypodermic needle not very far away.) And I would have made one heck of a mess if I had "raked" the entire area down to earth.(coordinates, for me, where off 30-40 feet) to find this cache. There was NO mound. the ammo can sat in a depression below ground level and was covered to ground level with leaves. and would a rake not be considered another type of pointy object? or should I haved risked injury and gotten down on my hands and knees to "feel out" the entire area.

[PutnamEco]

The cache description contains the rather clear hint...

You will see three palm trees in a row. The cache is next to the middle palm tree.

I guess there must have been several places that matched that

 

_________---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Yes, There where four different types of palms in the area, The coordinates that I arrived at, placed me about two feet in front of a small palmetto in between two other palmettoes. Hence, one of my frustrations.

[+Lil Devil]

(coordinates, for me, where off 30-40 feet)

The cache page does spell out the correct coords.

The above cords are not correct. Please read the entire page to find the correct cords.

...

North two nine three eight six three nine

...

West zero eight one three six eight zero four

Those coords are 37 feet from the posted coords.

 

So I agree this should be listed as a puzzle, not a traditional. A traditional should be findable with just a GPS.

 

Unless the depression the cache was in was dug with a shovel, this one does not sound like it runs afoul of the "not buried" rule. Buried would mean covered with dirt. Leaves and rocks doth not a buried cache make.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Maybe I should clarify. this area is by a highway with broken glass and other trash around. (I picked up a hypodermic needle not very far away.) And I would have made one heck of a mess if I had "raked" the entire area down to earth.(coordinates, for me, where off 30-40 feet) to find this cache. There was NO mound. the ammo can sat in a depression below ground level and was covered to ground level with leaves. and would a rake not be considered another type of pointy object? or should I haved risked injury and gotten down on my hands and knees to "feel out" the entire area.

Hoo yeah, the old hypodermic! It's amazing how many caches that people don't like have all these used hypodermic needles lying aound them... not that I question your veracity, really I'm not.

 

Me, I wouldn't have picked it up without gloves and a disposal bag. Prophylaxis is important, especially with these hypodermics at caches in the woods!

 

I am questioning your agenda, however, as the above posts should help you understand the guidelines but your last post indicates you still don't get it.

 

Every word is important - the one you ignore here is 'dig'.

 

"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."

Emphasis added.

 

That doesn't say that you can't use a pointy stick - it says you can't use one to DIG either to hide or find the cache.

 

Surely you can see the difference between covering a cache with limbs and leaves and burying it such that an implement is needed to DIG it up, right?

[PutnamEco]

(coordinates, for me, where off 30-40 feet)

The cache page does spell out the correct coords.

The above cords are not correct. Please read the entire page to find the correct cords.

...

North two nine three eight six three nine

...

West zero eight one three six eight zero four

Those coords are 37 feet from the posted coords.

 

So I agree this should be listed as a puzzle, not a traditional. A traditional should be findable with just a GPS.

 

Unless the depression the cache was in was dug with a shovel, this one does not sound like it runs afoul of the "not buried" rule. Buried would mean covered with dirt. Leaves and rocks doth not a buried cache make.

 

I had both the "outdated" and the "current" coordinates entered in my GPSr and BOTH SETS are off. (for me at least) I have used a GPSr professionally and am well aware of the accuracy of my unit. My chief complaint was not with the coordinates, but was with the fact that it was NOT mentioned that the cache was not "just" sitting on the ground but was below and completely covered.

I had read the rules quoted above and it was NOT what I expected, or was looking for. I kind of enjoyed looking for it. had it not been so near a highway, and was not in an area with litter and broken glass, I would have loved it.

 

The depression that it was in was suspiciously square, I could not say whether it was dug or not.

[+Wadcutter]

You've got 11 finds. If a cache container covered with leaves gets you upset then you're not going to last long caching. You're going to find that a lot of caches hidden in wooded areas are covered with leaves, bark, limbs, etc.

[+PJPeters]

"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."

Emphasis added.

 

That doesn't say that you can't use a pointy stick - it says you can't use one to DIG either to hide or find the cache.

 

Surely you can see the difference between covering a cache with limbs and leaves and burying it such that an implement is needed to DIG it up, right?

 

So, what you're saying, is that dang near all the caches in Michigan right now, that aren't off the ground, are in violation?

Yeah, we've got a bit of snow.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

 

My chief complaint was not with the coordinates, but was with the fact that it was NOT mentioned that the cache was not "just" sitting on the ground but was below and completely covered.

 

Hello from Putnam county Indiana!

I have a couple of thoughts on this for what it's worth:

If I hid a cache in that manner, in a depression under some leaves, I wouldn't mention it either, good camo is a big part of the game. He should perhaps up the difficulty but that's mainly a judgement call, it's hard to predict how hard others will consider your cache until a few have found it or did not find it.

Some cachers will use the hint to tell you exactly where it is, others won't, another personal judgement call.

As for the location I won't comment since I can't see it.

And the others are right about the travel bugs and coins, they are not trade items, they have owners who want them to move, the wishes of the trackables owners always supercedes the wishes of the cache owner.

[+KBI]

My chief complaint was not with the coordinates, but was with the fact that it was NOT mentioned that the cache was not "just" sitting on the ground but was below and completely covered.

Sometimes the unexpectedly challenging hides are the most fun.

 

I had read the rules quoted above and it was NOT what I expected, or was looking for. I kind of enjoyed looking for it. had it not been so near a highway, and was not in an area with litter and broken glass, I would have loved it.

I probably would have reacted the same way you did -- enjoyed the hide itself, but not the surroundings. It sounds like a fun cache, but maybe not in an ideal place. Of course you always have the option to discontinue any cache hunt as soon as you realize there's something about it you don't like. Something that bothers you might not bother the next person, however.

 

The depression that it was in was suspiciously square, I could not say whether it was dug or not.

I have hidden a couple of mine in existing depressions that I 'modified' ever so slightly to allow the container to fit. I don't consider that "burying."

 

 

 

To answer your original question:

 

I believe the whole point behind the no-buried-caches rule is to protect all the nice landscaping in our parks and other public places from being immediately destroyed by geocachers with shovels. Judgment levels vary, and cachers already tear things up bad enough as it is. Allowing underground hides would only make the problem 100 times worse. Every hide greater than a two-star difficulty would be surrounded by a deep-cratered moonscape. There's just no way to make it work.

 

The one you describe, however, sounds fairly normal (un-"buried") to me.

[PutnamEco]

 

To answer your original question:

 

I believe the whole point behind the no-buried-caches rule is to protect all the nice landscaping in our parks and other public places from being immediately destroyed by geocachers with shovels. Judgement levels vary, and cachers already tear things up bad enough as it is. Allowing underground hides would only make the problem 100 times worse. Every hide greater than a two-star difficulty would be surrounded by a deep-cratered moonscape. There's just no way to make it work.

 

The one you describe, however, sounds fairly normal (un-"buried") to me.

 

If this cache was in a state park and had as much traffic as the area around the area of the cache, and park management knew of the cache, caches would be banned in that park. I had seen disturbed flora all around the cache area .I added to the disturbance by searching as thoroughly as I did. This concerns me.

 

I'm relatively new at this, and I am at a loss for how to procede.

 

Should I bring it up to the cache owners? Do I give them my coordinates?(which may or may not be more accurate)

Do I complain to geocaching management? Do I post spoilers in my log? Do I bite my tongue, and shut up?

Do I go to the newspapers and proclaim geocachers as environmentally insensitive.

Do I quit geocaching, in frustration?

 

 

You've got 11 finds. If a cache container covered with leaves gets you upset then you're not going to last long caching. You're going to find that a lot of caches hidden in wooded areas are covered with leaves, bark, limbs, etc.

 

 

If it was JUST covered with leaves I wouldn't have said a thing. This cache was what I would call buried by leaves. If I knew that it was in a hole, I would not have said anything.

In my opinion being in a hole covered by leaves = buried

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

To answer your original question:

 

I believe the whole point behind the no-buried-caches rule is to protect all the nice landscaping in our parks and other public places from being immediately destroyed by geocachers with shovels. Judgment levels vary, and cachers already tear things up bad enough as it is. Allowing underground hides would only make the problem 100 times worse. Every hide greater than a two-star difficulty would be surrounded by a deep-cratered moonscape. There's just no way to make it work.

 

The one you describe, however, sounds fairly normal (un-"buried") to me.

I think the point of the no-digging rule, I call it a rule because except for private land that you own it's one of our more strictly enforced guidelines, is to protect the game of geocaching, and the environment only by default!

 

The fact that geocachers won't dig up the land to hide or find caches is key to our having permission in so many places!

 

We've worked hard to promote Leave No Trace practices.

 

That said, this one isn't buried.

 

So, what you're saying, is that dang near all the caches in Michigan right now, that aren't off the ground, are in violation?

Yeah, we've got a bit of snow.

I welcome new folks to the forums, we all do! This game is growing and for everyone, and so are these forums... but you gotta bring a better game than that!

 

It snowed so caches are buried?

 

Welcome to the boards, but don't expect to get far with arguments like that!

[+thedeadpirate]

I have hidden a couple of mine in existing depressions that I 'modified' ever so slightly to allow the container to fit. I don't consider that "burying."

 

I don't know what kind of "modifying" you did, but I would think that is where you would cross the line from using what's there naturally to breaking the guidelines.

 

I've found a number of caches in holes of rotted out trees. I've found a few caches in natural depressions. All those are fine, IMHO.

 

I would not recommend the encouragement of modifying existing depressions though.

[+KBI]

I have hidden a couple of mine in existing depressions that I 'modified' ever so slightly to allow the container to fit. I don't consider that "burying."

I don't know what kind of "modifying" you did, but I would think that is where you would cross the line from using what's there naturally to breaking the guidelines.

I squeezed the ammo can into the stump-hole, creating corners in the dirt hole where there were no corners before. I then covered it with some natural forest debris that I found nearby. Would you call that a "buried" cache? Do you think that violates the spirit of the guidelines?

[+briansnat]

If it was JUST covered with leaves I wouldn't have said a thing. This cache was what I would call buried by leaves. If I knew that it was in a hole, I would not have said anything.

 

The reason for the rule is because land managers don't want us digging up parks to hide caches. The term "buried" is technically not correct. What is not allowed are caches that require digging, if either to hide or find them.

 

If you hide a cache and cover it with leaves, sticks, bark or stones, technically its buried, but it is perfectly fine. If however you were to dig a hole, set the cache in it and fill it in leaving only the lid showing, technically it is not buried, but it would not be allowed. The rule should really state "no digging".

 

Should I bring it up to the cache owners? Do I give them my coordinates?(which may or may not be more accurate)Do I complain to geocaching management?

Do I post spoilers in my log? Do I bite my tongue, and shut up?

Do I go to the newspapers and proclaim geocachers as environmentally insensitive.

Do I quit geocaching, in frustration?

 

If you believe that the cache is impacting the area you should express your concerns to the owner in your log. If you think the damage is severe enough (and by severe I don't mean some bent blades of grass and a few disloged stones or logs), then you should log a "needs archived".

 

The depression that it was in was suspiciously square, I could not say whether it was dug or not.

 

I have a cache that was hidden in a natural depression and covered with bark. Over time dirt washed into the hole and filled it in around the cache, leaving an ammo box shaped hole when the cache is removed.

The casual observer would probably swear that the hold was dug to fit the cache, but it wasn't. Not saying that's what happened here, but you never know.

Edited March 3, 2007 by briansnat

[+PJPeters]

So, what you're saying, is that dang near all the caches in Michigan right now, that aren't off the ground, are in violation?

Yeah, we've got a bit of snow.

I welcome new folks to the forums, we all do! This game is growing and for everyone, and so are these forums... but you gotta bring a better game than that!

 

It snowed so caches are buried?

 

Welcome to the boards, but don't expect to get far with arguments like that!

 

(Please note the big in the original - it's a JOKE!) ::sheesh::

 

I'm afraid I tend to have a bit of a sarcastic sense of humour sometimes.

Edited March 3, 2007 by PJPeters

[+Deliveryguy428]

i say the first person who finds a way to combine a leaf blower and a GPS they will be RICH!!!!

[+thedeadpirate]

I squeezed the ammo can into the stump-hole, creating corners in the dirt hole where there were no corners before. I then covered it with some natural forest debris that I found nearby. Would you call that a "buried" cache? Do you think that violates the spirit of the guidelines?

 

You left it vague. I would not consider what you just described to be a rules violation. But the way you worded your original message made it sound as if it is ok to modify existing depressions.

[PutnamEco]

 

Every word is important - the one you ignore here is 'dig'.

 

"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."

Emphasis added.

 

That doesn't say that you can't use a pointy stick - it says you can't use one to DIG either to hide or find the cache.

 

Surely you can see the difference between covering a cache with limbs and leaves and burying it such that an implement is needed to DIG it up, right?

 

Do you really want to argue semantics?

(Don't take this the wrong way, put a smile on your face laugh a little, humour the troll)

 

informally

covering: to heap upon

bury: to place in the ground and cover

dig: to remove the covering of something buried

 

Formally

dictionary.com / dig

 

pay attention to 6, 7, and 8

 

True an implement was not "needed" to dig it out. but it would have been foolish to dig out its location without a tool.

 

I dare you to go find this cache without digging around in the leaves (what no "soup nazi smilie??) No tools for you!

 

Do you really want me to go out and get the hypo out of the trash, photograph it, find someplace to host the photo, and post it to this forum??

[+KBI]

I squeezed the ammo can into the stump-hole, creating corners in the dirt hole where there were no corners before. I then covered it with some natural forest debris that I found nearby. Would you call that a "buried" cache? Do you think that violates the spirit of the guidelines?

You left it vague. I would not consider what you just described to be a rules violation. But the way you worded your original message made it sound as if it is ok to modify existing depressions.

I was actually trying to avoid vagueness when I used the qualifier "ever so slightly." I only brought it up to make the same point Briansnat did – that just because something is underground, or just because the natural surface is modified, that does not mean the cache can necessarily be described as "buried."

 

You make a good point, however, that all such hides fall along a continuum somewhere between "sitting on top" and "buried beneath." Exactly where one crosses the line into violating the guidelines is a subjective matter, but I think most folks would draw that line in approximately the same place, and it sounds like you and I would tend to agree on the matter.

[vagabond]

OK so the cache was a mystery and not a regular cache, and maybe the difficulty should have been a 2, other then that I see no problem with the cache.

I read all the logs and didn't see where anyone complained about the cache

there were about 4 or 5 DNFs and one group came back and found it later.

If you keep caching you will hone your geosense's and be able to spot caches a lot easier'

Good luck on your future caches

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

So, what you're saying, is that dang near all the caches in Michigan right now, that aren't off the ground, are in violation?

Yeah, we've got a bit of snow.

I welcome new folks to the forums, we all do! This game is growing and for everyone, and so are these forums... but you gotta bring a better game than that!

 

It snowed so caches are buried?

 

Welcome to the boards, but don't expect to get far with arguments like that!

 

(Please note the big in the original - it's a JOKE!) ::sheesh::

 

I'm afraid I tend to have a bit of a sarcastic sense of humour sometimes.

 

I got it. Wasn't even all that sarcastic.

 

Do I complain to geocaching management? Do I post spoilers in my log? Do I bite my tongue, and shut up?

Do I go to the newspapers and proclaim geocachers as environmentally insensitive.

Do I quit geocaching, in frustration?

 

Regardless of whether you consider this cache taboo according to the guidelines, (most of us do not) these are some pretty extreme questions. Go to the newspapers? I was beginning to take you seriously.

[+bccruiser]

I know this may be a little off topic but...

 

Just relax. So what, you had one bad experience. Don't let it spoil your view of this great activity. Go out, find more, and I'll bet the good experiences will by far and away out number the bad.

 

Take care and Happy caching.

Bccruiser

[PutnamEco]

If it was JUST covered with leaves I wouldn't have said a thing. This cache was what I would call buried by leaves. If I knew that it was in a hole, I would not have said anything.

 

If you hide a cache and cover it with leaves, sticks, bark or stones, technically its buried, but it is perfectly fine. If however you were to dig a hole, set the cache in it and fill it in leaving only the lid showing, technically it is not buried, but it would not be allowed. The rule should really state "no digging".

 

 

No digging in dirt or leaves??

 

the cache is in a hole completely covered with leaves- nothing showing, whether the hole is natural or not I'll disregard for now, the only way I can see to find it is by digging through and or poking through the leaves with a pointy stick

 

If you believe that the cache is impacting the area you should express your concerns to the owner in your log. If you think the damage is severe enough (and by severe I don't mean some bent blades of grass and a few dislodged stones or logs), then you should log a "needs archived".

 

This is not by any stretch of the imagination an environmentally sensitive area.It may have been at on time, being wetlands, but with all the human encroachment. litter, and hobo encampments, and nearby highway. I do doubt it makes any difference any how.

 

However,if this had been in an environmentally sensitive area, I would have went ballistic, and I would have brought it to the attention of the proper authorities. I am involved with most major land management agencies in the area, in one way or another. As is, I'm happy to hash it out here, as to it's proper disposition.

 

I'm partly venting my frustration at having to search for this cache for so long. when I would have expected both a higher difficulty rating and or more details in the hint. A better hint would have considerably lessend the impact I had on the area. (spend 5-6 hours in any 50 square yard area searching and see if you don't have an impact, multiply this by the number of people that hunt and you'll begin to grasp the impact this is having on the area.)

 

I have a cache that was hidden in a natural depression and covered with bark. Over time dirt washed into the hole and filled it in around the cache, leaving an ammo box shaped hole when the cache is removed.

The casual observer would probably swear that the hold was dug to fit the cache, but it wasn't. Not saying that's what happened here, but you never know.

 

No, that description does not fit this hole, this hole has about 2 inches of clearance all around.

[PutnamEco]

I know this may be a little off topic but...

 

Just relax. So what, you had one bad experience. Don't let it spoil your view of this great activity. Go out, find more, and I'll bet the good experiences will by far and away out number the bad.

 

Take care and Happy caching.

Bccruiser

 

I am relaxing, this is fun isn't it?

 

I like to fix things, I had a bad experience, I don't want others to share. I'm trying to determine if this cache is broken, how badly if it is, what can be done to fix it, if I can be influential in its repair, whether it is worth my time, if anyone else cares, and to see how the community reacts, especially to a noob, to see if I want to continue with the hobby.and if geocaching is worth it for me to promote.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I am relaxing, this is fun isn't it?

If you call pushing people's button fun you appear to be having a ball

I like to fix things,

It ain't broke

I had a bad experience,

Hate that for you, really.

I don't want others to share.

They might like it.

I'm trying to determine if this cache is broken, how badly if it is, what can be done to fix it,

Nope, you've been told over and over it ain't broke, doesn't need fixing!

if I can be influential in its repair, whether it is worth my time,

Fixing broke caches is worth all our time.

if anyone else cares,

about answering your question? Yes. About arguing over it? No.

and to see how the community reacts, especially to a noob,

to see if I want to continue with the hobby.

Hope so

and if geocaching is worth it for me to promote.

More than you know!

[Neos2]

It's hard to tell much from here at my computer, but I will say this...First, I understand that you were frustrated by this cache. I don't think that is an unusual feeling for someone with your level of experience in this situation. We probably can all tell you a story about the first one that really got to us.

 

I live in a woodland area with "lots" of hides out in the boonies that are in natural depressions (trees, ground, between rocks, etc) covered with leaves (ivy, grape vines, other vines, sticks). My husband says that one of the most satisfying sounds in the world is the sound of a trekking pole clunking against an ammo can.

 

I don't think the cache was "broken" as you put it. It's a fairly trypical hide in some places. You could have found it if you had stepped on it (I found one just like it that way once) or if you had tapped it with a trekking pole. Pushing aside leaves is not the same thing as digging up shovel load of dirt.

 

The rating is about average for a cache like that in my area. Your area may vary. If many cachers log difficulty finding the cache, the rating may go up at some point.

 

However, I honestly think after you have a few more caches under your belt, a cache like this will not seem so challenging to you. The cache was not buried, it was covered with leaves. Some caches you will find will be covered with sticks, twigs, vines; other will be hidden under narrow rock clefts, in hollow trees, in bushes, between tree roots, etc. Most will have something to shield them from casual view, either good natural camouflage or an actual covering of some sort. I've even heard of people using mesh nets covered in camouflage to cover ammo cans so they blend in with the forest floor.

 

You will get better at looking around to see where a cache "could" be hidden. You will develop an intuitive sense of where to look. The caches will not take you so long to find. I'm sure you are concerned that it took you so long to find something that (in retrospect) doesn't seem so very hidden--trust me, there will be other times you will feel that way. Even after hundreds of finds I sometimes don't find a 'really easy cache' even after two or three attempts--while other people find it in thirty seconds! Even folks with thousands of finds sometimes run into a cache they just can't seem to turn up, no matter how they try. When I run into those kinds of caches, I make a reasonable search and then leave before I get frustrated. Usually I walk almost right to it the next time I look.

 

This is supposed to be fun and relaxing!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Maybe I defend this cache 'cause I have two just like it.

 

My now-archived Irondale Park Cache was exactly like it! (Behind a ball park - kids found it, after that it dissappeared every few weeks).

 

It was an ammo can in a natural hole covered with sticks and leaves - hard to find, even if you knew where it was! More than one person found it because their hiking stick hit it by accident!

 

My 'We'll Never Forget 9/11' sounds very much like the OP's cache. It's in a narrow cut through an old trestle bed, there is a small erosion creek through the cut, with a couple of 6" diameter sapling trees lying in the creekbed. There was a hole washed out under the trees. I stuck my gold 1k ammo box in the hole under the trees. Big whompin gold ammo box just dissappears because its color matches the tree trunks and clay of the hole so well...not covered with anything, it's right out in the open and can be seen from 20' away IF you know what to look for.

 

No telling how many calls I get for a clue - more can't find it than can.

 

It's close to the house, so when folks call for a clue I go up there and almost invariably they're standing on the cache!

 

Not buried, I altered nothing, you don't have to move a thing, just reach under the trees and grab it... I just used a hole and some fortunate tree cover the Lord left for me!

 

Still, I have had folks say "You can't bury a cache!"

 

I have another like this! The final of my Thunder Road multi is exactly like the OP's! An ammo can in a hole in the roots of a hollow tree, below ground level and covered with sticks and leaves.

 

Now you see why I said the OP's cache was fine!

 

Covered with sticks and leaves (or snow ) is not buried!

[+Michael]

I had a really tough time trying to find a cache. (2 DNFs 1 hunt for 1 hour, 1 for 2 hours, and then for about 3 hours working a very methodical search pattern, with a "pointy stick" to . coordinates where off. and hint was vague. and to add insult, was only rated 1 and a half "stars" ) It was an ammo can in a small depression completely covered with leaf litter.

 

Reviewing the rules, specifically

 

"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."

 

There was no way, that I could think of, short of breaking out a metal detector, to find this cache, without a "pointy stick"

then upon further investigation of the "rules" I came across,

 

"Please do not bury the container unless you have express permission of the landowner or manager. If the cache is far enough away from trafficked areas, your cache should be fine. An exception would be covering the cache with dead branches, bark, etc. to conceal the container."

 

I'm confused, What say you?

 

This cache has been reviewed by Groundspeak and is within the caching guidelines for the site. The method of hiding the cache is fine and acceptable. There is no need to be concerned. It is not buried by our standards. As far as Groundspeak is concerned it is simply covered. I hope this helps your confusion.

[+briansnat]

I know this may be a little off topic but...

 

Just relax. So what, you had one bad experience. Don't let it spoil your view of this great activity. Go out, find more, and I'll bet the good experiences will by far and away out number the bad.

 

Take care and Happy caching.

Bccruiser

 

I am relaxing, this is fun isn't it?

 

I like to fix things, I had a bad experience, I don't want others to share. I'm trying to determine if this cache is broken, how badly if it is, what can be done to fix it, if I can be influential in its repair, whether it is worth my time, if anyone else cares, and to see how the community reacts, especially to a noob, to see if I want to continue with the hobby.and if geocaching is worth it for me to promote.

 

If anything is wrong, it might be the rating of the cache. It probably should be a bit higher. In instances like that the accepted procedure is to mention your feelings in the log and move on. The owner can choose to accept your advice or not and subsequent geocachers will see your log and take note, whether or not the owner raises the difficulty.

 

You state that the area isn't sensitive, so there is no issue there either. If it was, then the accepted procedure is to contact the cache owner with your concern, or issue an SBA if the damage is particularly severe.

 

This community reacts very positvely to new geocachers who visit the forums with earnest questions and concerns. Those who make a mountain out of an anthill, nitpick, make threats about going to the newspaper to trash geocachers, engage in pedantry and wonder aloud whether this community is worthy of them can expect to encounter a less than warm welcome.

Edited March 3, 2007 by briansnat

[PutnamEco]

If you call pushing people's button fun you appear to be having a ball

 

Sorry if I "pushed anyones buttons" it was NOT my intent

 

Nope, you've been told over and over it ain't broke, doesn't need fixing!

 

Ok, It does seem to be the consensus that the cache is acceptable, I now know another hiding style of caches that I can look for and is acceptable.

 

I'm still on the fence if I will continue with this hobby, If I have to spend 5-6 hours searching for something that is rated a slightly harder than easy.

 

Could it be that maybe this cache is misrated??

 

Some of the logs of some people with a lot more experience finding caches would seem to concur.

 

Some of the logs

 

November 1, 2006 by SoCalifSue (1569 found)

Another great day of caching with Aggie32 and Van1928!

A whole lot of palm trees out there and this was our first cache for the day and the "geosense" had not kicked in......let me think if there are any other excusses I can come up with for not finding the cache! We'll be back!

 

December 2, 2006 by nolefans (331 found)

We have three TBs from Colorado to drop and we thought this would be a great place, but after searching the area for over 30 minutes, we didn't find the B&B. We tried all the coordinates on the page, including the change, turning over plenty of palm fronds and digging up leaves. Whoever hid it last did a great camo job.

 

December 21, 2006 by Jackie and Bob (2886 found)

Two men walking down the sidewalk disappear into the woods. A likely scenario when you consider they are geocaching. Hiddenrock found a place to park and we hoofed it over to the cache area. We wandered around for a few minutes when I decided to look at the cache page in my Pocket PC. Good thing I hadn't left it in the car. A quick entry of different coords, and a complete reading of the cache page and a different outlook on our search, turned up the well hidden ammo can. Ho Ho Hoooooo. Grabbed Grip it, rip it, etc. left Catie Bug, and signed the log. Didn't see the pretty lights, probably because it was too bright out, and Merry Xmas to you too. Thanks for the fun L & S.

Jackie and Bob

What a nice hide. Really tough.

Found while doing the North Florida Challenge Quest. This was our cache for Putnam county.

This was our 2nd to last for the NFC.

Thanks for the work. Swapped a TB.

 

I would also really appreciate some feed back on the "hint" for this cache. This cache was placed in an area with predominately palm trees. the Hint said it was

 

You will see three palm trees in a row. The cache is next to the middle palm tree

 

there where multiples of three palm trees in a row in this patch of palms. it was not at all clear. the coordinates led me to the wrong three palms in a row and I did spend considerable time searching in the wrong area. If the clue was a little more specific as to the location or type of palm trees that it was near, I would have suffered a lot less.

 

If the cacher had stated it was WELL camouflaged or hidden, I would not have hunted it, just yet. I went out of my way seeking easier caches, trying to get a feel for the game, before I moved on to more challenging caches.

 

Please be patient with the newbie, I'm trying to work out whether I have the problem or some part of the cache is the problem.

If it is me, and I'm going to be spending 5-6 hours searching for "easier" caches this is probably not a hobby I will be spending much more time with.

If it is not me, I would like to help rectify the situation, so other don't befall the same fate as I.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

I doubt I would have looked more than 30 miutes for a cache rated easy, if I didn't find it by then I would have left and searched for another one. When and if I returned at a later date I would have taken somebody else to help in the search, my brother in law is great at finding the tough ones, although he never logs online.

[Luckless]

I doubt I would spend 5-6 hours looking for a cache- just don't have that kind of patience or persistance. If I haven't found it in one hour after I'm at ground zero I'll take a DNF. I try to make caching more about the trip than about the cache by taking the time to explore the area and enjoy the out-of doors so that I'm not disappointed when I don't find the cache.

[+gof1]

Please be patient with the newbie,

No problem.

 

There is a bit of a learning curve involved.

As you get more practice you'll learn some of the tricks involved in hiding and finding caches. It is difficult to instruct you with all the little ins and outs on an international forum as different areas tend to have slightly differing styles and tactics. Practice makes perfect.

 

As for the cache in question, it seems that it may be under rated. Rating a cache may very well be the most difficult part of writing up the cache page. What is difficult for one is easy for another. It is just so subjective.

 

I would recommend two things to help you get started. First, as has been mentioned, limit the time you spend on one cache hunt. If you haven't found it in 20 or 30 minutes move on to another. As you get more experience you'll go back to some of the hides that gave you trouble and find that you can spot them allot faster. This is sometimes called the "DOH!" moment. I still have lots of these, lots and lots. Second, attend an event cache in your area. You'll get to meet the people who are caching in your area. They will be happy to meet you and pass on tips, tricks, and hints. It is my belief that the people involved are the best part of this activity.

 

Don't give up just yet. Once you get the hang of it, caching will take you to places you never knew about and introduce you to a bunch of great people.

[+Outspoken1]

In my brief experience of geocaching (only been at it 8 months), I have found some caches to be almost a "gimme" and others to be very challenging (don't even get me going about puzzle caches!). I have felt that buried would mean you need a shovel to dig up a large amount of dirt to find the cache. Almost (no pun intended) like a burial. That would not be a "fair" or legal cache.

 

A cache obscured by leaves, branches, rocks, limbs, etc. is part of the game. With practice, you learn to "read" a cache location. For instance, why is there just one big flat rock here? (Cache under rock.) Trees close together-cache probably in the evergreen tree instead of the tree that will loose it leaves in the winter. Branches laying in a general parallel pile? Coordinates in a park near bench or pavilion - cache probably magnetic. Cache in multi-level parking garage - cache will NOT be on the ground level!! See, geocaching has a learning curve.

 

I have also found that difficulty ratings can be a guide, but not always 100% true. You will read about experienced cachers with thousands of finds stumped on a 1.5. Sometimes a cacher will have to go back 2 or 3 or 5 times to find a cache. Every cache is a 3D puzzle--you are matching wits with your fellow cacher. Take a deep breath and enjoy. Take time to practice and learn. And,

 

Have fun,

Outspoken1

[+DrAwKwArD]

If it is me, and I'm going to be spending 5-6 hours searching for "easier" caches this is probably not a hobby I will be spending much more time with.

Thinking about giving it the ole' heave-ho are we? I can think of several puzzle caches that were rated quite low that I spent several hours trying to solve. Perhaps apples and oranges to you. But, I sure can remember how good it felt once the puzzle was solved. It was like solving a 5/5 to me! I certainly hope you've learned a lot from this find... and you're BY FAR the most persistent cacher I know.

[+MountainMudbug]

If you can't cover a regular sized cache with leafy-sticky debris to hide it, then it might as well be sitting in the middle of the parking lot with a "come steal me!" sign taped to the side.

You gotta be able to put something over the caches to keep the general public from seeing them, and to make them more fun/challenging to find. Brushing leaves around with your hands is a big difference from digging in the soil with an implement. A pirate would likely agree

 

Also, just because a cache is rated as easy doen't mean it will be automatically be easy for everyone who searches for it. The hider may rate it easier than it really is (in which case they will probably get comments in finders' logs that reflect that), or maybe your geo-senses are under the weather when you search that day, or maybe there happen to be bunches of people milling around near the hiding spot and you have to employ super stealth to get the cache (or leave and come back later).

 

Regarding difficulty ratings:

I can't count the number of caches pages where I've read logs from one person saying "geez it took me forever to find this" and the next finder says "too easy, found in less than a minute."

One of my own caches, a couple people recently logged something like: "we looked all over in all the possible spots, even lay down on the ground and looked, owner needs to check it out it must be gone".

Other cachers logged finds on that same cache in the same time-frame, with no problems.

So I went to check on it, and it was moved 5 feet over to the left of where it should be stashed. A very small distance, but for some cachers it made a 1 star cache into a 5 star difficulty!

 

A few things I try to remember about caching:

1) I don't HAVE to find this cache. My life will not be destroyed if I walk away. I may be ticked or upset when I don't find it, but I'll get over it. If not, I'll come back later if I'm in the mood to try again.

2) Just because I have trouble finding something doesn't mean everyone else is. My search method may be off on this type of cache. Maybe I'm "dense" or just don't get it. I'm not the ONLY one..... it happens to all of us.

3) If I start getting really mad on a search, I call it off. Move on to the next cache, or go home and think about it, or email for a few subtle hints. I try not to hunt angry. That is a fun killer for me. Not for everyone, though, some seem to be fueled by such feelings!

3) NEVER assume. It isn't always where you think it should be. Sometimes it is, though.

4) Don't ALWAYS blame the hider if you have a bad experience. Attitude has a lot to do with how much fun (or un-fun) you have. But sometimes you can blame them if it makes you feel better

5) Don't write your online logs if you're angry. Take a while to think about the caching experience from several viewpoints before you flame away. You might have actually had fun but were too mad at the time to realize it......

 

Good gravy, I'm gabby today

[+Dave_W6DPS]

 

... My chief complaint was not with the coordinates, but was with the fact that it was NOT mentioned that the cache was not "just" sitting on the ground but was below and completely covered.

I had read the rules quoted above and it was NOT what I expected, or was looking for...

 

 

I don't remember finding many caches "sitting on the ground". They are generally hidden in holes, depressions, under rocks or rock piles, in hollow trees, in/under bushes, etc. Covered with available material is definately common, and so is using a location that makes finding easier.

 

I have only hidden a couple that were "sitting on the ground"--and only well camo'd containers.

 

Travel bug hotels, in particular, are usually well camo'd to prevent accidental discovery.

 

This hide doesn't sound like it has any problems in the method of hide.

 

As for what you expected, you will find htat many cache hiders don't want you to know what to expect until you find it. That is part of the challenge. Generally, a more challenging hide will have a higher rating. The cache you've described sounds like a reasonably good 1.5 difficulty.

 

Aftr a few hundred finds, come revisit this thread, and see if your expectations have changed a bit...

 

Dave_W6DPS

[PutnamEco]

If you can't cover a regular sized cache with leafy-sticky debris to hide it, then it might as well be sitting in the middle of the parking lot with a "come steal me!" sign taped to the side.

You gotta be able to put something over the caches to keep the general public from seeing them, and to make them more fun/challenging to find. Brushing leaves around with your hands is a big difference from digging in the soil with an implement. A pirate would likely agree

 

 

The method of camouflage employed by this cache would have been effective, in the right parking lot (I hope I'm not giving you all any ideas ) if it was in the parking lot the hint given would have been along the lines of " it is next to a flat spot"

 

See above quoted logs for some of the more experienced cachers opinions. Even they where calling it "tough" and "well camo'ed"

 

 

As for what you expected, you will find that many cache hiders don't want you to know what to expect until you find it. That is part of the challenge. Generally, a more challenging hide will have a higher rating. The cache you've described sounds like a reasonably good 1.5 difficulty.

 

 

If I'm going to have to continue to turn cache areas into something resembling swiss cheese, to try and find a covered hole by systematically poking the ground in a six inch grid pattern, for a 1.5 rated cache. I think I'm looking for another hobby.

 

In my OPINION it should have been given either the extra star rating or a little better hint. Something along the lines of what kind of or size of, three palms in a row it was near, or a better location of the palms, like three palms in a row near the canal.(remember there are a lot of palms in the area). If it did have a higher difficulty rating I would not have searched for it until I had gained more experience, If the hint was of a higher quality( more specific) I would have needed considerablely less time to find it.

[+Renegade Knight]

I had a really tough time trying to find a cache. (2 DNFs 1 hunt for 1 hour, 1 for 2 hours, and then for about 3 hours working a very methodical search pattern, with a "pointy stick" to . coordinates where off. and hint was vague. and to add insult, was only rated 1 and a half "stars" ) It was an ammo can in a small depression completely covered with leaf litter....

 

Cache sounds fine. Those hides can be a real PITA to find. That's why I use a pointy stick to poke the leaf litter until it clanks on a cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

...If I'm going to have to continue to turn cache areas into something resembling swiss cheese, to try and find a covered hole by systematically poking the ground in a six inch grid pattern, for a 1.5 rated cache. I think I'm looking for another hobby....

 

When you are not having fun, go to the next cache. You will stop having fun on the cache long before you map out your grid.

[+DrAwKwArD]

 

See above quoted logs for some of the more experienced cachers opinions. Even they where calling it "tough" and "well camo'ed"

I don't see any of the "more experienced" ones talking about quitting because of the type of hide. In fact, none of the logs seem to come close to that. Why don't you take the advice given and let it chill for a time!

Edited March 3, 2007 by cache-n-dash

[+briansnat]

If I'm going to have to continue to turn cache areas into something resembling swiss cheese, to try and find a covered hole by systematically poking the ground in a six inch grid pattern, for a 1.5 rated cache. I think I'm looking for another hobby.

 

 

There are over 2,000 caches in your region and you're obsessing over a single cache that appears to be rated wrong. I don't get it. Maybe you should find another hobby. Just don't try golf.

Edited March 3, 2007 by briansnat

[+JDandDD]

I'd advise against giving up the game on this kind of experience. When we started out it took easily 2-3 times longer to find caches than it does now. We started to learn what to look for. Now we can spot depressions, stones oddly placed, branches that were oddly arranged, etc. etc. A lot of caches that we thought then were cleverly hidden we now realize are just pretty typical and we can spot them as we walk up to the site. That's one of the good things about the sport for us, it taught us to observe the nature around us.

 

Its interesting now to take newbies out with us and watch how they work a site. We are usually standing around knowing where the cache likely is (usually it is) while they are crashing all over the place and looking in all kinds of strange spots. After a bit we show them where we think it is and then when we find it we explain why we thought it was there.

 

The point is, as somebody else said here, there is a lot of learning to do and it makes you feel better about yourself when you get good at it. As well, when we have trouble with a cache, we limit ourselves in time and go off somewhere else. When we return, we often find the trouble cache right away. Clearing the head helps because you often keep looking over and over at the same spots without truly taking a fresh look and thereby overlooking the real obvious spot.

 

JD

[Neos2]

If I'm going to have to continue to turn cache areas into something resembling swiss cheese, to try and find a covered hole by systematically poking the ground in a six inch grid pattern, for a 1.5 rated cache. I think I'm looking for another hobby.

 

In my OPINION it should have been given either the extra star rating or a little better hint. ... If it did have a higher difficulty rating I would not have searched for it until I had gained more experience, If the hint was of a higher quality( more specific) I would have needed considerablely less time to find it.

When you talk like that I get this picture of you rampaging through the area stabbing viciously at every nook and cranny with a giant stick, cursing loudly, scaring small bunnies out of their burrows and causing birds into startled flight Are you a natural type-A personality by any chance? We are all trying to be encouraging here, but honestly, you might be over-reacting just a little bit. (I say that as nicely and sweetly as I can, truely!).

 

Even the easy caches are going to be more difficult when you just start out--you need to take that into consideration. There is a learning curve. Every cache you hunt makes you better. I'd say the first 20 were the hardest for me, but it really wasn't until I passed about 100 that I really felt I was getting prety good at this stuff.

 

All caches are going to take you longer to find when you first start out than they will later in your caching career. Our first attempts to find even 1/1 caches might have taken us an hour at each spot. I've been back to some of them with other people, and they compare to caches I can find in under 5 minutes now.

 

Trust us, you won't see this entire event the same way even 30 caches from now. Why not just back off this topic entirely, go find some more caches, and then think about this one again. If you still feel the same way, email the owner with your concerns and let them handle it. You do want to hold off on that note to avoid creating hard feelings in your caching community. No one appreciates the new kid trying to tell everyone else how it "ought" to be done!

 

If you find that every cache makes you feel this way, perhaps geocaching really isn't for you. I am betting that won't be the case. You have already shown that you really enjoy the hunt, thinking about the problem in alternate ways, and approaching the idea from multiple angles. All good caching skills.

[PutnamEco]

If I'm going to have to continue to turn cache areas into something resembling swiss cheese, to try and find a covered hole by systematically poking the ground in a six inch grid pattern, for a 1.5 rated cache. I think I'm looking for another hobby.

 

 

There are over 2,000 caches in your region and you're obsessing over a single cache that appears to be rated wrong. I don't get it. Maybe you should find another hobby. Just don't try golf.

 

I'm not obsessing, I'm spending a rainy day pursuing one of my hobbies,internet forums. I'm also trying to decide if geocacheing is a hobby I wish to take part in. And if geocachers are people I would like to invite to use an underutilezed area of my county.

I'm also involved with a wilderness navigation course, and am wondering if geocaching should be a part of it.

 

I'm an environmentalist, I don't like the impact that golf courses have on the planet, therefore I don't support golf(extreme croquet is a lot more fun anyhow). I don't feel that this is an appropriate forum to discus the whole golf course thing. So I won't.

[+Moore9KSUcats]

This last summer a cache appeared, so I dashed out to try to be FTF. At the cache site, I found another cacher had already arrived. She hadn't found it yet, so we combined efforts. After about 45 minutes, we gave up. (BTW... both of us are experienced cachers with several years under our belts, and have hidden and found many caches.) We looked all over, at what we thought were logical hides. One thing that confounded the problem is that there is a large cliff (about 40 ft high?) on one side, and some tree cover, so the satellite coverage wasn't the best.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

 

I went back to that cache a couple of times, with no luck. My son and I even got stung by wasps for our effort! We went back with a new GPSr a bit later (SIRF chip), and as hubby walked up the trail, he mentioned "It zeroes out right here". We probably spent another 45 minutes looking for the darn thing! Just about now, we are muttering under our breath about the hider, (she has hidden some real devious caches in our area) and thinking about heading home once again. I happened to look at just the right angle and spotted it down in a small hollow between some large boulders! Whew!!!! I hadn't noticed that little hollow before.

 

Now that hollow is hidden entirely by leaves.... I'm glad I'm not searching for it now.

 

Anyway, some are real tough, and require several trips to find. Was the one you were searching accurately rated? I don't know.... sometimes we turn a 1 star difficulty hide into a 3 star search! We just go on, and enjoy the outing we had. Sometimes we have found that we have touched the cache (or its covering) in our search. There are just those kind of days!

 

Malia