Define "Buried"

[the federation]

I am a local live right here in Palatka, have found this cache and may others in the area as well as hid many in the area. I know the cache owner personally and would love to talk to you with any concerns you may have about this cache or other land management issues you may have in this area. As the president of the local caching organization we are actively working with a number of land management groups and individuals so we would to like talk to you about your experience. I will pm you my number so we can talk.

The Federation

President

Northeast Florida Geocachers Assoc.

[M15a4spr]

I'm confused, What say you?

 

nobody likes a tattle tail

[Keystone]

TPTB only replied on the buried or not issue, Not the rating or hint issue.

That's right, because buried caches are a listing guidelines issue. Ratings are only an advisory issue -- reviewers may recommend that hiders re-visit one star terrain ratings to think about whether they're handicapped accessible, or to ensure that caches requiring special equipment are accurately rated at five stars. But we don't get involved in between those two extremes, because it's an art, not a science. Similarly, hints are pretty much owned by the cache hider, who is in charge of their listing so long as it meets the Guidelines. The most that reviewers ever do is to give advice on "worthless hints" like "this is too easy for a hint."

 

Maybe it might be time for a "policy" on hints??

Highly unlikely, except for as noted above. From prior forum threads, there is some sentiment to have reviewers "police" useless hints. I cannot recall *any* discussion prior to this thread about requiring giveaway hints, or whatever it is that you're asking.

 

There is, however, a policy on cache maintenance and environmental damage. A reviewer sometimes gets involved when there are repeated complaints about an ill-placed cache that is damaging the environment. This does not sound like such a cache.

 

Probably the best advice in this thread is to work with the local geocaching groups who know about cache hiding standards that work best in your local environment. I would take up The Federation on his kind offer from a few posts up. He is familiar with this cache and knows his stuff.

[+AlohaMatt]

Quick question based on this topic:

 

Is it considered ok to pile rocks up to cover a tupperware size cache?

 

Thanks

 

Aloha

[+Moore9KSUcats]

Quick question based on this topic:

 

Is it considered ok to pile rocks up to cover a tupperware size cache?

 

Thanks

 

Aloha

 

That is the standard in some places. If you see the letters, "URP", you know to look for an 'Unnatural Rock Pile." Around here, hiding a cache under a URP is pretty standard. We just hid one in a large space between the roots of a tree and put a rock on top. It hides it very well, and most people wouldn't give it a second glance!

 

On the other hand, sometimes you can use a "NRP" or Natural Rock Pile. We did that on a cache, and the letters have confused some newer geocachers. It is hidden in a natural opening under a LARGE (think ginormous) boulder near some cliffs. There is a small cave-like area under the boulder, hidden by another boulder, and tucked up under the two boulders in a corner, and hidden by a few rocks. That one has been a challenge to find.

[+geomann1]

As far as things being covered. In my opinion, a well placed cache or cache location should be evident by an observant geocacher at land surface. I'm not talking about neon lights and fluorescent paint arrows, but there should be some subtle clue to its presence, or where it could possibly be.

 

On the contrary a poor cache would be covered so that there is no evidence of its presence and the only way to find it is to turn over every rock or leaf. For example, hiding a cache under mulch is a poor cache if one has to weeps away or proble through the entire mulch bed to find it.

 

My preference, which I am using in most of my camo-ed hides, is to try to come up with some camo so that the cache is right in front of you, and you may not notice it, at least not at first.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

I think the problem is that "covered" sometimes looks like "buried". We found one last year by total luck and would probably never find it's like in another situation. We're on top of mountain more or less and we're doing a phone friend halfway across the U.S. for help when I said to Fox "watch us be right on top of it" and he says "oh sure" while laughing and kicks a little 4 by 5 inch piece of slate aside to reveal the corner of an ammo can! Sometimes luck is where you find it It turned out there was a perfectly good hole that could be "covered" with two small hand sized pieces of stone and it was affectively "buried" without breaking the rules. Oh, well, we got the smiley

[+Wadcutter]

The next time we have a big snow like the 18" we had a few weeks ago I'm going to hide a cache in my driveway and then call putnameco to come dig it out since it's buried and he doesn't want covered caches.

Edited March 6, 2007 by Wadcutter

[Neos2]

Quick question based on this topic:

 

Is it considered ok to pile rocks up to cover a tupperware size cache?

 

Thanks

 

Aloha

One of the caches I am most proud of having found before my husband was cleverly hidden. Large tree roots in an old-growth forest and the last few remnants of a natural rock outcrop combined to make a perfect spot to slip a thin ammo can down flat against the ground. There was a thin layer of leaves on top the can/roots/rocks. We had looked for at least a half an hour when I just barely caught a glimpse of "Summer green ammo can camouflage pattern" peeking out from under brown/rust/gold Fall leaves on the ground. And I mean just barely peeking out!

 

I had walked over that very spot at least ten times in the search. The way the rocks and roots were spaced, I wouldn't have even felt or heard the ammo can by stepping on it (that's how I found one can somewhere else). I *might* have gotten lucky and eventually tapped the ammo can with a trekking pole...maybe.

 

The only problem with having to pile rocks on a container to cover it is you have to count on everyone else covering it the same way you did to keep the camouflage effect going. Some people are not very artistic about their re-covering job. I've found many caches more easily than I should have because the folks there before me weren't very good at re-hiding.

[+debtodd007]

After you have a few more finds, you gain a certain appreciation for ratings and how wrong the can be for you.

 

In our area, their is one individual who is always posting 1 to 1.5 stars that stump us, but not others. Our mind just doesn't think like his. We just add 2 stars to his caches because they are clever and always seem obvious after we find them. He's bad karma for us, so we actually seek his caches out.

 

Just enjoy the hunt. As for GPS there can be a great deal of variability, older units are less accurate. Try to approach the area for several directions and you'll be able to triangle in on a area to search. This is especially true if there are sudden elevataion changes in the area. Look are your error estimation; doubling that will give you a search zone. My caches' you can walk right up to, others are so clever you can be touching them and not realize you holding the cache in your hand.

[+redyak1]

Geeze Louize - its in a hole.....covered with leaves.....get over it