cache container paritally buried

June 5, 2007

We have a cache in which the container is partially buried (actually only the lid is above ground). Someone has written to us stating that the rules say that they are off limit if burried. and 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 approptiate.

A trowel was used to originally place the container, but all geocachers have to due is remove the lid and pull out the bag. no digging is required.

Is this an acceptable geocache?

We thought this rule was to avoid people going around digging, not that you couldn't dig to place a cache. We have seen several like ours during our travels.

4k · June 5, 2007

That is not allowed. Guidelines are here.

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

June 5, 2007

There was some ultimate cache I read about, no link right now I'll look, where one of the possible steps was to enter a sewer grate, that's underground. I'm not exactly sure how the rules are interpreted as by TPTB.

Edit: Speeling

Edited June 5, 2007 by stepshep

4k · June 5, 2007

There was some ultimate cache I read about, no link right now I'll look, where one of the possible steps was to enter a sewer grate, that's underground. I'm not exactly sure how the rules are interpreted as by TPTB.

Edit: Speeling

But if you didn't need a pointy object to place it or find it then it would be OK.

Also you edited for spelling but then you spelled spelling wrong.

6.4k · June 5, 2007

We have a cache in which the container is partially buried (actually only the lid is above ground). Someone has written to us stating that the rules say that they are off limit if burried. and 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 approptiate.

A trowel was used to originally place the container, but all geocachers have to due is remove the lid and pull out the bag. no digging is required.

Is this an acceptable geocache?

We thought this rule was to avoid people going around digging, not that you couldn't dig to place a cache. We have seen several like ours during our travels.

Seems like you've already posted the answer.............

14.3k · June 5, 2007

We have a cache in which the container is partially buried (actually only the lid is above ground). Someone has written to us stating that the rules say that they are off limit if burried. and 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 approptiate.
A trowel was used to originally place the container, but all geocachers have to due is remove the lid and pull out the bag. no digging is required.

Is this an acceptable geocache?

We thought this rule was to avoid people going around digging, not that you couldn't dig to place a cache. We have seen several like ours during our travels.

Just curious, did you check a box that said:

Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache.

when you submitted this cache?

4k · June 5, 2007

Just curious, did you check a box that said:

Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache.

when you submitted this cache?

In all fairness, who does that?

14.3k · June 5, 2007

Just curious, did you check a box that said:

Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache.

when you submitted this cache?

In all fairness, who does that?

This is why I was supporting a guideline quiz....

June 5, 2007

Thanks for your answers.

Yes we did read the rules, but interpretted them to be that you weren't place a cache that required other geocachers to dig in order to find the cache. We have seen other caches like this as well. Our mistake.

We will archive the cache and come up with a new location and/or container.

June 5, 2007

personally, i think its fine, they dont have to dig to find it, and you said yourself that you used a dowle, NOT a pointy object. really your cache is fine, many people do this all over the place, i'm not saying its ok because everybody else does it, but its technically not wrong. so, congrats on a cool hide and keep it up!

June 5, 2007

There was some ultimate cache I read about, no link right now I'll look, where one of the possible steps was to enter a sewer grate, that's underground. I'm not exactly sure how the rules are interpreted as by TPTB.

Edit: Speeling

But if you didn't need a pointy object to place it or find it then it would be OK.

Also you edited for spelling but then you spelled spelling wrong.

That's the whole idea.

1.5k · June 5, 2007

As long as the person seeking the cache does not have to dig to obtain the cache then it is ok

....then again...

a 5/5 does say you require special equipment to obtain the cache.....just ponder that...

14.3k · June 5, 2007

personally, i think its fine, they dont have to dig to find it, and you said yourself that you used a dowle, NOT a pointy object. really your cache is fine, many people do this all over the place, i'm not saying its ok because everybody else does it, but its technically not wrong. so, congrats on a cool hide and keep it up!

Again this is why I support a guideline quiz....

"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."

"A trowel was used to originally place the container"

Edited June 5, 2007 by TrailGators

4k · June 5, 2007

As long as the person seeking the cache does not have to dig to obtain the cache then it is ok

Maybe ok to you, but not according to the guidelines.

June 5, 2007

Not directed at anyone..

If the soil in my area is soft or sandy enough for me to dig a hole with my hands and place my cache exactly like the OP is that an OK hide?

1.5k · June 5, 2007

As long as the person seeking the cache does not have to dig to obtain the cache then it is ok

Maybe ok to you, but not according to the guidelines.

Well I am not going to turn this into a debate on guidelines vs rules but the final decision comes to that local reviewer. If enough people have issues with the way a particular cache is hidden then they need to contact their local reviewer and not flame on here.

4k · June 5, 2007

Well I am not going to turn this into a debate on guidelines vs rules but the final decision comes to that local reviewer. If enough people have issues with the way a particular cache is hidden then they need to contact their local reviewer and not flame on here.

This is true, but simply put if the hider told the reviewer the method used to hide the cache the reviewer would be obligated to not publish it if it violated the guidelines.

Just because some are out there, doesn't make it ok.

38.2k · June 5, 2007

personally, i think its fine, they dont have to dig to find it, and you said yourself that you used a dowle, NOT a pointy object. really your cache is fine, many people do this all over the place, i'm not saying its ok because everybody else does it, but its technically not wrong. so, congrats on a cool hide and keep it up!

If he dug a hole to hide the cache is is a guideline violation. Everybody doesn't do it. I've seen one in over 500 finds.

Caches such as this one endanger our sport. Whenever we are negotiating with land managers to get them to allow geocaching in their parks, one of their first concerns is that we are digging holes to hide the caches. We quickly dispel that misconception by assuring them that it is not allowed.

All we need is for one land manager or park employee to visit one of these rogue caches and we'll likely see a geocaching ban in that park system. If its a state park system, or US Forest Service lands we can be screwed big time.

Maybe you think it's a cool hide, but I enjoy geocaching and want to see it remain legal.

Edited June 5, 2007 by briansnat

1.5k · June 5, 2007

I'll be happy to support whatever it takes to ban the use of sprinker heads as caches

June 5, 2007

Just because some are out there, doesn't make it ok.

Many caches may have been 'grandfathered': they were placed according to the version of the Guidelines at the time of publication. And there is no precedent for placing caches.

38.2k · June 5, 2007

As long as the person seeking the cache does not have to dig to obtain the cache then it is ok

Maybe ok to you, but not according to the guidelines.

Well I am not going to turn this into a debate on guidelines vs rules but the final decision comes to that local reviewer. If enough people have issues with the way a particular cache is hidden then they need to contact their local reviewer and not flame on here.

Correcting misinformation is not a flame.

It's important that we discuss these issues here so people who have misconceptions regarding the guidelines might learn something. At least 3 posters in this thread were not aware of, or misinterpreted the guideline regarding buried caches.

1.5k · June 5, 2007

Honest question:: The guidelines as a whole were modfied recently, was this part of the guideline updated as part of that?

If we are going to start pointing out one kind of cache is llegal and should be archived then to be fair a discussion needs to be held on all other types of caches that are currently published that should not be...I don't think any of us want that though....

the OP had a great question and I think their best course is to talk to their local reviewer since this thread has, can, and most likely will be derailed more and more as it continues.

June 5, 2007

How about starting with magnetic hide a key caches hidden on guardrails less than 5 feet from the road?

14.3k · June 5, 2007

As long as the person seeking the cache does not have to dig to obtain the cache then it is ok

Maybe ok to you, but not according to the guidelines.

Well I am not going to turn this into a debate on guidelines vs rules but the final decision comes to that local reviewer. If enough people have issues with the way a particular cache is hidden then they need to contact their local reviewer and not flame on here.

Correcting misinformation is not a flame.

It's important that we discuss these issues here so people who have misconceptions regarding the guidelines might learn something. At least 3 posters in this thread were not aware of, or misinterpreted the guideline regarding buried caches.

I agree. This is perhaps the most beneficial purpose of these threads. I think there are a lot of people that don't understand the guidelines or the reasoning behind them.

1.5k · June 5, 2007

I agree, however, the best place to turn to answers is that particual areas reviewer.

38.2k · June 5, 2007

Honest question:: The guidelines as a whole were modfied recently, was this part of the guideline updated as part of that?

No. It's been a part of the guidelines since I can remember.

June 5, 2007

First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement, so I must do nothin'. And secondly, you must be a cacher for the Cacher's Code to apply, and you're not. And thirdly, the Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Forums, Miss Turner.

But seriously:

"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."

Can't be more clear than that.

Edited June 5, 2007 by DoctorWho

14.3k · June 5, 2007

I agree, however, the best place to turn to answers is that particual areas reviewer.

In this case, the guideline was clear. It even had the word "trowel" in the guideline. Reviewers would not typically know if a cache was buried or not so this is a guideline that all hiders must understand. I think Brian's explanation explained it very well.

Edited June 5, 2007 by TrailGators

1.5k · June 5, 2007

Then if a person has issue with a cache contact the owner....in this case a simple honest question was asked and the little pebble was pushed down hill and was last seen a a giant bolder chasing Carolina Smith

21.9k · June 5, 2007

The November 2003 update to the Guidelines was the first with which I was involved as a reviewer and technical editor/drafter. You can see it here, courtesy of the Wayback Machine.

Note that the language is pretty much the same:

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.

6.7k · June 5, 2007

Honest question:: The guidelines as a whole were modfied recently, was this part of the guideline updated as part of that?

If we are going to start pointing out one kind of cache is llegal and should be archived then to be fair a discussion needs to be held on all other types of caches that are currently published that should not be...I don't think any of us want that though....

the OP had a great question and I think their best course is to talk to their local reviewer since this thread has, can, and most likely will be derailed more and more as it continues.

The guidelines are what the guidelines are on the day the listing is submitted; what they used to be is irrelevant.

"Grandfathering' things which once were legal but now are not is a well-understood concept.

The OP admits using a trowel to dig the hole, an illegal method of hiding under the guidelines at the time the listing was published (Based on their join date).

So to the question, "Is this an acceptable geocache? " the answer is no.

24.7k · June 5, 2007

...Is this an acceptable geocache? ...

If you own the land yourself. Yes.

If you have permission from the land manager. Yes.

If you have it in something like sand on a beach. Probably Yes.

If you don't fit one of the viable exceptions. No.

June 5, 2007

WAIT! If you own the land then that guideline is null and void?!?!?

4k · June 5, 2007

I agree, however, the best place to turn to answers is that particual areas reviewer.

Keystone is my local reviewer. He gave the answer that everyone has pretty much been saying all along.

1.5k · June 5, 2007

Well I guess the OP should request this be locked since the question has been answered before the boulder gets any bigger

21.9k · June 5, 2007

WAIT! If you own the land then that guideline is null and void?!?!?

No.

4k · June 5, 2007

Well I guess the OP should request this be locked since the question has been answered before the boulder gets any bigger

No way. Locked threads are bad news. Why stifle a good thread? Maybe a new cacher will find this thread and then have a question about this issue. It would be better to ask here rather than start a new thread.

24.7k · June 5, 2007

WAIT! If you own the land then that guideline is null and void?!?!?

Like Keystone said. The guideline isn't null and void but you can give yourself permission and submit your listing. Maybe things have changed and now it's no buried, no exectpoins, even if you own the land.

14.3k · June 5, 2007

WAIT! If you own the land then that guideline is null and void?!?!?

Like Keystone said. The guideline isn't null and void but you can give yourself permission and submit your listing. Maybe things have changed and now it's no buried, no exceptions, even if you own the land.

I didn't know that either. Maybe it's because it might confuse some into thinking that it's OK to bury a cache. So they'll go out and bury one somewhere else... Edited June 5, 2007 by TrailGators

18.9k · June 5, 2007

For the reasons that Briansnat stated - most ALL buried caches set a bad precedent whether on your own land or not - just my opinion. Really soft shifty sandy soil pushed up againist a cache (by hand) is the only real exception I can see. Never should be below grade totally - encourages bad searching practices.

It is good to discuss the hows and whys of things from time-to-time.

38.2k · June 5, 2007

WAIT! If you own the land then that guideline is null and void?!?!?

As I understand it, if you own the land you can rent a steam shovel to bury the cache.

Your reviewer may however try to talk you out of it. It's a bad precedent. Someone may come along

and find it and not realize that you own the land, then try to duplicate the hide.

There are so many possible legit ways of hiding a cache that burying one is taking the easy way out.

3.2k · June 5, 2007

I've seen caches placed in holes that occurred naturally when rocks or trees were moved by natural forces. The cache was then covered with sticks, bark, logs, etc. No person dug the hole but the cache was placed in a hole and ended up looking as though it had been 'buried". Sometimes you have to take it on faith that the person hiding the cache didn't dig a hole for it. One could make a case that a "fake sprinkler" that was shoved into the ground violates the "burying" guideline. It might technically do so. I don't really know.

Burying a cache is a somewhat slippery idea to wrap yourself around. While most folks seem to intrinsicaly understand what is allowed and what is not allowed there will always be those folks who either don't understand the difference or pretend not to understand or simply don't care. One can only hope that most folks will conform to the guidelines. Other than that you really have no control over what others do.

1k · June 5, 2007

I have a cache that is hidden like the one you are asking about.

I emailed a moderator about it and told them explicitly that it was in a hole dug by a shovel, but the fact is it wasn't dug for the cache, it was for a totally different reason and it wasn't even me who dug it. I simply took advantage of an existing hole and it was approved and published.

5.3k · June 5, 2007

Just curious, did you check a box that said:

Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache.

when you submitted this cache?

In all fairness, who does that?

I have read the guidlines several times, they get changed once in a while. i have seen lots of illegal caches in the past year in N. Cal. It seams like every time I spend a day geocaching I find a cache the violates the guide lines. I havebeen known to post a Should Be Archived note.Of course that gets the locals ticked off.

I found one buried cache that was found by a cache reviewer, it still has not be archived. What kind of a message is that sending out.

June 5, 2007

We have a cache in which the container is partially buried (actually only the lid is above ground). Someone has written to us stating that the rules say that they are off limit if burried. and 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 approptiate.

A trowel was used to originally place the container, but all geocachers have to due is remove the lid and pull out the bag. no digging is required.

Is this an acceptable geocache?

We thought this rule was to avoid people going around digging, not that you couldn't dig to place a cache. We have seen several like ours during our travels.

Thanks for your answers.

Yes we did read the rules, but interpretted them to be that you weren't place a cache that required other geocachers to dig in order to find the cache. We have seen other caches like this as well. Our mistake.

We will archive the cache and come up with a new location and/or container.

I have a cache that is hidden like the one you are asking about.

I emailed a moderator about it and told them explicitly that it was in a hole dug by a shovel, but the fact is it wasn't dug for the cache, it was for a totally different reason and it wasn't even me who dug it. I simply took advantage of an existing hole and it was approved and published.

I have a similar one:

GC10FKE. My landlady was all for it and even had fun watching the first few come through. It too is a stepping stone covering the cache. The stupid is, the person who complained the most about it was the FTF and she didn't bother to complain until months later because of another cache my husband and I placed.

I figure the guidelines need some bending. If you can put a cache up a tree so that you need someone agile to climb it to retrieve it, or in a remote control sub and sink it in a lake, or need a PADI ticket, or require the finder to use extra equipment like canoes or climbing gear, I figure something under a stone that is marked with something that shows it is a geocache should be just as legal. Not everyone has access or the ability to do every cache that is out there.

What shouldn't be legal is if the finders have to use a shovel to find it, especially if its on land you rent or own outright. But to ban them outright, then you should ban all the others that aren't simply a "walk up to the cache and find it." My goal as a hider is to hide caches that are easy for children to find, no higher than two metres off the ground unless there is a way to retrieve it without climbing and nothing smaller than a key hider so that there will always be room to hide something in it other than the log.

June 5, 2007

Caches such as this one endanger our sport. Whenever we are negotiating with land managers to get them to allow geocaching in their parks, one of their first concerns is that we are digging holes to hide the caches. We quickly dispel that misconception by assuring them that it is not allowed.

All we need is for one land manager or park employee to visit one of these rogue caches and we'll likely see a geocaching ban in that park system. If its a state park system, or US Forest Service lands we can be screwed big time.

I'm for a partially buried cache(More specifically like Dave Ulmer's original stash),but as for totally buried,no.Brian raises a good point though,because I am for [partially] buried caches,but they could get out of hand quickly.I have privately owned land as well as my own land to do this on,but some folks don't...then you'd see holes poping up all over our public lands,geo trash issues,geocaching forbidden/illegal/prohibited signs and notices everywhere.

All it takes is one to screw it up,just like anything else.It's also the same reson we can't ride wheelers on dirt roads in my town.I know how to be resonsible...then again some others don't.So the rest of us have to suffer because of it.So I suppose it's better for the bigger picture.My life won't end because I can't bury a cache or ride a wheeler on my dirt roads.

9.3k · June 5, 2007

Get a rounded trowel. You'll be fine. No "pointy" things involved.

4k · June 5, 2007

I have read the guidlines several times, they get changed once in a while. i have seen lots of illegal caches in the past year in N. Cal. It seams like every time I spend a day geocaching I find a cache the violates the guide lines. I havebeen known to post a Should Be Archived note.Of course that gets the locals ticked off.

I found one buried cache that was found by a cache reviewer, it still has not be archived. What kind of a message is that sending out.

Puts you in a difficult spot. Report it so as to possibly not cause problems for geocaching in general and tick off the locals that you have to deal with often. I hate it.

38.2k · June 5, 2007

I figure the guidelines need some bending. If you can put a cache up a tree so that you need someone agile to climb it to retrieve it, or in a remote control sub and sink it in a lake, or need a PADI ticket, or require the finder to use extra equipment like canoes or climbing gear, I figure something under a stone that is marked with something that shows it is a geocache should be just as legal. Not everyone has access or the ability to do every cache that is out there.

What shouldn't be legal is if the finders have to use a shovel to find it, especially if its on land you rent or own outright. But to ban them outright, then you should ban all the others that aren't simply a "walk up to the cache and find it." My goal as a hider is to hide caches that are easy for children to find, no higher than two metres off the ground unless there is a way to retrieve it without climbing and nothing smaller than a key hider so that there will always be room to hide something in it other than the log.

The point of the guideline has nothing to do with the ease or difficulty of finding the caches. It's because most land managers do not want us digging up the parks. It is irrelevant whether the digging is done to hide or find the cache.

Since that is the point of the guideline is to prevent digging, it's easy to figure out which hides are OK and which are violations.

For example, I have a cache that was placed in an existing depression and covered with bark and stones. Is it buried? Technically yes. But is it a guideline violation? No.

Now if I had dug a hole for the container, leaving the lid exposed. Is it buried? Technically no. Is it a guideline violation? Absolutely.

It all comes down to this. Did you have to dig a hole to place the cache? If yes, it is a violation. If no, then it probably isn't.

It doesn't matter if you're "for partially buried caches". It doesn't matter if you "personally, think its fine". It doesn't matter that you've seen others like that. It doesn't matter that Dave Ulmer's original stash was partially buried. It is a guideline violation period.

Edited June 5, 2007 by briansnat

June 5, 2007

Interesting disscussion. One of my first finds was buried in a hole with a flat rock over it. Found it when it was stepped on and heard a hollow sound. I am not going to go back and log it as a DNF cause it was illegal. I think most people are smart enough to know you don't dig in state and federal lands. As far as the sandy soil and digging with your hands.... don't use your "pointy finger AKA index finger to dig. Please only use your thumb, middle, ring, and pinky fingers.. thank you

cache container paritally buried

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment