Sage One

[+Krieger]

Hello To All Geocachers,

 

A little over two years ago, I placed Sage One in Bureau of Land Management land just south of Carson City, NV. It is an ammo can placed in a wooden encasement that has a wooden cover. I used my hands to put this wooden encasement into the ground, leaving the top fully exposed to view. A geocacher finding this hide has only to lift the cover and extract the ammo can, make the log entry, trade goodies, replace the can into the wooen box and replace the cover. Additionally, the cache is covered with a few dead wood sticks and small stones taken from within a few feet of the hide.

 

One geocaher in the past two years has complained about how this cache hidden resulting in my cache being archived. If you view the logs for Sage One you will find nothing but praise for Sage One with one exception.

 

I'm at the start of the appeal process and the basis of that appeal is that this cache is not truly "buried" in the literal sense since it is exposed to view and doesn't require disturbing the ground to get to it.

 

I'm open for criticism, support, or questions.

 

Thanks,

 

Krieger

[+Miragee]

Welcome to the Forums!

 

I feel your pain. I found a cleverly-hidden cache in Colorado. From all the logs, it was a cache enjoyed by everyone who found it, and well-maintained by its owner.

 

However, someone "turned it in" and it was Archived by Groundspeak.

 

It was in a beautiful area on BLM land which was overrun by cattle doing more damage to the environment than this little cache hidden under a rock . . . but someone didn't like it.

 

I don't know what recourse you have other than rehiding the ammo can in the "traditional" way under a bush or an artificial pile of rocks . . .

[+uxorious]

There are a couple caches I've found that were "boxes" buried so you just lift the lid to find the cache. Reading the logs, I can see most people have enjoyed them as much as I have. As long as no one complains they will continue to live on.

 

However, I suppose if someone complained the caches would most likely be archived.

 

I would never complain about a cache being outside the guidelines, unless it was obvious the cache was a problem as envisioned when the guideline was set up.

[+fishingdude720]

I have had the same sort of thing. One person complaining ruins it for everyone. I had good reviews too.

[+Miragee]

If that "one person" comes here, they would have the opportunity to "turn in" a lot of caches . . . I sure hope that doesn't happen.

 

One of them, hidden just ike the OP's, is on many "Favorite Cache" Bookmark lists.

[+LostMontanan]

I'd take pictures of the cache in various stages of lid removal, etc and email them to the reviewer...perhaps a photo along with a bunch of happy cachers logs would persuade the reviewer to reconsider.

[+Kit Fox]

Hello To All Geocachers,

 

A little over two years ago, I placed Sage One in Bureau of Land Management land just south of Carson City, NV. It is an ammo can placed in a wooden encasement that has a wooden cover. I used my hands to put this wooden encasement into the ground, leaving the top fully exposed to view. A geocacher finding this hide has only to lift the cover and extract the ammo can, make the log entry, trade goodies, replace the can into the wooen box and replace the cover. Additionally, the cache is covered with a few dead wood sticks and small stones taken from within a few feet of the hide.

 

One geocaher in the past two years has complained about how this cache hidden resulting in my cache being archived. If you view the logs for Sage One you will find nothing but praise for Sage One with one exception.

 

I'm at the start of the appeal process and the basis of that appeal is that this cache is not truly "buried" in the literal sense since it is exposed to view and doesn't require disturbing the ground to get to it.

 

I'm open for criticism, support, or questions.

 

Thanks,

 

Krieger

 

I'm pretty sure that "one person" was a reviewer, and he found your cache with another reviewer "Moose Mob."

 

Your cache broke the rules, and you finally got caught, deal with it. Next time don't bury your caches.

[+LostMontanan]

 

I'm pretty sure that "one person" was a reviewer, and he found your cache with another reviewer "Moose Mob."

 

Your cache broke the rules, and you finally got caught, deal with it. Next time don't bury your caches.

 

[Motorcycle_Mama]

You admit that you dug a hole in order to place the cache. That's not allowed regardless of whether digging is required to find the cache.

[Luckless]

I wonder how many people believe that if they don't have to "unbury" a cache each time it is retrieved then it isn't buried.

I believe making a hole in the ground where there wasn't already one, even if you only use your hands to scoop out dirt, is open to reviewer determination as to whether it constitutes digging or burying. That would apply to both burying the cache container or a container with a lid to hold the cache container. You'll have to convince the reviewers.

[+iQueMan]

Being a longtime friend of Krieger as well as being present when his Sage One cache was placed, I am obviously biased on the matter.

 

However, I must ask the question - Why is it that it only takes one complaint to ruin the sport for everyone else? The complainer, in this case, has well over 4000 finds of his own and has apparently made Geocaching his life after retiring and buying an rv to roam around the country in search of caches. As has been said by many, sometimes folks have too much time on their hands and begin looking for problems... In my humble opinion, I would think it would be more appropriate, if one does find a questionable cache placement, to contact the owner directly to discuss it with them before posting derogatory comments in the cache logs or contacting a cache reviewer. Only after having discussed it with the owner and coming to no amenable solution or understanding, should one contact the reviewer. Even then, placing a negative comment in the log such as was done in this case would not be appropriate. Negative comments serve no purpose and only tend to drag down a very positive sport that is to be enjoyed by all cachers.

 

The open desert here in northern Nevada in mostly soft sand that gets blown around by the winds. There are no trees, only sage brush in the area. Thus, placing/hiding a cache that will withstand the harsh elements can be a difficult task. Placing the container in a shallow hole, dug by hand, is by no means damaging to the local environment. Within a few days one would be very hard pressed to identify any disturbance due to the shifting sands. In fact, the act of driving an off-road vehicle over these areas does much more damage than any cache placement could ever do. In the case of Sage One, if one were to place rocks in a pile to cover up the cache container, you would have to "import" the rocks and it would stand out like a sore thumb because there aren't any rocks in the immediate area. I also contend that by piling up rocks you are merely "burying" the cache above ground anyway so what is the difference between the two methods of camoflage?

 

Happy caching to all!

iQueMan - Minden, Nevada

[+TrailGators]

You admit that you dug a hole in order to place the cache. That's not allowed regardless of whether digging is required to find the cache.

I'm sure there could be exceptions to the rule but they set a bad example. People ignorantly imitate what they find even if an exception has been made. Making exceptions is a slippery slope for this reason. Finally, there really doesn't need to be an exception for this guideline because we all know that caches can be hidden without needing to bury them.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

The open desert here in northern Nevada in mostly soft sand that gets blown around by the winds. There are no trees, only sage brush in the area. Thus, placing/hiding a cache that will withstand the harsh elements can be a difficult task. Placing the container in a shallow hole, dug by hand, is by no means damaging to the local environment. Within a few days one would be very hard pressed to identify any disturbance due to the shifting sands.

<snip>

As I stated, there is one here hidden exactly that way, and it has been found by lots of people who really enjoy it. I hope the cacher you mention doesn't come here and find it . . .

 

As to your other points, I agree with you. The cache I found in Colorado was a great one, hidden near some cool rock formations, and it certainly had no impact on the environment. Piling up some rocks to hide it would have done more aesthetic damage because that would have been unnatural. The simple hide the cache owner employed was perfect for the area.

 

On the other hand, I have found some buried, five-gallon bucket caches I wouldn't mind seeing Archived . . . but I certainly wouldn't turn them in . . .

[+Knight2000]

If it is against guidelines i agree with the archival. Lots of caches could be great- but if they don't follow guidelines then it potentially threatens the game.

 

If it seemed buried and was on land in a park or land like BLM i would have most likely reported it.

 

The main issue i think is that when geocachers are trying to get permission to use land especially in parks, the land managers want to be sure that the area will not be disturbed more than normal. Burying a cache would disturb the area too much.

 

If burying was allowed i think many park systems would no longer allow caches on their land.

 

Whether or not we agree or disagree, the guidelines need to be followed IMO.

[+Mopar]

I'm pretty sure that "one person" was a reviewer, and he found your cache with another reviewer "Moose Mob."

 

Your cache broke the rules, and you finally got caught, deal with it. Next time don't bury your caches.

Yup, looks like your reviewer and another reviewer both found your cache. Since the one guy is probably the one that listed your cache in the first place, you probably aren't going to get anywhere appealing it.

The rules says not to bury your cache. Period. It doesn't say "burying the cache is ok if the finders don't have to dig for it".

Years ago a cache like yours was found by a National Parks Service ranger. Next thing you know, they banned ALL geocaches in National Parks because one guy buried a cache "just a little".

If your cache had been found by a BLM ranger instead of 2 cache reviewers, we might be discussing the archiving of thousands of BLM caches due to a new ban on them instead of just discussing yours.

 

It's funny. Some people seem to think the cache reviewers sit in some basement in Seattle looking at cache pages. They don't understand the cache reviewer who you lied to by checking off when you submitted the cache that you agreed to follow the guidelines is probably also one of the people in your state with thousands of finds. Eventually s/he is going to find your cache too and find out you lied to them.

[+Kit Fox]

Being a longtime friend of Krieger as well as being present when his Sage One cache was placed, I am obviously biased on the matter.

 

However, I must ask the question - Why is it that it only takes one complaint to ruin the sport for everyone else? The complainer, in this case, has well over 4000 finds of his own and has apparently made Geocaching his life after retiring and buying an rv to roam around the country in search of caches. As has been said by many, sometimes folks have too much time on their hands and begin looking for problems... In my humble opinion, I would think it would be more appropriate, if one does find a questionable cache placement, to contact the owner directly to discuss it with them before posting derogatory comments in the cache logs or contacting a cache reviewer. Only after having discussed it with the owner and coming to no amenable solution or understanding, should one contact the reviewer. Even then, placing a negative comment in the log such as was done in this case would not be appropriate. Negative comments serve no purpose and only tend to drag down a very positive sport that is to be enjoyed by all cachers.

 

The person who you refer to is a reviewer.

 

Imagine that the "one person" is a Land Manager, and he discovers the new cache in his jursidicition. He finds out that the cache is buried, then decides to ban all caches in his jurisdiction. You would probably blame the land manager, rather then the geocacher who knowingly broke the guidelines.

 

The open desert here in northern Nevada in mostly soft sand that gets blown around by the winds. There are no trees, only sage brush in the area. Thus, placing/hiding a cache that will withstand the harsh elements can be a difficult task. Placing the container in a shallow hole, dug by hand, is by no means damaging to the local environment. Within a few days one would be very hard pressed to identify any disturbance due to the shifting sands. In fact, the act of driving an off-road vehicle over these areas does much more damage than any cache placement could ever do. In the case of Sage One, if one were to place rocks in a pile to cover up the cache container, you would have to "import" the rocks and it would stand out like a sore thumb because there aren't any rocks in the immediate area. I also contend that by piling up rocks you are merely "burying" the cache above ground anyway so what is the difference between the two methods of camoflage?

 

Happy caching to all!

iQueMan - Minden, Nevada

 

That is beside the point.

[mtbikernate]

Just to play devil's advocate...in the majority of cases, land management agencies ENCOURAGE folks to dig holes to bury human waste (and even dog waste). Some areas have other rules, but simple BLM land most likely falls under the 'bury it' rule. So if hikers are ENCOURAGED to bury waste, then how come geocachers are prohibited from employing a hide method such as this that is still in plain view (totally buried caches that require a metal detector do not seem to be in the spirit of the game, though).

 

Now I do understand that it's easier to enforce a blanket restriction on digging/burying than to enforce it on a case-by-case basis (obviously the local county or township park would prefer NOBODY dig holes, and probably fine you for doing so, but the nearby national forest or state game lands might have a different philosophy), but by having such a blanket restriction, I think we might be missing out on some cool, creative hides in areas where they might otherwise be permitted.

[+sTeamTraen]

My understanding of the spirit of the burying rule is to prevent seekers turning up with shovels and turning over a huge area.

 

The wooden-box-in-the-ground technique is very widely used in the Netherlands and Northern Belgium, where the ground is typically very flat and also sandy. It violates one part of the burying rule, in that a hole had to be dug to place the cache, but the seeker does not have to dig and the cache does not get covered with sand/dirt. In fact the cache is not, I would suggest, "buried", but it would fun to see a couple of lawyers duke it out.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

The wooden-box-in-the-ground technique is very widely used in the Netherlands and Northern Belgium, where the ground is typically very flat and also sandy. It violates one part of the burying rule, in that a hole had to be dug to place the cache, but the seeker does not have to dig and the cache does not get covered with sand/dirt. In fact the cache is not, I would suggest, "buried", but it would fun to see a couple of lawyers duke it out.

That is interesting to know . . . One cache here is just like the ones you describe. The one in Colorado was a short piece of PVC pipe in the ground with the small cache container fitted inside it, with a rock resting on top of that. There was absolutely no disturbance to the environment, but it sure was a cool hide, in a cool location. I was sad when it was archived . . .

[+Mopar]

Gee, how timely.

Parks dept for some reason thinks we bury caches and bans geocaching.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=167904

[+Isonzo Karst]

Spirit? of the burying rule? there isn't a spirit. It's a flat prohibition on burying caches, "...whether in order to hide or to find the cache...."

 

Groundspeak has a lot of experience with land managers. This is the distilled wisdom of that interaction.

[+flask]

the rule used to be that it was considered burying if you used a shovel.

then it was any pointy tool.

or blunt tool.

or even you hand.

 

why? people were stretching it. land managers were more uptight about it. if it were still a small anonymous group of players, it's be a non-issue. if everyone in the world was familiar with it, it's be a non-issue.

 

it's the in-between part where people are still deciding how to proceed that's tricky.

[+gnbrotz]

I'm at the start of the appeal process and the basis of that appeal is that this cache is not truly "buried" in the literal sense since it is exposed to view and doesn't require disturbing the ground to get to it.

 

Hmm...my septic tank access lid is at ground level and the tank can be accessed without disturbing the ground to get to it. Does that mean the tank isn't buried in my yard? Don't think so.

 

IMO, the proper way to go about this type of hide would be to obtain clear permission from the local BLM manager and document to your reviewer that 'manager John Smith has given me permission to hide this cache in this manner' during the cache submission process. This might be listable. Some guidelines have flexibility. As I understand things, explicit permission from the land owner for a buried cache may be acceptable (though certainly not encouraged).

 

I would never complain about a cache being outside the guidelines, unless it was obvious the cache was a problem as envisioned when the guideline was set up.

 

I have had the same sort of thing. One person complaining ruins it for everyone. I had good reviews too.

 

If that "one person" comes here, they would have the opportunity to "turn in" a lot of caches . . . I sure hope that doesn't happen.

 

In my book, when situations like this cast a bad light on geocaching, finders who were aware of a problem cache but ignored it share the same burden of responsibility as the hider who created the issue in the first place.

[+gnbrotz]

However, I must ask the question - Why is it that it only takes one complaint to ruin the sport for everyone else?

 

Because once the issue is brought to the attention of the website, they are obliged to address it.

 

The complainer, in this case, has well over 4000 finds of his own and has apparently made Geocaching his life after retiring and buying an rv to roam around the country in search of caches. As has been said by many, sometimes folks have too much time on their hands and begin looking for problems...

 

I suspect the same action would have been taken whether the person who reported it had 1 find or 4000, and whether or not they were a site reviewer (as it should be).

 

In my humble opinion, I would think it would be more appropriate, if one does find a questionable cache placement, to contact the owner directly to discuss it with them before posting derogatory comments in the cache logs or contacting a cache reviewer. Only after having discussed it with the owner and coming to no amenable solution or understanding, should one contact the reviewer.

 

So people really shouldn't bother paying attention to caches which violate the guidelines, but if they decided to, they should be willing to work it out between themselves and the hider? Often times this approach is met with a reply along the lines of "You have no authority to question my cache hide". Report it directly to a reviewer, or post an SBA if it's really serious and let the 'proper' folks handle the situation based on the directives they receive from Groundspeak.

 

The open desert here in northern Nevada in mostly soft sand that gets blown around by the winds. There are no trees, only sage brush in the area. Thus, placing/hiding a cache that will withstand the harsh elements can be a difficult task.

 

No excuse to ignore the guidelines.

 

Placing the container in a shallow hole, dug by hand, is by no means damaging to the local environment.

 

That's not the issue.

 

Within a few days one would be very hard pressed to identify any disturbance due to the shifting sands.

 

Then place the cache on level ground and let the 'shifting sands' do the burying.

 

In fact, the act of driving an off-road vehicle over these areas does much more damage than any cache placement could ever do.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Edited July 8, 2007 by gnbrotz

[+Knight2000]

In my book, when situations like this cast a bad light on geocaching, finders who were aware of a problem cache but ignored it share the same burden of responsibility as the hider who created the issue in the first place.

That is an excellent point. I doubt that most geocachers would agree though. (I certainly do though.)

[+Miragee]

There is no way I will "turn in" the local buried caches when I know the cachers who placed them. Some of these people have been caching a lot longer than I have and are respected in the local caching community.

 

I'll leave the snitching to some out-of-towner.

[+briansnat]

However, I must ask the question - Why is it that it only takes one complaint to ruin the sport for everyone else?

 

All it takes is one buried cache to ruin the sport for everyone else. It was an early buried cache that sparked the NPS ban on geocaching.

 

One complaint and one less illegal cache doesn't "ruin the sport for everyone".

[+John Wayne Pooch]

google search on "define bury" resulted...

Bury \Bur"y\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Buried; p. pr. & vb. n. Burying.]

 

[OE. burien, birien, berien, AS. byrgan; akin to beorgan to protect, OHG. bergan, G. bergen, Icel. bjarga, Sw. berga, Dan. bierge, Goth. ba['i]rgan. [root]95. Cf. Burrow.]

 

1. To cover out of sight, either by heaping something over, or by placing within something, as earth, etc.; to conceal by covering; to hide; as, to bury coals in ashes; to bury the face in the hands.

 

I guess 90% of the caches here in the Phoenix metro area need to be archived. I guess the only thing we'll have left are the micros everyone seems to hate. Oh yeah that's right, everyone seems to want those archived too. I guess we have come to the end of geocaching. I guess i'll have to use my GPSr for routing me to addresses.

Edited July 9, 2007 by JDubPooch

[+Knight2000]

Before saying something I would contact the hider to obtain more info first. It could be a misunderstanding. If they fail to reply to clear things up then you might consider doing more.

[+briansnat]

google search on "define bury" resulted...

Bury \Bur"y\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Buried; p. pr. & vb. n. Burying.]

 

[OE. burien, birien, berien, AS. byrgan; akin to beorgan to protect, OHG. bergan, G. bergen, Icel. bjarga, Sw. berga, Dan. bierge, Goth. ba['i]rgan. [root]95. Cf. Burrow.]

 

1. To cover out of sight, either by heaping something over, or by placing within something, as earth, etc.; to conceal by covering; to hide; as, to bury coals in ashes; to bury the face in the hands.

 

I guess 90% of the caches here in the Phoenix metro area need to be archived. I guess the only thing we'll have left are the micros everyone seems to hate.

 

Technically if you cover your container with rocks it is buried and technically if you dig a hole and leave the lid exposed it is not buried. The first hide is Ok but the second is a guideline violation. The issue is digging

 

It's simple:

 

Did you dig a hole to hide the cache? If yes, go to archive.

[+John Wayne Pooch]

google search on "define bury" resulted...

Bury \Bur"y\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Buried; p. pr. & vb. n. Burying.]

 

[OE. burien, birien, berien, AS. byrgan; akin to beorgan to protect, OHG. bergan, G. bergen, Icel. bjarga, Sw. berga, Dan. bierge, Goth. ba['i]rgan. [root]95. Cf. Burrow.]

 

1. To cover out of sight, either by heaping something over, or by placing within something, as earth, etc.; to conceal by covering; to hide; as, to bury coals in ashes; to bury the face in the hands.

 

I guess 90% of the caches here in the Phoenix metro area need to be archived. I guess the only thing we'll have left are the micros everyone seems to hate.

 

Technically if you cover your container with rocks it is buried and technically if you dig a hole and leave the lid exposed it is not buried. The first hide is Ok but the second is a guideline violation. The issue is digging

 

It's simple:

 

Did you dig a hole to hide the cache? If yes, go to archive.

 

I understand what you are saying and upon further review of the guidelines I think I may have found a loop hole. How about blasting a hole with a water canon? It's no a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to dig and it's not technically digging a hole.

[+Miragee]

google search on "define bury" resulted...

Bury \Bur"y\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Buried; p. pr. & vb. n. Burying.]

 

[OE. burien, birien, berien, AS. byrgan; akin to beorgan to protect, OHG. bergan, G. bergen, Icel. bjarga, Sw. berga, Dan. bierge, Goth. ba['i]rgan. [root]95. Cf. Burrow.]

 

1. To cover out of sight, either by heaping something over, or by placing within something, as earth, etc.; to conceal by covering; to hide; as, to bury coals in ashes; to bury the face in the hands.

 

I guess 90% of the caches here in the Phoenix metro area need to be archived. I guess the only thing we'll have left are the micros everyone seems to hate.

Technically if you cover your container with rocks it is buried and technically if you dig a hole and leave the lid exposed it is not buried. The first hide is Ok but the second is a guideline violation. The issue is digging

 

It's simple:

 

Did you dig a hole to hide the cache? If yes, go to archive.

The cache I found in Colorado could have been hidden in a naturally-occuring hole, like one you get if you remove an odd-shaped rock. The hole wasn't very deep, so it is very possible the cache hider did not use any sort of tool. He just put the short piece of PVC pipe in the hole left by removing a rock, filled in around it, put the cache container inside the PVC, and rested a rock over the top.

 

I doubt anyone asked him before Archiving the cache however . . .

[+Rockin Roddy]

geez...it's against the rules already! Get over it! Trying to find a way around the rules surely won't help.

[Blue_Stone]

geez...it's against the rules already! Get over it! Trying to find a way around the rules surely won't help.

 

I dont think its about anyone trying to break the rules...I think its about "interpretation" of the rules.

 

And when did they become RULES?...i thought they were "GUIDELINES"...

Edited July 9, 2007 by Blue_stone

[+briansnat]

geez...it's against the rules already! Get over it! Trying to find a way around the rules surely won't help.

 

I dont think its about anyone trying to break the rules...I think its about "interpretation" of the rules.

 

And when did they become RULES?...i thought they were "GUIDELINES"...

 

No interpretation needed. It's a simple question, did he dig a hole to place the cache? If yes, illegal.

 

I doubt anyone asked him before Archiving the cache however . . .

 

Do you think if a park ranger found it he would have asked the owner how he did it?

Edited July 9, 2007 by briansnat

[+Rockin Roddy]

the post looking for "loopholes" is where that was aimed BS...

 

rules, guidelines...pretty much the same aren't they? BUT, just in case anyone will get hung up on definitions...sorry, I meant guidelines

[+Knight2000]

The cache I found in Colorado could have been hidden in a naturally-occuring hole, like one you get if you remove an odd-shaped rock. The hole wasn't very deep, so it is very possible the cache hider did not use any sort of tool. He just put the short piece of PVC pipe in the hole left by removing a rock, filled in around it, put the cache container inside the PVC, and rested a rock over the top.

 

I doubt anyone asked him before Archiving the cache however . . .

That is why it would be good to contact the owner before reporting. Great example.

[+Miragee]

geez...it's against the rules already! Get over it! Trying to find a way around the rules surely won't help.

I dont think its about anyone trying to break the rules...I think its about "interpretation" of the rules.

 

And when did they become RULES?...i thought they were "GUIDELINES"...

No interpretation needed. It's a simple question, did he dig a hole to place the cache? If yes, illegal.

 

I doubt anyone asked him before Archiving the cache however . . .

Do you think if a park ranger found it he would have asked the owner how he did it?

This is overgrazed, cow-poop dotted BLM land 1/2 mile from the highway. There are no Park Rangers.

 

I didn't have anything "invested" in this particular cache other than the fact that it was on my "Memorable Cache" list. There are so many mind-numbingly "lame" cache placements, and then a really-cool one, in a location with outstanding rock formations. gets Archived.

[+John Wayne Pooch]

1 cacher's log "5:10pm The location of the cache was obvious with the hint(although there are many big trees). However, the container was not in plain sight when we found the right tree. Had to do a little digging. TFTC T: N L: earplugs"

 

Another cacher's log "This one was also frozen in place and took about 10 minutes to extract from the hidey-hole."

 

By some of these logs it sounds as if this cache is buried or a hole was dug to hide it. If you are a reviewer, would you archive this cache judging by the cache logs?

Edited July 9, 2007 by JDubPooch

[Blue_Stone]

 

No interpretation needed. It's a simple question, did he dig a hole to place the cache? If yes, illegal.

 

 

That wasnt aimed at the OP...Yes, I agree and accept that digging with a pointy object is not acceptable...

 

I'm talking about the grey area where a hider comes across an already existing depression, and utilizes it.

[Blue_Stone]

1 cacher's log "5:10pm The location of the cache was obvious with the hint(although there are many big trees). However, the container was not in plain sight when we found the right tree. Had to do a little digging. TFTC T: N L: earplugs"

 

Another cacher's log "This one was also frozen in place and took about 10 minutes to extract from the hidey-hole."

 

By some of these logs it sounds as if this cache is buried or a hole was dug to hide it. If you are a reviewer, would you archive this cache judging by the cache logs?

 

Not those logs.

cache could have been placed in a dead tree or log. water or even just snow could have frozen it in its "hole" in the tree or log, or between rocks, etc.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I'm pretty sure that "one person" was a reviewer, and he found your cache with another reviewer "Moose Mob."

Your cache broke the rules, and you finally got caught, deal with it. Next time don't bury your caches.

I agree. No buried caches, with very rare exceptions where explicit permission was garnered from the land manager/owner and the reviewer has concurred and granted a special exception. I have found a number of buried caches, in a number of states, where only the cap, lid or top is exposed (and so no excavation is expected nor required), but my personal preference is that they should disappear quietly (i.e, be archived as relics left over from an ancient and archaic era of geocaching, unless they meet the special exception conditions which I referenced above.

[+Knight2000]

I have had to caches that required digging like that. (Although very superficial.)

 

I had contacted the hider previously alerting them of a possible problem (not regarding the burying) and they ignored my email. Then when we did find the cache which required digging through lots of mulch we wrote about it in our log. They responded by encrypting our log.

 

It really irritated us. The cache is at walmart and no doubt placed without permission. We could have posted a SBA but we didnt.

 

I don't think walmart would like knowing that people have to rummage through their mulch to find caches.

 

We shouldn't have done it probably. But we knew it was buried from speaking to previous cachers. The only way to find it was to move all the mulch around.

 

What can you do though? The hider has over 1,000 finds and it would just get everyones panties in a wad.

[marnen]

What can you do though? The hider has over 1,000 finds and it would just get everyones panties in a wad.

Who cares how many finds the hider has? If it violates the rules, then it violates the rules, no matter the number of smilies after the hider's name.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I have had to caches that required digging like that. (Although very superficial.)

 

I had contacted the hider previously alerting them of a possible problem (not regarding the burying) and they ignored my email. Then when we did find the cache which required digging through lots of mulch we wrote about it in our log. They responded by encrypting our log.

 

It really irritated us. The cache is at walmart and no doubt placed without permission. We could have posted a SBA but we didnt.

 

I don't think walmart would like knowing that people have to rummage through their mulch to find caches.

 

We shouldn't have done it probably. But we knew it was buried from speaking to previous cachers. The only way to find it was to move all the mulch around.

 

What can you do though? The hider has over 1,000 finds and it would just get everyones panties in a wad.

 

Dunno. I've given up tying to be the cache police. (Except for my own caches.) I'll leave that job to you.

But then again, I've had problems trying to figure out what you are trying to say with your tagline

PRIVATE PROPERTY n. land not owned by the government or dedicated to public use.

It seems some people don't understand this definition. Please play by the rules.

[+tozainamboku]

The no digging rule (it should be a no digging rule not a a no burying rule since caches can be buried under a pile of rocks or sticks) has become the sacred cow of the geocaching reviewers. In the past, reviewers knew enough to understand the purpose of the rule was to be able to tell land managers that wanted to ban geocaches that no holes would be dug in their parks for either hiding or or searching for a geocache. Reviewers understood that out in the desert or sometimes in a remote forest area a partially buried cache was a lot of fun and probably appropriate. As has been mentioned, backpackers are sometimes encouraged to dig holes to bury human waste when in these areas. Many of these areas allow holes to be dug for any variety of reasons - though these may require a permit. But the reviewer community feels that geocachers are too dumb to understand the reason for the guideline and to be able to tell if digging is appropriate or not. A blanket rule of 'no digging - ever" is easier to explain to us dumb geocachers. So now reviewers will immediately archive what used to be considered a perfectly good cache. I wish we had some common sense in applying the guidelines but it seems that ain't going to happen. Whether it makes sense or not, if you have a cache partially buried in the ground, you need to prove that you had permission to dig or that the hole you used was pre-existing. And base on some comments I've seen recently even that might not be good enough.

 

BTW, I have proof that the skirt on this lamppost was not bolted down before I placee the cache under it.

[+Knight2000]

But then again, I've had problems trying to figure out what you are trying to say with your tagline

PRIVATE PROPERTY n. land not owned by the government or dedicated to public use.

It seems some people don't understand this definition. Please play by the rules.

Some people place caches on private property without permission. It endangers future cache finders in numerous ways.

 

Placing a cache on private property without permission is against the guidelines. I hate it when people don't play by the rules.

[+Knight2000]

What can you do though? The hider has over 1,000 finds and it would just get everyones panties in a wad.

Who cares how many finds the hider has? If it violates the rules, then it violates the rules, no matter the number of smilies after the hider's name.

This is true. Chances are they have friends. You get one upset, you get them all upset.

[+briansnat]

The no digging rule (it should be a no digging rule not a a no burying rule since caches can be buried under a pile of rocks or sticks) has become the sacred cow of the geocaching reviewers. In the past, reviewers knew enough to understand the purpose of the rule was to be able to tell land managers that wanted to ban geocaches that no holes would be dug in their parks for either hiding or or searching for a geocache.

 

You nailed it right there. Usually the first concern land managers voice when you discuss geocaching with them is that we will be digging holes and burying caches. It's a perception that we've been fighting for years. Many of us cringe every time we read a newspaper article or see a TV report about geocaching that mentions "buried treasure".

 

The best way to fight this perception in the media and with land managers is to state emphatically that geocaches are not buried. Not "Well they are sometimes buried, but only up to the lid" or "They are usually not buried, but if someone uses a water jet create a depression" or "They aren't buried unless....".

 

This guideline wasn't created because Jeremy and the gang were sitting around the office bored and looking for ways to restrict geocaching. There is a real concern among land managers that we're going to be wandering their parks, pick and shovel in hand. If the link Mopar provided earlier isn't proof enough, then I don't know what more to tell ya.

[+CacheDrone]

Guidelines get longer when players continue to act in ways that are detrimental to the activity. If players used this so-called 'common sense' then the guidelines would not have been created.

 

Thank you for giving me something worthy of spending my first ever forum post as a volunteer Groundspeak reviewer to post about.