Sage One

[+Knight2000]

Someone made the suggestion that I post a picture of the hide. Go to GCNPR1 for a looksee and then tell me if I violated the existing "guideline" two years ago.

If the Mopar picture is accurate and we found the cache pictured, i would most likely contact the hider.

 

It surely looks in violation to me although i do not know what the guidelines were when placed.

 

What is the only reason i care? I dont want some hides (that are outside the guidelines) to affect all future hides. Thats it.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Someone made the suggestion that I post a picture of the hide. Go to GCNPR1 for a looksee and then tell me if I violated the existing "guideline" two years ago.

 

Yup.

 

The open desert here in northern Nevada in mostly soft sand that gets blown around by the winds.

I am not seeing a lot of lose sand Maybe it all blew away

 

It's nice to have creative cachers like Kreiger out there.

What is so creative about digging a hole?

 

If I had seen that I would have posted a SBA

Edited July 11, 2007 by JohnnyVegas

[+Krieger]

Well, Gentlemen,

 

I becomes clear to me that those of you who oppose my hide do so based on your own personal view of the guideline addressing digging or burying. I believe that the guideline was originally intended to prevent people from totally disturbing an area. That's point one. Point two is for those of you who supported me. We are working the words in our favor, however, as Miragee stated in one his replies, only the word "digging" was used and revised later to include the use of tools. The forum on rewording of that Guideline is going in another forum. I see that some of you are already participating in that one. Good.

 

With regard to the restrictions attributed to the Arizona BLM; it seems each of the offices across the U.S. take their broad direction from Washington D.C., but are given latitude to manage their own area of responsibility. in suppoort of this statement, go to the BLM Website and search for Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-092. The Carson City office of BLM has stated to me that there is nothing wrong with my hide.

 

Lastly, I would think that a group of people who persue a sport as complex as this one would not reduce themselves to personal attacks. One of the replies was especially egregious. I can only hope that maturity and good manners would win out over sensationlism and self-agrandisment.

 

So, for those of you who supported my view, thank you. And to those of you presented dissenting views, I thank you also for stimulating a healthy discussion.

 

My next step is to the appeal process.

 

With that I bid you all adieu.

[+briansnat]

I becomes clear to me that those of you who oppose my hide do so based on your own personal view of the guideline addressing digging or burying. I believe that the guideline was originally intended to prevent people from totally disturbing an area. That's point one.

 

You're already wrong with point one. The guideline was written to address the concerns of land managers about our digging to hide caches.

[+Knight2000]

If the cache in question is GCNPR1, then how long was it like this?

 

111 finds

0 SBA's

[+Knight2000]

I becomes clear to me that those of you who oppose my hide do so based on your own personal view of the guideline addressing digging or burying. I believe that the guideline was originally intended to prevent people from totally disturbing an area. That's point one.

 

You're already wrong with point one. The guideline was written to address the concerns of land managers about our digging to hide caches.

That is exactly why i care. People would be awfully mad if land managers started banning caches.

 

Give up 1 good hide or give up thousands?

[+briansnat]

I becomes clear to me that those of you who oppose my hide do so based on your own personal view of the guideline addressing digging or burying. I believe that the guideline was originally intended to prevent people from totally disturbing an area. That's point one.

 

You're already wrong with point one. The guideline was written to address the concerns of land managers about our digging to hide caches.

That is exactly why i care. People would be awfully mad if land managers started banning caches.

 

Give up 1 good hide or give up thousands?

 

A point that way too many people just aren't getting.

[+TrailGators]

I becomes clear to me that those of you who oppose my hide do so based on your own personal view of the guideline addressing digging or burying. I believe that the guideline was originally intended to prevent people from totally disturbing an area. That's point one.

 

You're already wrong with point one. The guideline was written to address the concerns of land managers about our digging to hide caches.

That is exactly why i care. People would be awfully mad if land managers started banning caches.

 

Give up 1 good hide or give up thousands?

A point that way too many people just aren't getting.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

[+jahoadi and john]

Just read through all of this thread and re-read (for at least the 137th time) the guidlines (guielines, not rules and regulations). Wow, you all have given the owner of this cache and the Volunteer reviewers something to go on and the rest of us something to think about. Here is my input:

 

1. When placing a cache and submitting the information for approval, the guidlines offer the opportunity to address any situation that may be in conflict with them.

 

2. If the owner of the cache does this (and it sounds like they now have some information to support their cause) and the reviewer accepts it, then the cache should stand. If the owner does not appease the reviewer, then it should be archieved (just let it go at that point).

 

3. The two reviewers in this case were doing the correct thing by addressing this particular cache (the guidlines tell all of us to do just that, but some of us don't.)

 

4. I have found this particular cache (enjoyed it), but did not bring any attention to it and perhaps I should have. I think that the cache owner should now be able to provide enough information (it wasn't previously provided) to the reviewer (permission from the land owner etc.) to keep it in place (that is up to the reviewer after they have all the information.)

 

5. Groundspeak provides the opportunity to appeal an archieving and that is what the owner is doing. Good on them for using that part of the guidlines.

 

6. Miragee is not a he or him, she is a very nice lady.

[+Kiamichi Muskrat]

Looks like an awesome cache. Wish I would've found it.

[+Krieger]

Someone made the suggestion that I post a picture of the hide. Go to GCNPR1 for a looksee and then tell me if I violated the existing "guideline" two years ago.

 

Yup.

 

Certainly looks like a guideline violation to me. This is precisely the sort of thing guideline is meant to prohibit. Apparently a reviewer found it and agreed.

 

So I give this a:

 

Very emphatic, but rude and uncalled for. The text of your message should have been sufficient.

[+Krieger]

Just read through all of this thread and re-read (for at least the 137th time) the guidlines (guielines, not rules and regulations). Wow, you all have given the owner of this cache and the Volunteer reviewers something to go on and the rest of us something to think about. Here is my input:

 

1. When placing a cache and submitting the information for approval, the guidlines offer the opportunity to address any situation that may be in conflict with them.

 

2. If the owner of the cache does this (and it sounds like they now have some information to support their cause) and the reviewer accepts it, then the cache should stand. If the owner does not appease the reviewer, then it should be archieved (just let it go at that point).

 

3. The two reviewers in this case were doing the correct thing by addressing this particular cache (the guidlines tell all of us to do just that, but some of us don't.)

 

4. I have found this particular cache (enjoyed it), but did not bring any attention to it and perhaps I should have. I think that the cache owner should now be able to provide enough information (it wasn't previously provided) to the reviewer (permission from the land owner etc.) to keep it in place (that is up to the reviewer after they have all the information.)

 

5. Groundspeak provides the opportunity to appeal an archieving and that is what the owner is doing. Good on them for using that part of the guidlines.

 

6. Miragee is not a he or him, she is a very nice lady.

My apolgies to all for the gender bias.

[+geomann1]

Looks like an awesome cache. Wish I would've found it.

 

I agree, I would have loved to have looked for and found that cache!

 

My read on the guildelines is no use of tools and the cache in question clearly would not require others to dig to find it, which is the principle concern for buried caches.

 

With the tens of thousands of square miles of public lands out west, I have a really hard time seeing how any land manager would give a hoot over the cache in question.

[+briansnat]

My read on the guildelines is no use of tools and the cache in question clearly would not require others to dig to find it, which is the principle concern for buried caches.

 

Wrong. The reason for the guideline is to appease land managers who don't want us digging in their parks to hide our caches.

 

With the tens of thousands of square miles of public lands out west, I have a really hard time seeing how any land manager would give a hoot over the cache in question.

 

Many do. The National Park Service's ban on geocaching stemmed from one cache they discovered that was buried. Because of that one cache, hundreds of thousands of acres of land are off limits for geocaching.

[+wandererrob]

 

My read on the guildelines is no use of tools and the cache in question clearly would not require others to dig to find it, which is the principle concern for buried caches.

 

 

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.

 

Looks like it was dug to place it. It's a cool container though. Just doesn't jive with the guidelines.

[+Miragee]

Looks like an awesome cache. Wish I would've found it.

I agree, I would have loved to have looked for and found that cache!

 

My read on the guildelines is no use of tools and the cache in question clearly would not require others to dig to find it, which is the principle concern for buried caches.

 

With the tens of thousands of square miles of public lands out west, I have a really hard time seeing how any land manager would give a hoot over the cache in question.

Exactly! While cattle overgraze BLM land which causes terrible erosion, and in the National Forests, timber companies create roads through previously-roadless areas and then clear cut the trees, and mining operations scar the landscape forever, an ammo can or short piece of PVC pipe in the ground should not be considered to be a problem.

 

The National Parks are a different story because their special status affords them protection from these other much-more destructive activities that are allowed on the other Public Lands.

[+TrailGators]

Looks like an awesome cache. Wish I would've found it.

I agree, I would have loved to have looked for and found that cache!

 

My read on the guildelines is no use of tools and the cache in question clearly would not require others to dig to find it, which is the principle concern for buried caches.

 

With the tens of thousands of square miles of public lands out west, I have a really hard time seeing how any land manager would give a hoot over the cache in question.

Exactly! While cattle overgraze BLM land which causes terrible erosion, and in the National Forests, timber companies create roads through previously-roadless areas and then clear cut the trees, and mining operations scar the landscape forever, an ammo can or short piece of PVC pipe in the ground should not be considered to be a problem.

 

The National Parks are a different story because their special status affords them protection from these other much-more destructive activities that are allowed on the other Public Lands.

If they allowed buried caches, what would stop there from being one every 0.1-0.2 miles? What would stop people from burying them in parks that don't allow them? If they only allowed exceptions the reviewers would have to listen to constant whining from people that want to bury their caches too. I think it's very important to look at the big picture and the long-term effects on the game. I would hate to see caching blocked from any park because of what a minority did.... Edited July 11, 2007 by TrailGators

[+uxorious]

Wrong. The reason for the guideline is to appease land managers who don't want us digging in their parks to hide our caches.

 

I've seen this point a couple times. If this is true, and the reason for the guide line is only to appease land managers, then why would such a cache not be allowed with explicit permission from the land manager. Or am I missing something else.

 

The idea that someone may see the cache and repeat it without permission, is a bogus argument. If the guideline allows it and the hider follows the rules, that should be it. If I hide a cache and it has all the required permissions, meets the guidelines and any thing unusual is explained on the cache page, that should be good enough.

 

If the land manager is too busy, thinks there is too much red tape, or just too lazy to OK a cache that may be out of the norm. Then that would be it. No cache. But if the land manager is willing to OK it, it should be allowed.

 

Note the above only applies if the reason for the guideline is to appease land managers who don't want us digging in their parks to hide our caches. I suspect there are other reasons for the guideline.

[CoyoteRed]

The idea that someone may see the cache and repeat it without permission, is a bogus argument.

I would agree considering caches are approved knowing the cache is buried when the cache owner has demonstrated clear and explicit permission.

[+winini]

I thought that particular cache was better engineered than the average cache. It's in an area with almost nothing on the surface so getting rocks to pile up would alter the area and effectively convert it to a drive by cache by announcing it's placement to a cacher.

 

You are in a state that has a population density of 18 people per square mile that may have a cave the size of a small city to store nuclear waste being built and a tiny hole less than 1 cubic foot is causing a problem? I guess I just hate absolute rules myself. I think the cache should remain in place.

[+Renegade Knight]

Based on the photo, it looks buried.

Based on the ground cover next to the cache it's possible that the ground was built up and that it's not buried.

What I'm not seeing is the signs of digging that would be there if it was dug up to begin with.

 

If when you pull the cache out you see native ground cover under it. It's not buried. If you don't. It is.

 

That's how I would make my final call on this cache.

[+TrailGators]

The idea that someone may see the cache and repeat it without permission, is a bogus argument.

I would agree considering caches are approved knowing the cache is buried when the cache owner has demonstrated clear and explicit permission.

Maybe you guys should start another thread with a clear proposal for a guideline change. If there was a tightly controlled process with explicit permission it might work. This would also provide an incentive for people to report all the existing buried caches that are out there now and get them re-approved with explicit permission or archived.

[+Renegade Knight]

The idea that someone may see the cache and repeat it without permission, is a bogus argument.

I would agree considering caches are approved knowing the cache is buried when the cache owner has demonstrated clear and explicit permission.

Maybe you guys should start another thread with a clear proposal for a guideline change. If there was a tightly controlled process with explicit permission it might work. This would also provide an incentive for people to report all the existing buried caches that are out there now and get them re-approved with explicit permission or archived.

My current understanding on the no bury rule is that even with adequate permission they won't be listed. It used to be that with permission they could be listed.

[+TrailGators]

The idea that someone may see the cache and repeat it without permission, is a bogus argument.

I would agree considering caches are approved knowing the cache is buried when the cache owner has demonstrated clear and explicit permission.

Maybe you guys should start another thread with a clear proposal for a guideline change. If there was a tightly controlled process with explicit permission it might work. This would also provide an incentive for people to report all the existing buried caches that are out there now and get them re-approved with explicit permission or archived.

My current understanding on the no bury rule is that even with adequate permission they won't be listed. It used to be that with permission they could be listed.

A lot of people are either rebelling or ignoring this guideline. IMHO it would be better to mandate explicit permission rather than to let some renegades cost us access to certain parks. Nobody is reporting these as evidenced by the OPs cache. Maybe they would report them if there was not explicit permission on the cache page...

[+tozainamboku]

The idea that someone may see the cache and repeat it without permission, is a bogus argument.

I would agree considering caches are approved knowing the cache is buried when the cache owner has demonstrated clear and explicit permission.

Maybe you guys should start another thread with a clear proposal for a guideline change. If there was a tightly controlled process with explicit permission it might work. This would also provide an incentive for people to report all the existing buried caches that are out there now and get them re-approved with explicit permission or archived.

My current understanding on the no bury rule is that even with adequate permission they won't be listed. It used to be that with permission they could be listed.

Could you point to where this change was announced? The guidelines still say

There may be some exceptions. If your cache fits within one of the above areas, please explain this in a note to the reviewer.

 

I find it totally bizarre that all of a sudden we have absolute rules in place of guidelines with a justification being that one land manager may ban caches because another land manager allows partially buried cache

 

I can understand the guideline being written the way it is however. Many land managers have indicated that one problem they worry about with geocaching is that their park will be dug up. This is probably do more to the media refering to geocaching as a high-tech treasure hunt than the way any cache are actually hidden. The guidelines give geocaching.com something to point to when dealing with land managers who raise the issue.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Could you point to where this change was announced? The guidelines still say

There may be some exceptions. If your cache fits within one of the above areas, please explain this in a note to the reviewer.

 

What I recall is this:

In the forums on a buried cache discussion. One of the mods countered my saying if you owned the land you could bury the cache and get it listed. The mod said "not even then". That was the conversation more or less. If I'm mistaken on the change in intent it would be good to learn that.

[+TrailGators]

...Could you point to where this change was announced? The guidelines still say

There may be some exceptions. If your cache fits within one of the above areas, please explain this in a note to the reviewer.

What I recall is this:

In the forums on a buried cache discussion. One of the mods countered my saying if you owned the land you could bury the cache and get it listed. The mod said "not even then". That was the conversation more or less. If I'm mistaken on the change in intent it would be good to learn that.

That was said somewhere in a recent thread maybe even this one (I can't find it).... Edited July 11, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

...Could you point to where this change was announced? The guidelines still say

There may be some exceptions. If your cache fits within one of the above areas, please explain this in a note to the reviewer.

 

What I recall is this:

In the forums on a buried cache discussion. One of the mods countered my saying if you owned the land you could bury the cache and get it listed. The mod said "not even then". That was the conversation more or less. If I'm mistaken on the change in intent it would be good to learn that.

 

Hmm, then obviously I'll have to bury a cache here on my farm and see if I can get it approved, and if not the why.

[Stephen2]

Hmm, then obviously I'll have to bury a cache here on my farm and see if I can get it approved, and if not the why.

Just do what others do.

 

Hide the cache and submit it. Do not mention that it is buried. It will get published and most likely get dozens and dozens of visits and no one will say anything.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

Hmm, then obviously I'll have to bury a cache here on my farm and see if I can get it approved, and if not the why.

Just do what others do.

 

Hide the cache and submit it. Do not mention that it is buried. It will get published and most likely get dozens and dozens of visits and no one will say anything.

 

But that would defeat the purpose of the test, to see if they will still approve buried caches on your own land.

[Stephen2]

...Could you point to where this change was announced? The guidelines still say

There may be some exceptions. If your cache fits within one of the above areas, please explain this in a note to the reviewer.

What I recall is this:

In the forums on a buried cache discussion. One of the mods countered my saying if you owned the land you could bury the cache and get it listed. The mod said "not even then". That was the conversation more or less. If I'm mistaken on the change in intent it would be good to learn that.

That was said somewhere in a recent thread maybe even this one (I can't find it)....

Maybe not the same thread you are thinking of.

 

This post in this thread.

[+TrailGators]

...Could you point to where this change was announced? The guidelines still say

There may be some exceptions. If your cache fits within one of the above areas, please explain this in a note to the reviewer.

What I recall is this:

In the forums on a buried cache discussion. One of the mods countered my saying if you owned the land you could bury the cache and get it listed. The mod said "not even then". That was the conversation more or less. If I'm mistaken on the change in intent it would be good to learn that.

That was said somewhere in a recent thread maybe even this one (I can't find it)....

Maybe not the same thread you are thinking of.

 

This post in this thread.

That's it! Thanks.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I becomes clear to me that those of you who oppose my hide do so based on your own personal view of the guideline addressing digging or burying. I believe that the guideline was originally intended to prevent people from totally disturbing an area. That's point one.

 

You're already wrong with point one. The guideline was written to address the concerns of land managers about our digging to hide caches.

That is exactly why i care. People would be awfully mad if land managers started banning caches.

 

Give up 1 good hide or give up thousands?

 

A point that way too many people just aren't getting.

 

So, if I'm understanding this thread properly, we should all be posting SBAs on caches that we think do not agree with the guidelines? Are we all required to be the cache police? Will the frame be removed, and the hole (whether natural or manmade) be filled in with the archival?

I can think of a few caches that have bothered me. Coordinates written with magic marker on a rock in a parking area, and on an observation deck, for instance. If it gets archived, the magic marker will still be there, won't it?

[+John Wayne Pooch]

Wow, I can't believe how this has turned into such a big discussion.

[+TrailGators]

Wow, I can't believe how this has turned into such a big discussion.

Anything controversial turns into a big discussion....

[CoyoteRed]

What I recall is this:

In the forums on a buried cache discussion. One of the mods countered my saying if you owned the land you could bury the cache and get it listed. The mod said "not even then".

If the policy has changed so that even land owners can't dig to insert a cache below grade, then the best you could truthfully said is "we don't allow buried caches anymore."

[+Miragee]

If you cannot even have a buried cache on your own land, then most the caches I found in Blanding, Utah will have to be Archived. Burying a five-gallon bucket seems to be the the favorite type of hide there . . .

[roadstar6063]

I see all kinds of buried caches caused by pointy objects. These are not in the ground, but clever hides in upright structures. But buried none the less caused by pointy objects such as drills

[+Knight2000]

I see all kinds of buried caches caused by pointy objects. These are not in the ground, but clever hides in upright structures. But buried none the less caused by pointy objects such as drills

I have seen one like that too.

 

edit to add since it was in a telephone pole and not in a park or the like i just ignored it. I certainly don't approve but i didn't make waves about it.

 

This hider also likes to pound nails and hooks into trees. (At parks- ugh.)

Edited July 12, 2007 by knight2000

[+The Jester]

If they allowed buried caches, what would stop there from being one every 0.1-0.2 miles?

What's stopping caches from being hidden at the base of a tree every 0.1-0.2 miles in areas that allow caches?

 

What would stop people from burying them in parks that don't allow them?

The same thing that stops people from hiding caches in parks where they are banned.

 

If they only allowed exceptions the reviewers would have to listen to constant whining from people that want to bury their caches too.

And that is different from now in what way (aside from the burying angle)? People are whining all the time about every style of cache hide - that's why the "no precedent" rule exists.

[+Miragee]

If they allowed buried caches, what would stop there from being one every 0.1-0.2 miles?

The fact that these hides are creative, that's what . . .

 

While on a hike today to check on some of my caches, I saw this hole that remained when the rock was dislodged. If I hid a cache in that hole and put a large flat rock over the hole, would it be disallowed because it was "buried?"

 

[+TrailGators]

If they allowed buried caches, what would stop there from being one every 0.1-0.2 miles?

What's stopping caches from being hidden at the base of a tree every 0.1-0.2 miles in areas that allow caches?

You missed the point. A few buried caches would be tolerable to landowners but opening the floodgates would lead to abuse.

[+TrailGators]

What would stop people from burying them in parks that don't allow them?

The same thing that stops people from hiding caches in parks where they are banned.

I was talking about parks that don't allow caches to be buried. I bet someone would bury one and screw it up for the rest of us.

[+TrailGators]

If they allowed buried caches, what would stop there from being one every 0.1-0.2 miles?

The fact that these hides are creative, that's what . . .

 

While on a hike today to check on some of my caches, I saw this hole that remained when the rock was dislodged. If I hid a cache in that hole and put a large flat rock over the hole, would it be disallowed because it was "buried?"

 

Who would know? Would you tell the reviewer?

Who would tell? Nobody wants to be the bad guy.

[+Knight2000]

In reference to Miragee's pic... IMO although it would appear buried it would be within the guidlines. If someone ever posted a SBA the reviewer should ask the hider before archiving.

 

But ideally before someone posted a SBA they should contact the hider. (i would hope.)

[+TrailGators]

If they only allowed exceptions the reviewers would have to listen to constant whining from people that want to bury their caches too.

And that is different from now in what way (aside from the burying angle)? People are whining all the time about every style of cache hide - that's why the "no precedent" rule exists.

It isn't different other than becoming yet another thing that people whine about. Even if they changed the guidelines it wouldn't end the whining. New people would argue about the new guidelines and complain about caches that are still not being allowed. So as long as people are always going to whine, they might as well set the line where they think it should be for the long-term benefit of the game. That is what they have done.

[+Renegade Knight]

If they allowed buried caches, what would stop there from being one every 0.1-0.2 miles?

The fact that these hides are creative, that's what . . .

 

While on a hike today to check on some of my caches, I saw this hole that remained when the rock was dislodged. If I hid a cache in that hole and put a large flat rock over the hole, would it be disallowed because it was "buried?"

 

When you put the rock back there would not be a hole.

[Varmint]

Oh dear, Man has put a hole in the Earth, the damage may already be irreversible. This hole may, as we speak be altering the rotation of the Planet. The days are getting shorter, this is causing undue stress on the local wildlife, their little hearts are beating faster, raising their metabolism, resulting in higher flatulence which is increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses, causing global warming, this will melt the ice caps, resulting in Seas rising, effecting global tides which will alter the weather patterns worldwide bringing on the next Ice age.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Back to the topic...the OP's cache doesn't breach guidelines (it isn't buried, it wasn't placed with the aid of digging tools and doesn't require digging tools to retrieve).

 

End of topic...

[Clan Riffster]

People are whining all the time about every style of cache hide

I'm still looking for the thread where folks are whining about ammo cans stuffed with high end swag, hidden creatively, within the guidelines, at scenic locations.

 

Back on topic:

This seems to be the guideline in question:

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

I'm kinda torn on this one. From the hider's description, no "pointy" object was used, so even though it meets my personal, biased definition of buried, I'm not sure it meets Groundspeak's definition. Add to that, the fact that the land manager approved of the method involved, and I'm leaning more to it being appropriate. I absolutely concur with strict adherence to this guideline, because I agree that one buried cache can cause a lot of harm, but in this particular case, the only land manager who might find it already gave it their thumbs up.

 

All I can say is, appeal it through the proper channels, and accept graciously whatever decision comes from on high.