Jump to content

Sage One


Recommended Posts

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.

 

This would be my concern as well!

Link to comment

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.)

 

Both are guideline violations that are as serious if not more so than digging holes. In fact vandalism in order to place a cache (which drilling holes in objects certainly is) might land you in a courtroom.

 

What gets me is that finders ignore this stuff, which makes others think it's OK, compounding the problem. Monkey see, monkey do is is a legit issue. It's why these kinds of hides seem to be popular in some areas and non existent in others.

 

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.

 

You mean reviewers? Won't work. People try hiding caches in parks that don't allow them all the time. Reviewers usually catch them because they see it on the map. You won't see a buried cache on a map.

You only know if its buried if the owner tells you and what owner is going to tell you that he is violating the guidelines? (well some are stupid enough to do so because they didn't read the guidelines, but that's another issue).

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

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.

If you regard that as a "buried" cache, I hope you don't work as a funeral director! :D I wouldn't like my coffin to be just sitting in a hand-scraped-out hole in the ground with just a few sticks and stones on top...

 

Common sense tells me that the main aim of the guideline is to discourage cachers from turning up with digging tools in their bag, then using them to dig holes in the area in search of a cache. When I go caching I know that in all cases, the only "digging" that's needed is the sweeping or pulling away (by hand) of a few leaves / sticks / stones / fake grass to reveal the container, so would never include "pointy" tools in my caching bag.

 

The OP's cache is no different from many caches hidden under a light covering of sticks and stones: the fact that the outer box in embedded in the ground doesn't make it buried.

Link to comment
Common sense tells me that the main aim of the guideline is to discourage cachers from turning up with digging tools in their bag, then using them to dig holes in the area in search of a cache. When I go caching I know that in all cases, the only "digging" that's needed is the sweeping or pulling away (by hand) of a few leaves / sticks / stones / fake grass to reveal the container, so would never include "pointy" tools in my caching bag.

 

Though that is a small part of it, but the real reason for the guideline is to appease land managers who don't want us digging, whether its to hide or find a cache. When discussing geocaching with them its almost always their first concern.

 

Now when they ask about digging, do we want to be able to tell them that we don't dig holes to hide geocaches, period? Or would we rather tell them that we do sometimes bury geocaches, but will try not to do it if he doesn't want us to, but we have no real way of controlling it because we can't tell if a geocache is buried when it's submitted for review?

 

Which answer is more likely to get a positive response from a land manager who is considering whether or not to allow the sport?

Link to comment

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. :D

I found this post insulting. Have you somehow gained access to the reviewer's forum to know what the "reviewer community feels?" Sorry, but you don't speak for me.

 

In truth, the main motivation for the guideline is not "dumb geocachers" but rather "dumb land managers" who read articles by "dumb news reporters" about all the buried treasure in their parks. Briansnat's post nailed this right on.

 

What the reviewers do is implement the listing guidelines which Groundspeak asks us to follow. The guideline on buried caches is pretty clear, as is the procedure for exceptions. If I want to make an exception for a cache that's 500 feet from another cache, that's considered routine and I can decide that on my own. If I want to make an exception for a buried cache, Groundspeak wants to deal with the landowner directly. I've seen it happen and I've seen Groundspeak say "yes" after speaking with the landowner.

 

Most of the time we don't know a cache is buried until after it's published. We thus need to rely on reports from geocachers -- including our own personal experience -- to surface the possible violations.

Link to comment

Though that is a small part of it, but the real reason for the guideline is to appease land managers who don't want us digging, whether its to hide or find a cache. When discussing geocaching with them its almost always their first concern.

I don't doubt that land managers in the US (and elsewehere) do voice concerns about digging for caches, so it's more than a small part of it if it's this that worries them. If I owned the land I might be a little worried if a significant hole was going to be dug to bury a cache, but REALLY worried if all the teams searching for it were going to dig up the surrounding area too!

 

Now when they ask about digging, do we want to be able to tell them that we don't dig holes to hide geocaches, period? Or would we rather tell them that we do sometimes bury geocaches, but will try not to do it if he doesn't want us to, but we have no real way of controlling it because we can't tell if a geocache is buried when it's submitted for review?

 

Which answer is more likely to get a positive response from a land manager who is considering whether or not to allow the sport?

The guideline clearly forbids buried caches and digging tools: so why would we tell them that we sometimes bury caches? Without reviewing the whole topic I'm not quite sure, but I don't recall seeing a bona-fide example of a buried or spade-dug-in cache.

Link to comment
Now when they ask about digging, do we want to be able to tell them that we don't dig holes to hide geocaches, period? Or would we rather tell them that we do sometimes bury geocaches, but will try not to do it if he doesn't want us to, but we have no real way of controlling it because we can't tell if a geocache is buried when it's submitted for review?

 

What's going to happen when this landowner who you've just bamboozled into thinking caches never get buried comes and reads this very thread?

 

Opps!

 

The fact is, caches are sometimes buried with Groundspeak's blessing. Keystone's post above says as much. Additionally, if you make it sound like Groundspeaks guidelines are inflexible then what if the landowner wants more restrictive rules? The landowner should be made feel he has the last say in what goes on on his land, not Groundspeak. If he only wants 3 caches in his park even though the guidelines say 20 can be put in there, then he should know only 3 caches will go into that park. The reviewers should respect his wishes--as should all geocachers.

 

Personally, I won't ever tell a landowner we never bury caches, period. I'd really hate to later be found out I'm a liar and can't be trusted. I'd tell the truth, the whole ugliness of it. If they are still concerned with buried caches I'd be happy to help implement a permit system.

 

Additionally, in my personal experience, the land stewards that are concerned with the conservation of an area won't allow geocaching regardless of it being buried or not. Doesnt' really matter the underlaying concern as various reasons have been archaeological, sensitive flora or deadly fauna. It's also my experience that, so far anyway, they've been happy to point to a different areas on their lands to hide a cache. Win-win in my book.

Link to comment

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. :D

I found this post insulting. Have you somehow gained access to the reviewer's forum to know what the "reviewer community feels?" Sorry, but you don't speak for me.

 

In truth, the main motivation for the guideline is not "dumb geocachers" but rather "dumb land managers" who read articles by "dumb news reporters" about all the buried treasure in their parks. Briansnat's post nailed this right on.

 

What the reviewers do is implement the listing guidelines which Groundspeak asks us to follow. The guideline on buried caches is pretty clear, as is the procedure for exceptions. If I want to make an exception for a cache that's 500 feet from another cache, that's considered routine and I can decide that on my own. If I want to make an exception for a buried cache, Groundspeak wants to deal with the landowner directly. I've seen it happen and I've seen Groundspeak say "yes" after speaking with the landowner.

 

Most of the time we don't know a cache is buried until after it's published. We thus need to rely on reports from geocachers -- including our own personal experience -- to surface the possible violations.

I apologize that you found my post insulting. It had the desired effect of getting a reviewer to reply with a nice explanation of the reason for it's existence, and the procedures for getting an exception to this guideling. It looks like there is a heavy burden of proof on the geocacher using this method to show that either no pointy tools were used or that he had the landowner's permission. For the later it seems that Groundspeak must be able to contact the landowner/manager to verify the permission before an excecption would be granted. Thank you for the input.

Link to comment

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

Again, so what? If we've got rules, they should be enforced without regard to "friends". If we do not do this, there is no point in having the rules in the first place, in which case the rules should just be ditched for everyone's continued sanity.

Link to comment
In truth, the main motivation for the guideline is not "dumb geocachers" but rather "dumb land managers" who read articles by "dumb news reporters" about all the buried treasure in their parks. Briansnat's post nailed this right on.

 

What the reviewers do is implement the listing guidelines which Groundspeak asks us to follow. The guideline on buried caches is pretty clear, as is the procedure for exceptions. If I want to make an exception for a cache that's 500 feet from another cache, that's considered routine and I can decide that on my own. If I want to make an exception for a buried cache, Groundspeak wants to deal with the landowner directly. I've seen it happen and I've seen Groundspeak say "yes" after speaking with the landowner.

 

Most of the time we don't know a cache is buried until after it's published. We thus need to rely on reports from geocachers -- including our own personal experience -- to surface the possible violations.

Thanks for the insight Keystone! :D How are we supposed to know if an exception was granted? I typically assume that one was granted when I come across these. Of course, if a reviewer has found it then I know it's OK. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
Thanks for the insight Keystone! cool.gif How are we supposed to know if an exception was granted? I typically assume that one was granted when I come across these. Of course, if a reviewer has found it then I know it's OK.

 

If there is an exception made to the guidelines, many reviewers will ask that it be mentioned on the cache page.

Link to comment
Thanks for the insight Keystone! cool.gif How are we supposed to know if an exception was granted? I typically assume that one was granted when I come across these. Of course, if a reviewer has found it then I know it's OK.
If there is an exception made to the guidelines, many reviewers will ask that it be mentioned on the cache page.
I guess in the case of buried cache many don't because it would give away the hiding method. What about my question in that case?
Link to comment
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. ;)

 

Those would be the multiple threads where someone whined that they found a great location with a great view, and stuffed the container with great expensive swag, only to have to have the contents deteriorate into broken mctoys, religious tracts, expired coupons, and business cards within a few months. :):laughing:

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment
Thanks for the insight Keystone! cool.gif How are we supposed to know if an exception was granted? I typically assume that one was granted when I come across these. Of course, if a reviewer has found it then I know it's OK.
If there is an exception made to the guidelines, many reviewers will ask that it be mentioned on the cache page.
I guess in the case of buried cache many don't because it would give away the hiding method. What about my question in that case?

 

I think the owner can write something like "The reviewer granted an exception to the guidelines for this hide method upon receiving written permission from the landowner" without giving anything away.

Link to comment
If you regard that as a "buried" cache, I hope you don't work as a funeral director!

;):):laughing::laughing:

That was just my initial reaction to the picture. Somewhere in the depths of my consciousness, resides a little meter which has "Buried" on one side and "Covered" on the other. That picture spiked the meter to the "Buried" side. Since I don't work for Groundspeak, this rather biased opinion of mine doesn't mean diddly. Those with the proper indoctrination by Signal would need to make that call, and they seem to have done just that.

 

I hope the hider gets it worked out, and the hide gets activated again. I agree that the write up needs to include some kind of verbiage explaining that anything observed to be a guideline violation has been granted explicit permission, and that this should've been worked out with the reviewer(s) long before the cache went active in the first place.

Link to comment
Thanks for the insight Keystone! cool.gif How are we supposed to know if an exception was granted? I typically assume that one was granted when I come across these. Of course, if a reviewer has found it then I know it's OK.
If there is an exception made to the guidelines, many reviewers will ask that it be mentioned on the cache page.
I guess in the case of buried cache many don't because it would give away the hiding method. What about my question in that case?

I think the owner can write something like "The reviewer granted an exception to the guidelines for this hide method upon receiving written permission from the landowner" without giving anything away.

I guess that would work. I wish posting a note like that was a requirement whenever an exception is granted. Nobody ever posts notes like that around here, so we have no idea which ones are legit and which ones are not...
Link to comment
Thanks for the insight Keystone! cool.gif How are we supposed to know if an exception was granted? I typically assume that one was granted when I come across these. Of course, if a reviewer has found it then I know it's OK.
If there is an exception made to the guidelines, many reviewers will ask that it be mentioned on the cache page.
I guess in the case of buried cache many don't because it would give away the hiding method. What about my question in that case?

 

I think the owner can write something like "The reviewer granted an exception to the guidelines for this hide method upon receiving written permission from the landowner" without giving anything away.

 

Hey, that sounds similar to what I wrote earlier in this post about questionable hides. It went like this.

"This cache was setup with permission but should not be assumed permissible in another location. Please check with your local reviewer before attempting to copy this style of cache."

This covers the fact that it has been given permission and does not give away how it is set up and the fact that just because I did it doesn't mean you can too, so check with your reviewer first.

Edited by JDubPooch
Link to comment
<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 . . . :laughing:

 

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 . . . :blink:

 

As you might remember, the "Original" stash *was* a partially buried five gallon bucket.

 

One might ask if this was the reason for the "no buried caches" rule.

 

This certainly shouldn't stand as reasoning for anyone to bury a cache, but its an interesting point of information.

 

Food for thought: There are many waterproof match containers hidden in our area. Some are hidden on the ground. It is quite common for a cacher, concealing this cache when rehiding it, to scrape part of the ground away with the container, leaving a partial mound on the leading edge, then lightly tossing loose material found on the nearby ground around the cache. A few winds blow, a gentle rain, and the area looks like a small bump at the base of a foundation, step, tree trunk, etc. The cache was not buried. It doesn't have to be dug for to be found. It does need to be seen and picked up and then covered in a similar manner in the (natural?) depression in which it was found. Does this then become an illegal cache?

Edited by LifeOnEdge!
Link to comment
Inconsistencies like that are why I was so sad when the wonderful, creative "Cabin Creek Cache" was Archived. It occupied a very small hole, on public land, and was nothing like either of the above examples.

 

The buried five-gallon bucket caches I have found are still Active . . . ^_^

Did it state that it had explicit permission on the cache page? I really don't have a problem with them if they are approved and they do that. :)
Link to comment
The cache was not buried. It doesn't have to be dug for to be found. It does need to be seen and picked up and then covered in a similar manner in the (natural?) depression in which it was found. Does this then become an illegal cache?

 

Did someone dig a hole? If yes, then it is illegal. If no, then it is not. It's very simple.

Link to comment
Inconsistencies like that are why I was so sad when the wonderful, creative "Cabin Creek Cache" was Archived. It occupied a very small hole, on public land, and was nothing like either of the above examples.

 

The buried five-gallon bucket caches I have found are still Active . . . ^_^

Did it state that it had explicit permission on the cache page? I really don't have a problem with them if they are approved and they do that. :)

There is no mention of permission on three of them I just checked, and interestingly, the word "buried" is actually used in the cache description . . . :D

 

The ones I found in Blanding, UT were probably on private property. These other ones are not . . . :D

Link to comment
Inconsistencies like that are why I was so sad when the wonderful, creative "Cabin Creek Cache" was Archived. It occupied a very small hole, on public land, and was nothing like either of the above examples.

 

The buried five-gallon bucket caches I have found are still Active . . . :D

Did it state that it had explicit permission on the cache page? I really don't have a problem with them if they are approved and they do that. :)

There is no mention of permission on three of them I just checked, and interestingly, the word "buried" is actually used in the cache description . . . :D

 

The ones I found in Blanding, UT were probably on private property. These other ones are not . . . :D

Where is Chuck Berris when you need him.... ^_^

180px-Cbarris.jpg

Link to comment

After following this thread from the start, I am amazed at how many people do not understand what is considered a buried cache in the eys of Groundspeak. All that really matters is what groundspeaks idea of a buried cache is . Groundspeak is a private company and as such Groudspeak can set the standards for placing a cache. :anibad:

Link to comment

Hmmm. If a cache is under water is it buried? If a cache is hidden inside a barrel is it buried? If a cache is hidden in a sprinkler controller box is it buried? If a cache is in ANYTHING below ground is it buried? If the answer to any of these is yes, our reviewers have a lot of archiving to do.

Link to comment
Hmmm. If a cache is under water is it buried? If a cache is hidden inside a barrel is it buried? If a cache is hidden in a sprinkler controller box is it buried? If a cache is in ANYTHING below ground is it buried? If the answer to any of these is yes, our reviewers have a lot of archiving to do.

 

In order:

 

If a cache is under water is it buried?

 

Did you dig a hole? No? Not considered buried.

 

If a cache is hidden inside a barrel is it buried?

 

Did you dig a hole? No? Not considered buried

 

If a cache is hidden in a sprinkler controller box is it buried?

 

Did you dig a hole? No? Not considered buried

 

If a cache is in ANYTHING below ground is it buried?

 

Did the owner dig a hole? No? Not considered buried.

 

Hope that helps.

Link to comment

A cacher should bury a cach ONLY when his last name is "KIDD" or if they happen to bear

a strong resemblance to "Johnny Depp"! <_<:blink::huh:

 

What if the cachers last name is Blackbeard? Shouldn't ALL Pirates be allowed to bury treas...er caches?

Doesn't matter, Pirates do what they want anyway. :P

 

LOL! Sorry about that Cpt.!!!!!!! :huh::ph34r::P

Link to comment
After following this thread from the start, I am amazed at how many people do not understand what is considered a buried cache in the eyes of Groundspeak. All that really matters is what Groundspeak's idea of a buried cache is. Groundspeak is a private company and as such Groundspeak can set the standards for placing a cache. :D

Correction. Groundspeak sets the standards for caches that can be listed on their website.

 

You are welcome to hide a cache anywhere and any way you want, including burying it under railroad tracks. You just can't get it listed here. But you could, for example, publish it on your own web page. It probably won't be seen much, but you can do it :(

Link to comment

I notice there is a photo of the hide and this statement "Shows the method of the hide. Local BLM office concurred that this was allowed." on the cache page. Was this added before or after the cache was reviewed?

 

IF this information was known to the reviewer that approved the cache and another reviewer came along and archived it then what the archiving reviewer did was rather rude.

 

IF this information was NOT known to the original reviewer then the archival was just a matter of time and just over 2 years was a very good run.

Link to comment

Just to add my two cents worth ...

 

Understanding fully that land managers are concerned about people digging holes all over their parks, I do think that a blanket ban on using anything "pointy" in the process of hiding is a bit much. Perhaps the guideline should read, "You cannot dig to hide a cache unless you have express written permission from the land owner or manager." On private property, an ammocan buried up to its handle and covered with a log would be a fantastic hide, I think.

 

I am glad that I read this thread, though, because we were contemplating our next hide on an island in a nearby lake, thinking casually about using the method described above, forgetting that the guidelines say that's a no-no, even if the finder doesn't have to dig. Saved us a big hassle later.

Link to comment
If a cache is in ANYTHING below ground is it buried?

 

Did the owner dig a hole? No? Not considered buried.

 

Hope that helps.

 

I know it's pretty clear to me, but obviously not to others.

 

That being the case, in order to avoid such confusion, have the powers that be ever considered rewording the buried cache guildeline to get rid of the word buried and just prohibit digging? I'm thinking most particularly of the caches were the cache is set in the ground but not actually buried.

 

It seems that digging is more precisely the issue as many have pointed out such examples as caches being buried under leaves and then asking why that's ok while they aren't allowed to build a geocache mine (a slight exaggeration :blink: ).

Edited by wandererrob
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...