Sage One

[+Renegade Knight]

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.

He says he used his hands. That's not bury per the rules.

 

I can heap up sand or forest litter with my hands but that's about it. Bury kicks in when you need to use a tool to do the job. At least that's what the guidelines lead me to believe.

 

If he did what he said he did, the cache is good.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Don't think you're going to win this one.

 

I was recently calling around to see about places to hold our annual picnic. In one phone conversation I mentioned we were a geocaching organization. The person I was talking to informed me that our activity was banned in their park district. She kind of knew what it was and said "That's where you bury things for others to find, right?". I, of course, informed her that burying thing was most certainly against the rules. That's just one medium sized (55-60K population) suburb of Chicago. The perception is still out there and does affect the activity.

[+Renegade Knight]

...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?

 

Hell, no. The logs are clues, but you still have to do the leg work and actually ask the cache owner and failing a good answer ask a local cacher who does have some common sense, and who knows the story to fill in the missing pieces.

 

More than a few people think they know more than they know and are more than happy to play Judge Roy Bean.

[+Renegade Knight]

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. ...

 

Mulch? You mean like bark? Thats not digging. Hiding in a flower bed isn't a good idea because of stupid finders but rummaging through mulch is not digging.

 

The trick to a mulch, rock pile, grass covered, under the bed of junipers etc. cache is that the hider has to be able to find the cache themselves. They normally line up on some kind of land mark, asphalt mark, crack in the concrete etc. Not always, but often enough to start with that before you start the major rummaging. I hate those kind of hides.

[+Moose Mob]

OK folks, let's keep this on topic.

 

It would seem that a few of you may also need to read the threads. I'm not saying who, but a few posts made by a couple people have clearly missed some key facts that were expressed in the threads.

[+mamid]

If you can't dig to place a cache then you shouldn't be able to place one under water where you need scuba gear to get at!

[+briansnat]

If you can't dig to place a cache then you shouldn't be able to place one under water where you need scuba gear to get at!

 

Finally someone who makes sense!

[+Renegade Knight]

...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....

 

That is exactly how it should be. If the cache was placed in accordance with the guidelines then even when a reviewer finds the cache they should follow this advice. It's the right thing to do.

[+Renegade Knight]

OK folks, let's keep this on topic.

 

It would seem that a few of you may also need to read the threads. I'm not saying who, but a few posts made by a couple people have clearly missed some key facts that were expressed in the threads.

 

The only salient fact is if the cache was buried. I have two opinions to go with. The owner who said they used their hands which meets guidelines. Another reviewer who said "looked buried" and maybe it does. It's entirely possible both are right, but if both are right, that it met the guidelines trumps.

 

If they did dig with a tool, then the cache archival was correct.

 

What RoadRunner is talking about I have no idea. They are working on information that's not on the cache page.

[+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. ...

 

Mulch? You mean like bark? Thats not digging. Hiding in a flower bed isn't a good idea because of stupid finders but rummaging through mulch is not digging.

 

The trick to a mulch, rock pile, grass covered, under the bed of junipers etc. cache is that the hider has to be able to find the cache themselves. They normally line up on some kind of land mark, asphalt mark, crack in the concrete etc. Not always, but often enough to start with that before you start the major rummaging. I hate those kind of hides.

Maybe so. But to hide it you would have probably needed to excavate some material.

 

You either would not find it or you would disturb the mulch all over until you hit it. If i would have brought a rake i could have combed the top few inches easier.

[Clan Riffster]

You admit that you dug a hole in order to place the cache.

I think what he admitted to was, "I used my hands to put this wooden encasement into the ground", not to digging a hole.

[+mamid]

If you can't dig to place a cache then you shouldn't be able to place one under water where you need scuba gear to get at!

Finally someone who makes sense!

If you think about it, not everyone can qualify for either mountain climbing or scuba diving. So how are they supposed to get those caches? I'm not saying they aren't worth the effort, but when one can't climb or can't do scuba, how do they get those ones? There's a couple around me that require a boat because of access roads and the lack thereof. One in particular describes itself as being so close yet untouchable unless you do use a boat. Another says it can be done - when the river is low.

 

Digging to set the cache so that it won't be dug for once its in place should be okay, especially if you either rent or own the land or have permission from the land owner.

 

If you can't do any digging at all, then the fake sprinkler heads and taps should be banned. Those ones have to be dug in order to place them.

[Gen Santa Ana 2]

These are two buried cache that I have come accross, the first one was arcihved yesterday, the second one has not be archived but I did also post an SBA on that one.

 

Do not be missled by my numbers, I have well over a thousand finds and dozens of hides.

 

I cache in the area of the second quite a bit, I cannot cache there on any day with out finding 5 or 6 caches that violate the guidelines. I looks like a case of cacher see cacher do

First one

Dead End @ Winters Garden

 

Second one

Salt Marsh

 

If a cacher does not like the guide lines for hidding a cache, then the cacher should not hide any caches.

 

I have even seen caches that are bolted and screwed into private property. I also reported those caches.

Edited July 9, 2007 by Gen Santa Ana 2

[Gen Santa Ana 2]

If you can't do any digging at all, then the fake sprinkler heads and taps should be banned. Those ones have to be dug in order to place them.

You are 100% correct on this point, they should be arcived if they are stuck in the ground. I sprinkler head cache be placed without sticking it into the ground.

[+wimseyguy]

If you can't dig to place a cache then you shouldn't be able to place one under water where you need scuba gear to get at!

Finally someone who makes sense!

If you think about it, not everyone can qualify for either mountain climbing or scuba diving. So how are they supposed to get those caches? I'm not saying they aren't worth the effort, but when one can't climb or can't do scuba, how do they get those ones? There's a couple around me that require a boat because of access roads and the lack thereof. One in particular describes itself as being so close yet untouchable unless you do use a boat. Another says it can be done - when the river is low.

 

Digging to set the cache so that it won't be dug for once its in place should be okay, especially if you either rent or own the land or have permission from the land owner.

 

If you can't do any digging at all, then the fake sprinkler heads and taps should be banned. Those ones have to be dug in order to place them.

You are confusing a discussion of the disregard for the 'no digging/burying' guideline with difficult or for some of us impossible terrain challanges. Do you also look for fabric softener in the produce aisle?

 

I've found a few caches in the desert outside of Las Vegas and I have never seen any sand there. It's mostly very coarse, tough, gravelly dry dirt. If this cache was placed with bare hands then the owner should enter some strong man contests.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I cannot cache there on any day with out finding 5 or 6 caches that appear to violate the guidelines....

 

That's how I see those kind of caches. I don't know how they were placed, I don't know the permission behind them, I don't know if they are an exception. If I have a concern I contact the owner because they are the ones responsible and because that's the right thing to do. Reporting it because in your opinion (which isn't any better than anyone elses until proven otherwise, you are not doing the world any favors.

[+Renegade Knight]

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. ...

 

Mulch? You mean like bark? Thats not digging. Hiding in a flower bed isn't a good idea because of stupid finders but rummaging through mulch is not digging.

 

The trick to a mulch, rock pile, grass covered, under the bed of junipers etc. cache is that the hider has to be able to find the cache themselves. They normally line up on some kind of land mark, asphalt mark, crack in the concrete etc. Not always, but often enough to start with that before you start the major rummaging. I hate those kind of hides.

Maybe so. But to hide it you would have probably needed to excavate some material....

 

When I hit the point that an archaeological dig is required to find the cache, I'm not having fun and leave. A lot of the time I'll commenet about that in the log. "Well...we looked until we were tempted to hire out a bulldozer to help with the cache hunt. Since we only had enough money to buy beer we did that instead."

[Gen Santa Ana 2]

When I post a SBA I also send a photo to the reviewer.

I even saw a cache placed into a hollow of a living tree with casting resin-the day I found this one I forget to pack my camera, but I am going back with camera in hand.

 

I do not know what it is like in your area, but around here it you tell some one that there may be a problem with their cache it leads to an argument.

[+mtn-man]

<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 . . .

I remember finding a cache that was buried out in Colorado Springs a long time ago. It was found by a land manager shortly after that. They had huge issues out there because of that, including a city ban from what I remember.

 

Rather than get them corrected, do you think another black eye and ban is better?

 

Ironic that I happen to be reviewing caches in Utah now.

[+J-Way]

"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've always thought this "guideline" was very poorly worded, and almost a contradiction. Contradictory guidelines that are enforced as rules cause nothing but trouble.

 

By definition, "bury" and "dig" are opposites. To bury something is to cover it up. This means that every cache that is covered by leaves, pine straw, bark, rock, etc., is buried, and is therefore against the guidelines. Technically, as the guidelines are enforced now, you can legally place a cache container on the top of the ground and (using your hands) hide it with a layer of loose dirt and leaves.

 

IMHO, a better wording would be:

Caches that require digging. 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.

[Gen Santa Ana 2]

You can even buy cache containers that are meant to be buried

 

valve

[+briansnat]

...I cannot cache there on any day with out finding 5 or 6 caches that appear to violate the guidelines....

 

That's how I see those kind of caches. I don't know how they were placed, I don't know the permission behind them, I don't know if they are an exception. If I have a concern I contact the owner because they are the ones responsible and because that's the right thing to do. Reporting it because in your opinion (which isn't any better than anyone elses until proven otherwise, you are not doing the world any favors.

 

If he doesn't report them, who will? The ones he linked to had dozens of happy finders who ignored the apparent guideline violation. I'm sure many of them thought it was a nifty idea and considered copying it.

 

I'd rather a geocacher be the one to find it and report it to the reviewer, than a park employee or ranger find it and report it to his boss. If it's reported to the reviewer and it turns out everything is in order, then there is no problem. If there is a guideline violation, then it will deservedly be archived. Let the reviewer sort it out, that's part of what he is there for.

[+dew cache]

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

 

What you could say is you did not bury 2 years ago it was on top of the ground and you collected sand (small rocks) from the area that you covered up the cache with and over the years the sand has grown around the cache to make it look like it was buried. Is it not true that anything in the desert that will not blow away will be covered with sand over time as long as it is not at the top of a hill?

[+TrekkingTurtles]

 

IMHO, a better wording would be:

Caches that require digging. 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.

 

Yes - This would be a better wording!

 

IMHO - all the caches in the world could be un-buried & yet one cacher finds a existing hole in a public area - and makes the best cache in the world..... praised by many, adored by all - and the 'land manager' finds it, has issues with it - and a**uMEs that ALL caches are buried - and has an agenda to ban them in all Public Areas. Not realistic - but it could happen to some degree (and has some places). If you love geocaching - why would you do anything which could jeopardize it.

 

DO NOT use anything (pointy shovel or pointy finger) to bury a cache - then maybe someday, all the people who think we 'bury treasure' will get over themselves.

 

oh yeah.... Gen Santa Ana 2 - one can also buy Crack - - - but that doesn't make it legal or right!!

Edited July 9, 2007 by TrekkingTurtles

[+PJPeters]

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

This question has been aimed at the wrong point. It's not the finder, it's the hider. All it will take is the land manager to discover the cache to get a ban. It's happened.

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.

I'd think that qualifies him/her as an expert.

Negative comments serve no purpose and only tend to drag down a very positive sport that is to be enjoyed by all cachers.

You can't live life without getting some negative feedback. How else can you grow in the hobby? If all you heard was "Great cache!"-type comments without anybody telling you that the location was bad, the rating was off, the container leaked, etc., where would this sport be? I'd rather have somebody tell me that the cache I hid was in a bad location that nobody enjoys than leave it there and not learn how to hide better caches.

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

Digging one hole may (or may not) be an issue. Several dozen people digging up the area will create issues: preventing plant growth to avoid erosion, destroying viable ecosystems, etc. I'm not saying that may happen in the desert, but around here, it can create issues. Sand dunes (we've got a bunch) are very unstable. Any grass that does grow on them helps prevent the erosion, and destruction of the area. That's part of the reason we can't get sand from the dunes, we have to buy it from "sand mines."

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

Yup, and that's why many areas are closed to ORVs and Mountain Bikes - they damage the area. Let's not give land managers any more cause to dislike our hobby.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

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.

I'd think that qualifies him/her as an expert....

 

Some of the most self serving and WRONG logs I've read are from cachers who confuse their find count for wisdom and knowlege. In this case that particular cacher has shown they do know a little something by their contributions in the forums. That does not mean that the cache should just be archived without the follow through that courtesy, and the simple fact that the cache owner is the actual responsible party demands.

[Blue_Stone]

 

Some of the most self serving and WRONG logs I've read are from cachers who confuse their find count for wisdom and knowlege. In this case that particular cacher has shown they do know a little something by their contributions in the forums. That does not mean that the cache should just be archived without the follow through that courtesy, and the simple fact that the cache owner is the actual responsible party demands.

 

WELL said, RK!....I've been kind of surprised and disappointed with some of the "huge numbers" finders in the sport. Just because a cacher finds several thousand caches, doesnt necessarily make them an expert in my book. Probably, most of those numbers are from quick park & dashes, LPCs, and guardrails.

IMHO, you only need to find just so many of those types of hides before you become an "expert"...If I want to know if someone is "experienced", one thing I look at is the diff/terr ratings on most of the caches they've found.

[Sadie]

...

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.

I'd think that qualifies him/her as an expert....

 

Some of the most self serving and WRONG logs I've read are from cachers who confuse their find count for wisdom and knowlege. In this case that particular cacher has shown they do know a little something by their contributions in the forums. That does not mean that the cache should just be archived without the follow through that courtesy, and the simple fact that the cache owner is the actual responsible party demands.

So, next time you need your transmission fixed, take it to someone who only fixed 2 transmissions, not the guy who's fixed 5000 transmissions. yes, there is a "chance" that the person who lacks experience has the one and only solution to the issue, but this is not the case. Maybe you should do a bit more research before making that assumption. Looking at his profile, the person in question happens to have found some high terrain caches and has even placed some.

 

In other words... get real.

[+Always & Forever 5]

If you think about it, not everyone can qualify for either mountain climbing or scuba diving. So how are they supposed to get those caches? I'm not saying they aren't worth the effort, but when one can't climb or can't do scuba, how do they get those ones?

 

Maybe I'm the one missing the mark here, but where does it say that every cache should be accessible to every cacher??? If that's the case, then there are a lot of unburied, perfectly "legal" caches that SBA because they aren't able to be reached by persons in wheelchairs, small children, fat people, thin people...you get my point. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Gen Santa Ana 2]

...

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.

I'd think that qualifies him/her as an expert....

 

Some of the most self serving and WRONG logs I've read are from cachers who confuse their find count for wisdom and knowlege. In this case that particular cacher has shown they do know a little something by their contributions in the forums. That does not mean that the cache should just be archived without the follow through that courtesy, and the simple fact that the cache owner is the actual responsible party demands.

So, next time you need your transmission fixed, take it to someone who only fixed 2 transmissions, not the guy who's fixed 5000 transmissions. yes, there is a "chance" that the person who lacks experience has the one and only solution to the issue, but this is not the case. Maybe you should do a bit more research before making that assumption. Looking at his profile, the person in question happens to have found some high terrain caches and has even placed some.

 

In other words... get real.

A high number of cache finds does not make a person and expert at placing a cache

I have seen illegel caches placed by high number cachers. These cachers have found caches in all types of terrain. It appears that they just do not care about the guidlines, or that they feel they are special.

[+tozainamboku]

A high number of cache finds does not make a person and expert at placing a cache

I have seen illegel caches placed by high number cachers. These cachers have found caches in all types of terrain. It appears that they just do not care about the guidlines, or that they feel they are special.

Similarly I have seen cachers with only 5 finds think they are experts on the interpretation of the guidelines, especially that part that says

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

[WashoeZephyr]

I've found a few caches in the desert outside of Las Vegas and I have never seen any sand there. It's mostly very coarse, tough, gravelly dry dirt. If this cache was placed with bare hands then the owner should enter some strong man contests.

This cache is over 300 miles north of Vegas.(We grow our states big out here, look at your GPS!)and BTW, there is lots of sand around Las Vegas.

 

I have done the cache in question, yes, it is one of my more favorite caches. Yes, it is very sandy around the "box" in question and probably could've been dug up by hand. Unfortunately I would consider this to technically be "buried". In this particular case, I wouldn't say that any sort of environmental impact has been made or would have effect in the future, it's just a sagebrush. They grow everywhere here! Unfortunately the guidelines are there for a reason. Maybe if you obtained permission from the BLM they could be "ok" with it?? It will be sad to see this one go!

The really sad part is that this land will probably be sold to the City by the BLM in the next ten years and a strip mall will be sitting there!

[+ThirstyMick]

So what I'm gathering from this arguement is that some people think that a reviewer is not an expert due to the fact that he's got 4000 finds?

 

Sorry if I don't feel like composing a solid arguement against that; I'm just sitting here laughing.

 

While it's true that some folks just drive from LPC to LPC, I really don't see that being the case here

 

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.

 

I'm not pointing any fingers here but this is probably because many of us are.

People will see your cache and think that's okay. Their hides might be a lot less okay than yours.

 

If you post on the cache page that you have the land managers permission, the reviewer might make an exception, I don't know. But certainly if the cache page doesn't have the info on it, people don't know the circumstances. They won't know that its an exception and they will follow in your example without the permission; putting the sport at risk of being banned by land managers who find the buried caches.

 

It's been said before but the kind folks who make the guidelines have loads more experience dealing with land managers than most of us do.

[+Cornerstone4]

 

If he doesn't report them, who will? The ones he linked to had dozens of happy finders who ignored the apparent guideline violation. I'm sure many of them thought it was a nifty idea and considered copying it.

 

I'd rather a geocacher be the one to find it and report it to the reviewer, than a park employee or ranger find it and report it to his boss. If it's reported to the reviewer and it turns out everything is in order, then there is no problem. If there is a guideline violation, then it will deservedly be archived. Let the reviewer sort it out, that's part of what he is there for.

 

(Text bolded to highlight my response.)

 

This is exactly what happened with a cache of mine. We had a Mega event out here in February, and there were folks from all over, and a few reviewers out here as well. One of my caches was reported, since it is in a hole and below ground level. It's a TB hotel, with great freeway access, and a lot of folks have enjoyed it. However, once it was reported, it was archived immediately. I contacted the reviewer, and explained that there were several different real estate signs that used to be on that corner, and there were holes for those. I dropped the container in an empty hole, and covered it with a piece of metal. The cache was unarchived, and is back in business. So, taking the time to explain things helps!

 

On a side note, due to the fact that there has been so much issue over this subject, and because there is a chance that someone may mistakenly think it is ok to bury a cache, I have been thinking about archiving this one myself. They are widening the road in the area, and I'm sure it will affect the hide anyway, so I have been letting it ride for now. A lot of bugs go through here because of the easy freeway access.

[+grimmie895]

If the Cache lid isn't under ground then it is not burried. I've found many caches of this type. Considering most caches in rock walls are covered basically the same way, shouldn't those be held under the same rules? Maybe we should have to leave the cache un-hidden and in plain sight?!? I thought part of the fun is having to search for the treasure. I agree it shouldn't be 'burried', but an exposed lid should be allowed. Just make sure the listed difficulty and terrain match the expected levels. Either way, I'd just hide 10 more caches to keep the sport alive. Grimmie895

[+Knight2000]

If the Cache lid isn't under ground then it is not burried. I've found many caches of this type. Considering most caches in rock walls are covered basically the same way, shouldn't those be held under the same rules? Maybe we should have to leave the cache un-hidden and in plain sight?!? I thought part of the fun is having to search for the treasure. I agree it shouldn't be 'burried', but an exposed lid should be allowed. Just make sure the listed difficulty and terrain match the expected levels. Either way, I'd just hide 10 more caches to keep the sport alive. Grimmie895

An exposed lid where the cache is placed buy digging with a pointy tool?

 

If that is what you think then you just check the box agreeing to the guidelines even though your caches may not adhere to them?

 

I dont get it.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

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.

I'd think that qualifies him/her as an expert....

 

Some of the most self serving and WRONG logs I've read are from cachers who confuse their find count for wisdom and knowlege. In this case that particular cacher has shown they do know a little something by their contributions in the forums. That does not mean that the cache should just be archived without the follow through that courtesy, and the simple fact that the cache owner is the actual responsible party demands.

So, next time you need your transmission fixed, take it to someone who only fixed 2 transmissions, not the guy who's fixed 5000 transmissions. yes, there is a "chance" that the person who lacks experience has the one and only solution to the issue, but this is not the case. Maybe you should do a bit more research before making that assumption. Looking at his profile, the person in question happens to have found some high terrain caches and has even placed some.

 

In other words... get real.

 

You have to look at the bigger picture. While you may get starry eyed over raw numbers. They are just an indicator. Even as you tell me to get real, you did exactly what I suggested that you should do. Dig deeper. Apparently I'm real enough for you.

 

Now for your anology:

----------------------------------------------

 

AAMCO fixes thousands of transmissions. I'd not trust them to touch my transmission if they were the last shop on earth. They have more issues as a shop, than a new shop who just opened their doors but who was actually interested in repairing transmissions right, would have.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=aamco+ripped+me+off

 

Turns out AAMCO is interested in $. But the fix for some Transmissions requires more than a standard rebuild kit. You have to know this going in. AAMCO should but, they won't ask (Any one shop can have a good mechanic...). Joe Trannie might. I know this because the Transmission is a weak point of a Taurus and the 700-R4 in a lot of GMs is a good transmisison but only if you put the right parts in it to make it that way. My rig is on it's 3rd (Thankfully under another owner, but when I blow that trannie up...). I burned through two Turbo 350's on another rig because I didn't know that I should have just upgraded to a Turbo 400 for how I used that truck. I've had to learn about transmissions the hard way. Joe Trannie better ask me the right questions or I'm going to think he's just a number$ whore of a repair shop guy.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

... Maybe you should do a bit more research before making that assumption. Looking at his profile, the person in question happens to have found some high terrain caches and has even placed some.

 

In other words... get real.

 

No assumptions were harmed in the making of my post. You however assumed that I assumed rather than having based what I posted on my own caching experience in dealing with high numbers cachers. Please note that I've had dealings with this person outside of logs and based on that I said I felt they knew a little something about this activity. That was intensionally understated only because that's my style. However you seemed to have completely missed that. I went on to say that even though they do know something the reviewer still needs to follow through and do their own homework before they make a determination. That was based on the fact that any alleged harm was already done, no further harm was likely, and the EPA Cache Burial and Bomb Squad were not standing by pending the result of the cache being archived immediatly.

 

Lastly I'd like to stress again that you also took the time to do a little home work on the guy before you posted to assess his credability. Which is exactly what I said you should do. So far as I can tell, you agree with me on #'s only being a clue about a persons knowlege and not the while story because you yourself looked into it in more depth.

[+Krieger]

I just visted the Bureau of Land Management in Carson City, NV to get a read on this issue. With the UTM coordinates, we determined that the site is, in fact, on BLM land. Prior to going to the BLM office, I took pictures of the site which I showed one of their representatives. I asked if this kind of hide was okay. The reply was that there was nothing wrong with it. Let's continue the discussion on the salient point of being buried. Perhaps a better stipulation in the "guidelines" should be that caches cannot be below ground level.

 

I'd like to let this forum go another few days, with the reviewers permission. before I submit my appeal.

[drofrockology]

the problem i see with a cache like this is: it will inspire more geocachers, who have also not taken the time to read the guidelines for placing a cache, to do something similar.

 

recently, i had the opportunity to go caching with a cache approver, when the subject of buried caches came up. apparently , the rule has nothing to do with the difficulty of the hide but rights of the property owner. and even if said property is blm land, i can tell you that after dealing with the bureaucracy for the past four-years that their greatest concern regarding geocaches on public lands is that they are being buried.

 

a hole was, indeed, required to place this cache! therefore, it is not a proper cache!

 

the wooden box the cache was enclosed in was built very well. however, that does not change anything regarding the rules.

 

you have chosen an area to hide "sage one" that is frequented by motorcycle and atv riders and juvenile party-types. i'd suggest that, if you really want to place a cache in this particular area, you get creative with camouflage and rehide the cache under a new name.

 

or, find another hiding location; there are a myriad choices within just a short distance from this soon-to-be neighborhood.

[+tozainamboku]

a hole was, indeed, required to place this cache! therefore, it is not a proper cache!

Which guideline is this? If you say that the hider used a shovel, trowel, or other pointy object to dig a hole in order to hide a cache I see where the guidelines prohibit that. But it does seem that you can still hide a cache in a existing hole.

 

I am very disturbed by the number of people who have expressed the opinion here that these caches should be banned even when a existing hole is used or when permission has be received from a landowner, because some geocacher will be dumb enough to copy this cache by digging a hole in the lawn at a local park or some other place that would cause a problem. You shouldn't hide any caches then because some geocacher may be dumb enough to copy that hide on highway bridge or outside a military base. Gosh, if you get permission to hide a cache at the local KMart you shouldn't do it because some bozo will hide one at Wal*Mart without getting permission. Let's ban all caches now because cachers are incapable of knowing when a particular hide is inappropriate.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

a hole was, indeed, required to place this cache! therefore, it is not a proper cache!

Which guideline is this? If you say that the hider used a shovel, trowel, or other pointy object to dig a hole in order to hide a cache I see where the guidelines prohibit that. But it does seem that you can still hide a cache in a existing hole.

 

I am very disturbed by the number of people who have expressed the opinion here that these caches should be banned even when a existing hole is used or when permission has be received from a landowner, because some geocacher will be dumb enough to copy this cache by digging a hole in the lawn at a local park or some other place that would cause a problem. You shouldn't hide any caches then because some geocacher may be dumb enough to copy that hide on highway bridge or outside a military base. Gosh, if you get permission to hide a cache at the local KMart you shouldn't do it because some bozo will hide one at Wal*Mart without getting permission. Let's ban all caches now because cachers are incapable of knowing when a particular hide is inappropriate.

Thank you.

 

Lets also keep in mind he hid this two years ago, before the latest revisions,when the guidlines just said no digging with pointy objects. I wouldn't have considered scooping sand out with my hands a violation either.

[+ventura_kids]

I'm not experienced enough in the regulations, or the guidelines..... the rules as some call them.

 

I do know that this cache was fine and should not have been archived.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

But it does seem that you can still hide a cache in a existing hole.

The hole wasn't an existing hole according the the hider himself. He said that he dug the hole in which to place the wooden box. And then placed the cache in the box.

[WashoeZephyr]

Thank you.

 

Lets also keep in mind he hid this two years ago, before the latest revisions,when the guidlines just said no digging with pointy objects. I wouldn't have considered scooping sand out with my hands a violation either.

 

After kind of doing a little research on the "guidlines" (and clarified to myself on what constitutes burying) if this was in fact dug out with hands, it should stay, heck 111 people found it before someone complained. Really, this hunk of BLM land is adjacent to a neighborhood and like RockDoc mentioned is FREQUENTED by ATV's and partying teens. With the rate of growth of this area it will soon be a neighborhood or strip mall anyways. If they (BLM) were worried about any environmental impact to this area, they would have posted no ATV signs a long time ago. I realize your going to have idiots out there that saw this cache and thought "cool" lets put one similar in a place that wasn't appropriate (where do you draw the line? ).

C'mon people, it's mostly just common sense! For the most part if you have enough sense to operate a GPS, you should have enough sense to know the difference between what is right and what is wrong!

[+geekster]

We found this cache while in the area for the GBES Rally last year and really enjoyed it, it was in fact one of the more memorable ones of the trip, really don't see why anyone would have a problem with it.

[+Cacheleen]

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.

 

 

In terms of Sage One (do not archive), the encasement for the ammo can is in the ground at the base of a sagebrush , however the ammo can it self is not "buried", it is simply placed inside the encasement. It is a very clever hide and really the least intrusive way to hide an ammo can based on my experiences..... this hide in my opinion does not qualify has "buried" at all. Nothing gets disturbed when retrieving and returning this cache, unlike when you see them placed in "rock piles" and bushes and other plant life...over time the plants get trashed, and the rocks piles are rearranged.

 

In terms of rules/guidelines.... I think it depends on the reviewer and if he/she decides to "follow them", in short...I notified our local reviewer of a cache on private property,,,,cache was archived...Okay....a few years later a local cacher unknowingly placed a new cache in the same area ... cache gets approved...I notified the cache owner and reviewer of all private property info... property owners, plot maps, etc. cache archived......

then interestingly enough a few months later the "SAME" reviewer "approves " the original cache under a "new owners name" in the same area and yes on private property. It sits there to this day"ready for the hunt." Yes even "marked" as private property as well.

Still looking for the "common Sense" in that one....

So I raise my hands and say.. Guidelines, what guidelines....

Funny because I am from the same area and so have the same reviewer...

Not trying to start trouble, but this has been my experience.

[+Knight2000]

the problem i see with a cache like this is: it will inspire more geocachers, who have also not taken the time to read the guidelines for placing a cache, to do something similar.

 

recently, i had the opportunity to go caching with a cache approver, when the subject of buried caches came up. apparently , the rule has nothing to do with the difficulty of the hide but rights of the property owner. and even if said property is blm land, i can tell you that after dealing with the bureaucracy for the past four-years that their greatest concern regarding geocaches on public lands is that they are being buried.

Bingo.

[+Knight2000]

I'm not experienced enough in the regulations, or the guidelines..... the rules as some call them.

[+Renegade Knight]

...a hole was, indeed, required to place this cache! therefore, it is not a proper cache!...

 

It's not the hole. It's the digging. Fox Holes, Gopher Holes, and natural depressions are all fair game.