Sage One

[+Miragee]

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.

The cache in Colorado had been in place for two and a half years, making the finders very happy, from a quick read through the logs. I wish a little common sense could be employed when caches like this are encountered, and when they are obviously not causing a problem where they are.

 

We are talking about "guidelines," aren't we?

[+Renegade Knight]

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....

 

The problem with logic like this is that it's making me responsible for other peoples hides. No thanks. As a cache owner I have a full time job trying to keep finders from screwing things up. I don't have the time, or inclination to keep track of all the ways someone can look at one of my caches and screw up their own copycat.

 

If other people won't read the guidelines why should I make up for their lack? They are the ones with a problem.

 

This reminds me of a joke:

http://www.achannel.ca/london/6503_3331323733.htm

[+Knight2000]

The cache in Colorado had been in place for two and a half years, making the finders very happy, from a quick read through the logs.

I cant speak for that cache.

 

I have seen caches near us that are clearly against guidelines and many, many finders just dont care. They will walk right past several no trespassing sings and some would even note it in their logs. (Even though they broke the law to find it.) I would say the majority of people just dont care about the guidelines. (IMO.)

[+TatDaddy]

I liked the location and effort on this cache. I have also seen many other caches set up like this one and in fact i wanted to hit one woth a much less obvious cover. (flush to ground with cammo cover)

I guess it is "kinda" buried but I guesss it "kinda" isn't. tough call.

I would think that maybe just hiding another cache in the area that is unquestionable in the guidelines maybe a good outlet for frustations. good luck.

 

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

[+TrailGators]

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.

The cache in Colorado had been in place for two and a half years, making the finders very happy, from a quick read through the logs. I wish a little common sense could be employed when caches like this are encountered, and when they are obviously not causing a problem where they are.

 

We are talking about "guidelines," aren't we?

When you make an exception for one cache what happens? More people start burying caches...right? The reviewers never ask if a cache is buried because people have already agreed that their cache follows the guidelines. So eventually some person buries a cache in some park; the rangers discover it and ban caching in that park. But the person that hid it thought it was "OK" to bury a cache because they have found one or more caches that were buried. Is it worth it? Why can't they hide it the normal way and avoid the potential consequences it could cause?

[eric489]

I think that anyone that has a problem with this cache is a frggin moron. I believe that the guideline of not burying your cache was intended to give the cacher an equal opportunity to find it without digging multiple holes in the ground. I challenge anyone’s opinion that has a problem with this hide. I think to this day that was one of the cleverest hides I have seen. To another point, if the problem is digging the hole in the first place to not disturb the earth’s ground cover, you might want to double check your past caches. I guarantee that you have found some cache somewhere that you smashed down grass to find, or picked up a rock to cover the cache and left a hole in the ground or broke a branch recovering the cache. The sport of geocaching is to have fun and if you keep complaining about peoples hides, they won’t hide anymore therefore you will have nothing to find. Keep your mouth shut and enjoy the sport. Keep on hiding Krieger and for the rest of you complainers you make a bad name for the sport.

 

eric489240z@hotmail.com

[manram]

Manram found this with the family. A very fun find and would be a shame to archive because it is underneath sticks. Ammo can is place in an existing indintation.

Edited July 11, 2007 by manram

[+TrailGators]

I think that anyone that has a problem with this cache is a frggin moron. I believe that the guideline of not burying your cache was intended to give the cacher an equal opportunity to find it without digging multiple holes in the ground. I challenge anyone's opinion that has a problem with this hide. I think to this day that was one of the cleverest hides I have seen. To another point, if the problem is digging the hole in the first place to not disturb the earth's ground cover, you might want to double check your past caches. I guarantee that you have found some cache somewhere that you smashed down grass to find, or picked up a rock to cover the cache and left a hole in the ground or broke a branch recovering the cache. The sport of geocaching is to have fun and if you keep complaining about peoples hides, they won't hide anymore therefore you will have nothing to find. Keep your mouth shut and enjoy the sport. Keep on hiding Krieger and for the rest of you complainers you make a bad name for the sport.

 

eric489240z@hotmail.com

Here is the guideline. It covers hiding as well as finding....

 

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.

[+John Wayne Pooch]

I'm not trying to choose sides on this topic. As stated there are obvious reasons for the guidelines but can I make a suggestion? Instead of treating people as children and assuming because one cache is done in a manor that is questionable and thinking that maybe someone will do it else where, how about stating something in the cache description along the lines of…

 

"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 leads me to also have to ask if I wanted to place on my property, would I still not be allowed to dig a hole to place it in? I will assume yes because once again, "someone may attempt to copy it on BLM property." But what if I had dug the hole for something else but then changed my mind. What if I place a cache on flat level ground and then surround the container with a ton of, I don’t know, dirt, mulch, tons of rocks, does that still qualify as being buried since there was actually no hole dug to place the cache in? The wording on that guideline is terrible and leaves it very open but I'm guessing that was done intentionally.

 

It does seem to leave few options.

LPC - which are usually on private properties without permission.

Desert and forest caches – which are usually on trust lands and for the most part, are not allowed.

Micros - which like LPC caches are mostly on private properties without permission.

So when you do find places where caches can be placed they seemed to be spotted my muggles and a couple of things that could happen is the cache gets stolen or the bomb squad gets called in to blow them up.

 

I just don't know. I really enjoy geocaching but these forums just show that caching seems to be more of a problem then a fun sport. I really don't know where I'm going with this so I will end this for now.

 

I do have to ask though to those who find caches improperly placed, do you still log a smiley to the cache page???

Edited July 11, 2007 by JDubPooch

[+TrailGators]

I'm not trying to choose sides on this topic. As stated there are obvious reasons for the guidelines but can I make a suggestion? Instead of treating people as children and assuming because one cache is done in a manor that is questionable and thinking that maybe someone will do it else where, how about stating something in the cache description along the lines of…

 

"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 leads me to also have to ask if I wanted to place on my property, would I still not be allowed to dig a hole to place it in? I will assume yes because once again, "someone may attempt to copy it on BLM property." But what if I had dug the hole for something else but then changed my mind. What if I place a cache on flat level ground and then surround the container with a ton of, I don't know, dirt, mulch, tons of rocks, does that still qualify as being buried since there was actually no hole dug to place the cache in? The wording on that guideline is terrible and leaves it very open but I'm guessing that was done intentionally.

 

It does seem to leave few options.

LPC - which are usually on private properties without permission.

Desert and forest caches – which are usually on trust lands and for the most part, are not allowed.

Micros - which like LPC caches are mostly on private properties without permission.

So when you do find places where caches can be placed they seemed to be spotted my muggles and a couple of things that could happen is the cache gets stolen or the bomb squad gets called in to blow them up.

 

I just don't know. I really enjoy geocaching but these forums just show that caching seems to be more of a problem then a fun sport. I really don't know where I'm going with this so I will end this for now.

 

I do have to ask though to those who find caches improperly placed, do you still log a smiley to the cache page???

If everyone had common sense this wouldn't be an issue. Geocaching can never condone hiding or finding techniques that damage property. Many park rules are very strict. We can't even move any rocks in Anza Borrego. They would freak if people started burying caches. So the words can't change. Finally, if a reviewer were to make an exception for one cacher then some other cacher will give the reviewer a ration of YKW, if his cache is rejected. How would you like to constantly endure this as a volunteer? Edited July 11, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Knight2000]

I hate to see people so upset over a hide. But in the end, there has to be a guideline somewhere, right?

 

So where do we draw the line?

 

Would you agree that it has to be drawn somewhere?

Edited July 11, 2007 by knight2000

[+TrailGators]

I hate to see people so upset over a hide. But in the end, there has to be a guideline somewhere, right?

 

So where do we draw the line?

 

Would you agree that it has to be drawn somewhere?

I'm not sure why some people are so upset. They all agreed to follow the guidelines on this site. I think once they understand all the potential consequences and the reasoning behind the guidelines maybe they'll understand...

[+BigTruckCrew]

Blah, Blah, Blah, It was a fun and clever hide. Move it a few feet (what ever distance is required) and replace the box in an "existing depression".

 

I don't see that you broke any guidelines or rules! My vote is that the cache should stay as is!

[WashoeZephyr]

They would freak if people started burying caches. So the words can't change. Finally, if a reviewer were to make an exception for one cacher then some other cacher will give the reviewer a ration of YKW, if his cache is rejected. How would you like to constantly endure this as a volunteer?

Nevada should be hole exempt

 

[+Renegade Knight]

... The wording on that guideline is terrible and leaves it very open but I'm guessing that was done intentionally....

 

It's a tough guideline to write. Sometimes you can see what you want to put down but doing so, just takes the clarity in your mind and turns it into something not so clear.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

I hate to see people so upset over a hide. But in the end, there has to be a guideline somewhere, right?

 

So where do we draw the line?

 

Would you agree that it has to be drawn somewhere?

 

Nope, at least not a straight line. It's a big country and a bigger world and what is wrong where you live may be the perfect solution where I live. Groundspeak will always, I'm sure, try to ere on the side of caution, but each cache should be evaluted on it's own merit when a dispute arises.

 

 

This leads me to also have to ask if I wanted to place on my property, would I still not be allowed to dig a hole to place it in?

 

If I want to bury a cache on my property I will, Groundspeak has no control over that.

If I want to list that cache on Groundspeak though I will have to explain it to them, and if they are convinced they will list it as a special exception, if not they will refuse, their choice. But I can still bury it, as deep as I want.

[+NVGreenGecko]

If BLM gave their permission on this specific cache, then why not state that on the cache page and let it stay?

 

[+basquenv]

There are a lot of geocaches out there that I have found inside of sprinkler valve boxes, and in sprinklers, PVC pipe, etc. that would be considered to buried just as this one is. Send out the geotroops to all of these?

[+briansnat]

I think that anyone that has a problem with this cache is a frggin moron.

 

now wy wood you say somthieng liek this abot me. i are not no moran. i think.

 

I believe that the guideline of not burying your cache was intended to give the cacher an equal opportunity to find it without digging multiple holes in the ground.

 

You believe wrong.

 

I challenge anyone’s opinion that has a problem with this hide.

 

You can challenge all you like, but a reviewer and a lot of other people see things differently.

 

I think to this day that was one of the cleverest hides I have seen.

 

I recall a very clever hide. The person drilled a hole in a live tree in a county park and inserted a film canister. Clever doesn't necessarily = smart.

 

To another point, if the problem is digging the hole in the first place to not disturb the earth’s ground cover, you might want to double check your past caches. I guarantee that you have found some cache somewhere that you smashed down grass to find, or picked up a rock to cover the cache and left a hole in the ground or broke a branch recovering the cache.

 

Apparently you missed the point. The guideline is not there out of any sense of environmental altruism. It is there to appease land managers. Like it or not we are allowed to practice this sport only through their good graces.

 

The sport of geocaching is to have fun and if you keep complaining about peoples hides, they won’t hide anymore therefore you will have nothing to find. Keep your mouth shut and enjoy the sport.

 

I agree with you there, the point of geocaching is to have fun. If we want to continue having fun we need to play ball with the people who manage the lands where we hide caches. These people don't want us digging in their parks to hide caches. (by the way 200+ hides here and not one involved digging. It can be done.)

 

Keep on hiding Krieger and for the rest of you complainers you make a bad name for the sport.

 

The people who risk giving the sport a bad name are those who violate the guidelines, not those who enforce or stand up for them.

[Gen Santa Ana 2]

I have posted more than one SBA on caches that are buried. I have also reported caches that have defaced private property. I know of one area that is so bad that you cannot spend a day there with out finding more than just a few illegal caches. In one day I found 8 caches that were srewed into private property

Edited July 11, 2007 by Gen Santa Ana 2

[CoyoteRed]

Some of the most self serving and WRONG logs I've read are from cachers who confuse their find count for wisdom and knowlege.

Ain't that the truth! (Not that I'm referring to the cachers in question.)

 

I know of two instances right off the top of my head where high number cachers failed to find a couple of our caches and insinuated, or outright claimed, the cache was gone. It wasn't in either case. In one case they even reference their "superior" numbers as some sort of qualifier for their statement.

[WashoeZephyr]

[CoyoteRed]

I might have missed it, but in regards to the landowner finding a cache that is partially below grade, can someone explain to me how they would differentiate a dug hole and found hole--like a rotted stump hole?

 

What about a natural (we assume) hole where the cache container nearly fills it completely and the detritus covering then makes the location completely flat?

 

Are we expecting a landowner to investigate this hole to see if it is natural or man-made? The reason I ask is because I'm reading a lot about landowner finding something buried and banning caching. Personally, I think this is more of a permission thing than really a burying thing.

[Gen Santa Ana 2]

On ting abowt dis twed. Pepoles is getin edumatkated abowt how not ta hyde a cacsh

[+briansnat]

I I know of one area that is so bad that you cannot spend a day there with out finding more than just a few illegal caches. In one day I found 8 caches that were srewed into private property

 

A good example of why hides like this are not a good idea. People see it and copy it. I've never seen a buried cache in this area or most others where I've geocached. Apparently they are relatively common in others. A simple case of monkey see, monkey do. It sets a bad precedent.

 

If nothing else, burying caches shows a total lack of imagination. Anybody can make a "clever" hide digging a hole. Show some ingenuity and hide it above ground.

[CoyoteRed]

I have posted more than one SBA on caches that are buried. I have also reported caches that have defaced private property. I know of one area that is so bad that you cannot spend a day there with out finding more than just a few illegal caches. In one day I found 8 caches that were srewed into private property

I've turned in cache or two, but you sound like you're on a crusade.

 

There's a couple of questions I ask myself before I turn in a cache. Does it violate landowner policy? Can the location be returned to its found state on a finder visit or to its original state when the cache is removed?

 

My personal opinion is if the cache, for instance, uses a screw under a wooden foot bridge where the resultant hole is indistinguishable from any of the other screw or nail holes made by the construction crew, then I'm not going to worry about it. OTOH, destruction or mutilation of visible structures or parts gets a note. Drilling hole in structures or live plants get a note.

 

If the cache placement goes against a known landowner policy, then mostly definitely it gets a note.

 

How I handle these notes may vary from an SBA to a note to the reviewer to a private note to the owner depending on how I think it should go.

 

Basically, I go by how I think the cache affects the hobby, not how it complies with the guidelines. These are two different things.

 

EDIT: I'm sleepy. (Response: Hi, Sleepy. I'm Grumpy.)

Edited July 11, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[WashoeZephyr]

A good example of why hides like this are not a good idea. People see it and copy it. I've never seen a buried cache in this area or most others where I've geocached. Apparently they are relatively common in others. A simple case of monkey see, monkey do. It sets a bad precedent.

 

If nothing else, burying caches shows a total lack of imagination. Anybody can make a "clever" hide digging a hole. Show some ingenuity and hide it above ground.

I know we are starting to repeat ourselves and this discussion has made me change my mind about this particular cache, back to the topic of "Sage One"

This is a really good cache for this area, local terrain and environment dictate how things are hidden. Most of the terrain in northern nevada is sandy, rocky high desert controlled by the BLM. We don't have many big trees, just lots of sagebrush! (For those of you unfamiliar, it is our state weed, grows about 4 feet tall, EVERYWHERE) There are only so many painfully obvious rock piles, altoid tins hidden in a sage brush and historical markers one can find. The cache itself IS NOT BURIED, the surrounding structure has sand piled around it and it blends in brilliantly with the surroundings. You do not need to dig to get the cache. If you did have to dig, that means the wind blew sand over the top, it wasn't like that when we found it. If the BLM says it's ok, what is the problem??

 

I do find it disturbing that someone would drill a hole in a live tree

Edited July 11, 2007 by LostinReno

[+Renegade Knight]

Some of the most self serving and WRONG logs I've read are from cachers who confuse their find count for wisdom and knowlege.

Ain't that the truth! (Not that I'm referring to the cachers in question.)

 

I know of two instances right off the top of my head where high number cachers failed to find a couple of our caches and insinuated, or outright claimed, the cache was gone. It wasn't in either case. In one case they even reference their "superior" numbers as some sort of qualifier for their statement.

 

I see you have met the type.

[+Hobobrother]

Clearly, the 'by-the-book interpretation' says that it's buried. The 'common sense interpretation' leaves more wiggle room. Specifically regarding this cache (one of my first ever finds), I can't say that I am opposed. But, it is a slippery slope when 'interpretations' enter into things.

 

Working in the banking industry, rules and regulations designed to address a few bad guys often ruin good things for law obiding customers...but, unfortunately, the rules and regulations are sometimes the only way to fairly define proper operating protocol. Does it mean that we often have to take steps we don't agree with? Yes. Have these steps prevented some bad guys from taking advantage? Perhaps (although bad guys always find new ways to skirt the rules and regulations). Do we enjoy having to contend with the extra rules and regulations? No. But we do...it's part of the game.

 

Ultimately, what should win the day is the idea that rules and regulations should be clearly defined, easy to interpret and filled with common sense. I think that this and other forums are great for the exchange of ideas and for open discussion on topics such at this. At some point, however, administration must make a decision (based on facts, common sense and reason) and that decision must be final. We may not agree with the decision, but out of respect for the sport we must uphold it. Once the decision is made, it becomes part of the game.

 

Hobobrother

[+Renegade Knight]

I might have missed it, but in regards to the landowner finding a cache that is partially below grade, can someone explain to me how they would differentiate a dug hole and found hole--like a rotted stump hole?

 

What about a natural (we assume) hole where the cache container nearly fills it completely and the detritus covering then makes the location completely flat?

 

Are we expecting a landowner to investigate this hole to see if it is natural or man-made? The reason I ask is because I'm reading a lot about landowner finding something buried and banning caching. Personally, I think this is more of a permission thing than really a burying thing.

 

If they could not tell just from finding the cache in place. The moment they pulled the cache it would be fairly obvious. Most natural holes I can think of have signs of their creation.

 

If the rule is going to be "doesn't look buried" that's a higher bar.

[+Mopar]

The BLM is a federal agency. As such, I assume their rules should be somewhat consistent across the board (Federal gov and consistency? HA!).

But anyone, the Arizona office has a real nice page about geocaching (NV has nothing). It contains this section:

 

 

Now, I guess we can start calling and emailing the BLM main office in DC and ask them what they think about digging holes to hide geocaches, but I think most of us know what the result of that will be (coughnpsbancough).

[+PJPeters]

I know we are starting to repeat ourselves and this discussion has made me change my mind about this particular cache, back to the topic of "Sage One"

This is a really good cache for this area, local terrain and environment dictate how things are hidden. Most of the terrain in northern nevada is sandy, rocky high desert controlled by the BLM. We don't have many big trees, just lots of sagebrush! (For those of you unfamiliar, it is our state weed, grows about 4 feet tall, EVERYWHERE) There are only so many painfully obvious rock piles, altoid tins hidden in a sage brush and historical markers one can find. The cache itself IS NOT BURIED, the surrounding structure has sand piled around it and it blends in brilliantly with the surroundings.

So, if it's such a good cache for the area, why not work on a new, camo'ed container? It could be placed above ground, and still be hard to see. They have 'rock' containers, or you can camo an ammo can with some spraypaint, or maybe a glue gun and some of your ubiquitous sagebrush (see here). It shouldn't be too hard to come up with something that blends in well, and is hard for muggles to find. I found one cache about 2 months ago that's a soda pre-form (looks like a plastic test-tube) that you wouldn't have seen if you were farther than about 30' away from the cache. A little brown paint, roll it around in the sand from the area, and voila! Instant camo.

You do not need to dig to get the cache. If you did have to dig, that means the wind blew sand over the top, it wasn't like that when we found it. If the BLM says it's ok, what is the problem??

The problem, apparently, is that the reviewer for your area is of the opinion (IMHO correctly so) that any hider-created hole is inappropriate.

 

Instead of debating endlessly about the justification, let's try to help the OP find a new method of hiding a cache here, without violating the guidelines. There's quite a bit of experience here to draw on. Anyone?

[+Renegade Knight]

...Instead of debating endlessly about the justification, let's try to help the OP find a new method of hiding a cache here, without violating the guidelines. There's quite a bit of experience here to draw on. Anyone?

 

It has not been demonstrated that the cache was buried. If they didn't violate the guidelines all the presumptions of guilt are premature and not justifiable.

Edited July 11, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[Blue_Stone]

 

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.

 

 

LOL...Well said again, RK!

I was thinking basically the same thing myself when I read that analogy.

 

Another basic example of quantity does not necessarily equal quality.

[+TrailGators]

...Instead of debating endlessly about the justification, let's try to help the OP find a new method of hiding a cache here, without violating the guidelines. There's quite a bit of experience here to draw on. Anyone?

 

It has not been demonstrated that the cache was buried. If they didn't violate the guidelines all the presumptions of guild are premature and not justifiable.

I have been talking in general terms myself because this is one of the most misunderstood guidelines. I would have to see this particular cache to make a determination.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Instead of debating endlessly about the justification, let's try to help the OP find a new method of hiding a cache here, without violating the guidelines. There's quite a bit of experience here to draw on. Anyone?

 

It has not been demonstrated that the cache was buried. If they didn't violate the guidelines all the presumptions of guild are premature and not justifiable.

I have been talking in general terms myself because this is one of the most misunderstood guidelines. I would have to see this particular cache to make a determination.

A photo would help. There were only two on the cache page. Neither helped. But yup, it's located in the sage brush.

[Blue_Stone]

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

 

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!...I agree...I am seeing more and more replies to complaints about banning different types of hides in the forums recently, solely based on: "OOOooo!!...we better not hide it like that...Some newbie may see it, think its OK and copy it!"

 

Jeeez!!!....If thats the way we're gonna start hiding caches, I give geocaching another year, tops, two years before there are no more quality caches left, or allowed to be placed, and we're left with one generic type of hide, and all junk.

ie everything is banned for some reason or other, and all thats left to fit the guidelines is an unpainted, clearly marked lock n lock, with an official geocaching sticker on it, 15ft off the clearly marked, maintained hiking trail, at the base of a tree, with parrallel sticks covering it....That way, all land managers, bomb squads, LEOs, and muggles will know right away that "Oh look, thats one of those harmless geocache thingies!"

 

There are guidlines in place, and as far as I know, TPTB (ie reviewers) use these to say "yea or nay" to publishing caches.

I think exceptions SHOULD be made, IF justified.

You CANNOT come up with guidelines to cover every situation, in every location.

 

Its up to the hider when submitting the cache, to do the necessary research and get the necessary permission for the cache to meet the guidlines. If the hider feels there is an issue that may push the guidelines, they need to make the reviewer aware of it. On the flipside, if the reviewer feels there is an issue, they should allow the hider to fill in the gaps.

Due to different circumstances in different areas of the world, different cultures, different laws, etc, exceptions SHOULD be allowed, IF JUSTIFIED.

 

Just because a park in Utah says caches are not allowed, because they have their own rules that ban ALL caches, does that mean it has to be added to the guidelines that ALL parks in the country have to ban caches, just so some shmuck might see a cache in a park in NY, and decide to hide one in the banned park in Utah, which causes bad press for the sport?

 

If we as a community allow the guidelines to be so stringent, without allowances for exceptions, and take some responsibility for our own hides, then what do we even need reviewers for?

 

Example:

There are, say X amount of rules.

If a cache gets palced and it breaks, bends, or even seems questionable, it gets reported by another cacher.

It automatically gets archived.

 

So what would we need reviewers for?

 

I dont know about you people, but I cache to get AWAY from rules, regulations, and especially the idiots who the rules are needed for in the first place.

Go ahead and regulate the heck out of caching...We'll see how long it exits as a "hobby", "sport", "activity", whatever...

 

OK...thats my spiel from the soapbox...

[Blue_Stone]

The cache in Colorado had been in place for two and a half years, making the finders very happy, from a quick read through the logs.

I cant speak for that cache.

 

I have seen caches near us that are clearly against guidelines and many, many finders just dont care. They will walk right past several no trespassing sings and some would even note it in their logs. (Even though they broke the law to find it.) I would say the majority of people just dont care about the guidelines. (IMO.)

 

I cant help but notice, (since I've recently started reading the forums again), but you sure have a LOT to say about how caching should and should not be "played", for someone who seems to have only joined less than three months ago.

 

This is a "game", "sport", "hobby", "activity", "escape"....WHY do people insist on trying to making it so tiresome?

[Blue_Stone]

 

Why can't they hide it the normal way and avoid the potential consequences it could cause?

 

Normal way?...Exactly what IS normal?...Can you define that so it fits everything and everyone this hobby entails? Are we gonna have a Big Brother overseeing EVERY aspect of this "game"?

 

And as to what it could cause...Thats all "What Ifs"....Yes, we as humans, NEED to use our common sense to determine the "What Ifs" of our actions....But when it becomes a mantra, what kind of life, or "caching experience", are we gonna be left with?...

We can waste away our whole lives worrying about "What Ifs", and never accomplish or do anything because of it...

 

How about we worry about our OWN "What Ifs", and let other people, and TPTB worry about there own "What Ifs".

[+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.

[+Mopar]

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.

[+Cryptid]

I found this one in 2006, I though it was a very clever hide. It's not much different from the ones "Buried" under a pile of rocks or pinecones (ouch). I would like to see this cache un-archived. It's nice to have creative cachers like Kreiger out there. At least he's not putting Micros under every park bench or in the woods.

[+Baad Daata]

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

 

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

 

The person who you refer to is a reviewer.

 

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

 

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

 

Happy caching to all!

iQueMan - Minden, Nevada

 

That is beside the point.

[+Baad Daata]

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

 

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

 

Happy caching to all!

iQueMan - Minden, Nevada

 

That is beside the point.

[+Baad Daata]

It seems to me that the "rule" about not burying a cache was intended to stop us from disturbing an area while doing our search. It doesn't seem that this cache causes any unnecessary disturbance. Each day I find caches that have been buried under a pile of rocks, much more effectively than than this one. Each of those stones were pulled from somewhere else and used to completely cover and hide the container. We have all seen bushes that have been destoyed by reckless searchers looking for something hidden "in the bush." I think this is a fine and well-designed cache. I believe it complies to the spirit and intention of the regulation.

 

I repeatedly comment on the growth of this sport and with that, the number of people that think there need to be more rules, more enforcement and definition of those rules and want to control how the game is played.

[+Mopar]

I found this one in 2006, I though it was a very clever hide. It's not much different from the ones "Buried" under a pile of rocks or pinecones (ouch). I would like to see this cache un-archived. It's nice to have creative cachers like Kreiger out there. At least he's not putting Micros under every park bench or in the woods.

I think Groundspeak has made it pretty clear via their cache-listing guidelines that they do not want this type of cache listed on the website they own.

They get to decide what/what not gets listed on their website. They enlist the judgement of a group of cachers known as the reviewers to help them make this decision. From the threads about how to become a reviewer we know that not only are they among the most experienced cachers in the world; they also are chosen because of their work with land managers.

In the case of this cache, not one, but TWO of these reviewers, including the one responsible for the local area, personally visited this cache and determined it did not meet the guidelines this site requires a cache to meet to be listed here.

If you want to play in this sandbox, you agree to play by the sandbox owner's rules. If you don't like those rules, you can always take your toys and go find someone else's sandbox to play in.

 

It also seems pretty clear from what I posted above from the BLM website they do not want this type of hide on their land, so no matter what sandbox you end up in it's only a matter of time before you get sand kicked in your face.

[+Mopar]

It seems to me that the "rule" about not burying a cache was intended to stop us from disturbing an area while doing our search. It doesn't seem that this cache causes any unnecessary disturbance. Each day I find caches that have been buried under a pile of rocks, much more effectively than than this one. Each of those stones were pulled from somewhere else and used to completely cover and hide the container. We have all seen bushes that have been destoyed by reckless searchers looking for something hidden "in the bush." I think this is a fine and well-designed cache. I believe it complies to the spirit and intention of the regulation.

 

I repeatedly comment on the growth of this sport and with that, the number of people that think there need to be more rules, more enforcement and definition of those rules and want to control how the game is played.

The reason we have more and more rules is because as the game grows we get more and more people like yourself who want to redefine the current rules to mean something they don't.

 

The rule about not digging is to stop you from digging. Period. Don't dig while hiding. Don't dig while searching. How do you get your definition from that?

[+"we two want to play too"]

I found a cache on Holland's North side that is by any definition buried. When it was placed and, when we found it, it met the guidlines as they were stated. I keep thinking about this particular cache again and again as I read through this thread. Personally, I wasn't too impressed with the hide.

 

I also keep thinking about one of our caches. We placed it (in the vicinity of) an active sand dune. ACTIVE. That means the sand is moving around every day. We go out rather frequently to make sure it hasn't gotten buried. Of all the finders, only ONE has complained. I'm thankful that they did so privately rather than just posting a SBA note. It made us more aware of a potential problem and gave us the chance to remedy the situation.

 

.... how about stating something in the cache description along the lines of…

 

"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."

 

 

If BLM gave their permission on this specific cache, then why not state that on the cache page and let it stay?

 

 

If what I read earlier is true and the cache was placed by hand before the guidelines changed, then this seems IMHO to be a reasonable solution. I think the wording on the cache page should be much stronger, should mention the permission specifically granted by the BLM, and state that new hides of this sort are no longer permitted. I would also strongly recommend placing a very visible note to the same effect inside the cache so that there can be little misunderstanding.

[+Knight2000]

The cache in Colorado had been in place for two and a half years, making the finders very happy, from a quick read through the logs.

I cant speak for that cache.

 

I have seen caches near us that are clearly against guidelines and many, many finders just dont care. They will walk right past several no trespassing sings and some would even note it in their logs. (Even though they broke the law to find it.) I would say the majority of people just dont care about the guidelines. (IMO.)

 

I cant help but notice, (since I've recently started reading the forums again), but you sure have a LOT to say about how caching should and should not be "played", for someone who seems to have only joined less than three months ago.

 

This is a "game", "sport", "hobby", "activity", "escape"....WHY do people insist on trying to making it so tiresome?

I'm sure i have more time to spend on the forums than you.

 

Otherwise- i really don't see what you are trying to say. I have found caches. More than are listed under this account.

 

Geocaching isnt complicated. Neither is following guidelines either.

 

Does it irritate you that i have something to say? I dont think they are mindless postings but valid points. Although some may disagree.

[+briansnat]

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:

 

Edited July 11, 2007 by briansnat