Suggested "Guideline" change

[+J-Way]

I'd like to suggest a change to one of the official guidelines:

 

"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 and lots of discussion.

 

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, mulch, rocks, etc., is buried, and is therefore against the letter of the guidelines. On the opposite end, 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. This would appear to a casual observer (such as a city official or park ranger) to be a "buried" cache.

 

IMHO, a better wording would be:

"Caches that require digging of any kind. If a shovel, trowel, or other similar object is used to create a depression or uncover an object (to hide or to find the cache), then it is not appropriate."

 

And maybe add: "Containers camoflaged with a layer of leaves or other similar natural ground cover are generally acceptable, as long as a depression isn't dug into the underlying soil."

 

And finally, some clarification on things like double containers would be good. Some people seem to think it's OK if they dig a hole, line the hole with something else (pipe, box, etc.), then hide the actual cache container inside the outer container (small pipe inside a large pipe, ammo can inside a box, etc.). Specifically, the argument typically goes that "if the lid is visible, it's not buried".

[+J-Way]

I forgot to request that any replies be about the wording of the guideline, NOT about whether or not digging should be allowed. There are many many reasons to not allow digging, and that discussion is going on in other threads.

[+Knight2000]

I read your post a few times. I think the less wordage the better. More words just encourage more people to not read the guidelines and just check a box.

 

I think the way it is worded makes sense.

 

You cant bury in the typical way that most people view the word bury.

 

To bury, you need to dig. The two are not the same. I think it wouldnt make sense if it was worded like this:

 

"Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to bury, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate."

[+John Wayne Pooch]

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.”

 

Then if a cache was done in questionable way, then it would dually be noted that it was done within the guidelines and should not be assumed to be applicable in another form. So a cache that was placed in a pre-existing hole would allow other cachers and reviewers know that it was placed within the guidelines and not automatically archived because another cacher assumed it was improperly placed. This would be the same that a pvc pipe that has dirt or mulch or rocks surrounding it to make it look a part with the surrounding but not placed in the ground, then another cacher wouldn’t assume that it was OK to place a cache within the ground.

[+FamilyDNA]

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…

 

Hmmm... something like this:

 

"...First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache..."

[+John Wayne Pooch]

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…

 

Hmmm... something like this:

 

"...First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache..."

 

I'm going along the lines of if a cache that was placed in a pre-existing hole would allow other cachers and reviewers know that it was placed within the guidelines and not automatically archived because another cacher assumed it was improperly placed. That the note be placed into the description of the cache page listing.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I forgot to request that any replies be about the wording of the guideline, NOT about whether or not digging should be allowed. There are many many reasons to not allow digging, and that discussion is going on in other threads.

An OP is not allowed to specify limits to discussion. I was taught that rule a few threads back.

Edited July 11, 2007 by Confucius' Cat

[+Airmapper]

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…

 

Hmmm... something like this:

 

"...First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache..."

 

I'm going along the lines of if a cache that was placed in a pre-existing hole would allow other cachers and reviewers know that it was placed within the guidelines and not automatically archived because another cacher assumed it was improperly placed. That the note be placed into the description of the cache page listing.

 

For one thing I would hope the word of a random cacher would have no more weight than that of the cache owner. A reviewer should never assume a cache needs to be archived solely on the word of one vs. the other without investigating both sides. At least that is the way I would hope it is done, I have never been in that situation.

 

I think the original wording of the Guideline is quite adequate.

 

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.

 

Bury: to put in the ground and cover with earth.

 

This means you are not to put the cache under dirt by using "a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object" to dig.

 

Dig: to break up, turn over, or remove earth, sand, etc., as with a shovel, spade, bulldozer, or claw; make an excavation.

 

The idea of the Guideline is that a cache shall not damage the area by digging with any form of equipment. This means you did not need to dig to hide it, and won't need to dig to find it.

 

However the way I see the Guidelines it is perfectly acceptable to take advantage of loose soil or leaves to conceal the cache, as long as you need no more than your hands, and to not submerge the cache under the dirt. No "pointy object" is needed, and upon removal of the cache, the area can be restored to the way it was before by smoothing things back over. This is the ideal purpose of all the Guidelines, that upon removal the area used for the Geocache has minimal disturbances that a little time wont completely conceal.

[+TrailGators]

I think the original wording of the Guideline is quite adequate.

 

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.

 

Bury: to put in the ground and cover with earth.

 

This means you are not to put the cache under dirt by using "a shovel, trowel or other "pointy" object" to dig.

 

Dig: to break up, turn over, or remove earth, sand, etc., as with a shovel, spade, bulldozer, or claw; make an excavation.

 

The idea of the Guideline is that a cache shall not damage the area by digging with any form of equipment. This means you did not need to dig to hide it, and won't need to dig to find it.

 

However the way I see the Guidelines it is perfectly acceptable to take advantage of loose soil or leaves to conceal the cache, as long as you need no more than your hands, and to not submerge the cache under the dirt. No "pointy object" is needed, and upon removal of the cache, the area can be restored to the way it was before by smoothing things back over. This is the ideal purpose of all the Guidelines, that upon removal the area used for the Geocache has minimal disturbances that a little time wont completely conceal.

This is a very clear and consise explanation. Edited July 11, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Renegade Knight]

Orginal:

"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."

 

Reworded.

 

Caches are not to be buried. If a tool is used to move soil then that's not appropriate and the cache will not be listed.

 

Not much shorter and not much better if it's better at all.

 

The original isn't too bad for what it's trying to do.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

My effort:

 

"If a cache is placed, either in part or in whole, below the surface level of the existing and/or natural terrain by modifying said terrain in any way- it will not be listed."

[+vortexecho]

My effort:

 

"If a cache is placed, either in part or in whole, below the surface level of the existing and/or natural terrain by modifying said terrain in any way- it will not be listed."

how about a "SUB-Terrain" option on setup cache page.

[Blue_Stone]

My effort:

 

"If a cache is placed, either in part or in whole, below the surface level of the existing and/or natural terrain by modifying said terrain in any way- it will not be listed."

 

Hmmm... I think you just eliminated ALL underwater caches, all caches hidden in stone or rock walls, all caches placed in dead trees in woodpecker holes with bark epoxied to the lid, all caches placed in rock piles, all caches covered by leaves, and all caches that end up covered with a layer of snow..I'm sure there are more that would be affected by that wording, but my brain is on overload trying to think of them all.

 

[Blue_Stone]

 

IMHO, a better wording would be:

"Caches that require digging of any kind. If a shovel, trowel, or other similar object is used to create a depression or uncover an object (to hide or to find the cache), then it is not appropriate."

 

 

I like that one...

But how about streamlining it:

 

"Caches that require digging of any kind. Any part of a cache that is hidden by creating a depression below ground level, by using any solid object, is not appropriate."

[+JohnnyVegas]

Why eve a solid object, Just no digging with anything not even hands.

 

Just as long as I do not have to change this cache

 

Read this first

[+CrkrJim]

I like the remove the cache test, as mentioned by one poster. If the cache were removed, there is no change to the terrain left behind. Loose sticks, leaves, rocks etc would be put back so as not to leave a bare spot........... "left only tracks"

 

If the cache had used a natural hole etc the idea of a remark on the cache page to that effect would be appropriate.

 

As has been mentioned many times, the only way for this sport to survive in the better natural areas is to leave no impact on those areas.

 

We can leave the discussion of placement so as not to create a trails to caches (ie erosion prone or other sensitive area) that would have negative impact for another time.

[+wordnerd]

I think the current wording is fine. And I'm the WORDNERD.

[+"we two want to play too"]

I think the way it is worded makes sense.

 

You cant bury in the typical way that most people view the word bury.

 

"Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to bury, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate."

 

I'm watching this one now too. Hubby has two caches getting ready for submission that qualify under the old rules, most likely under the new rules, but most definitely not by the opinions expressed in the other thread. IMHO the confusion is caused by the mention of tools. Everything in the guidelines specifically mentions TOOLS. So, which is it, tools, digging, or burying? I ask because we tested to make sure our cache could be removed and leave no trace behind... and it qualifies.

[+wordnerd]

I think a good guideline is to think about how quickly and stealthily a person can get your cache. The mention of tools is so that people can spot the cache or cache location, reach in to get it and can easily and quickly rehide it.

 

This is possible if you simply "hide" your container under rocks or sticks or other loose items that seekers will notice as "well, that looks odd." However, if you bury a container under the ground using a shovel, not only can't the seeker spot it, but they have to cause all kinds of turmoil to get it (and cachers already cause a little turmoil searching). Even burying a cache under loose sand isn't cool. Because if a seeker is just a little off, they might resort to digging with tools or digging too deep.

 

I like the rule because it helps me when I'm seeking to know that I don't have to go through the trouble. I KNOW that it won't be underground and will concentrate on other areas.

 

Geocaching isn't exactly a pirate's treasure hunt. It's a game to see if you can find a location electronically. The cache is just the reward. Why should it be hard to dig up?

[+briansnat]

I think the way it is worded makes sense.

 

You cant bury in the typical way that most people view the word bury.

 

"Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to bury, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate."

 

I'm watching this one now too. Hubby has two caches getting ready for submission that qualify under the old rules, most likely under the new rules, but most definitely not by the opinions expressed in the other thread. IMHO the confusion is caused by the mention of tools. Everything in the guidelines specifically mentions TOOLS. So, which is it, tools, digging, or burying? I ask because we tested to make sure our cache could be removed and leave no trace behind... and it qualifies.

 

It is digging. No digging to place a cache. I think the tools part was added to allow for someone to bury a cache with leaves, duff, sticks or rocks

[+briansnat]

"Caches that require digging of any kind. If a shovel, trowel, or other similar object is used to create a depression or uncover an object (to hide or to find the cache), then it is not appropriate."

 

I like that. I might tweak it a bit to say:

 

"Caches that require digging in order to hide or find. If a shovel, trowel, pick or other hard tool or object is used to create a depression or hole in order to hide the cache, or is needed to uncover it, then it is not appropriate."

[+fox-and-the-hound]

For one thing I would hope the word of a random cacher would have no more weight than that of the cache owner. A reviewer should never assume a cache needs to be archived solely on the word of one vs. the other without investigating both sides. At least that is the way I would hope it is done, I have never been in that situation.

 

I think the original wording of the Guideline is quite adequate.

 

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.

 

Bury: to put in the ground and cover with earth.

 

This means you are not to put the cache under dirt by using "a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object" to dig.

 

Dig: to break up, turn over, or remove earth, sand, etc., as with a shovel, spade, bulldozer, or claw; make an excavation.

 

The idea of the Guideline is that a cache shall not damage the area by digging with any form of equipment. This means you did not need to dig to hide it, and won't need to dig to find it.

 

However the way I see the Guidelines it is perfectly acceptable to take advantage of loose soil or leaves to conceal the cache, as long as you need no more than your hands, and to not submerge the cache under the dirt. No "pointy object" is needed, and upon removal of the cache, the area can be restored to the way it was before by smoothing things back over. This is the ideal purpose of all the Guidelines, that upon removal the area used for the Geocache has minimal disturbances that a little time wont completely conceal.

 

Thank you, well said. I have an easy solution to all these points though. Simply take a digital photo and submit it with the cache awaiting approval. No chance for this to pop up later when the approver has already seen it as it was placed.

[+"we two want to play too"]

from Briansnat:

It is digging. No digging to place a cache. I think the tools part was added to allow for someone to bury a cache with leaves, duff, sticks or rocks

 

I like that. I might tweak it a bit to say:

 

"Caches that require digging in order to hide or find. If a shovel, trowel, pick or other hard tool or object is used to create a depression or hole in order to hide the cache, or is needed to uncover it, then it is not appropriate."

 

Great, I totally understand. BUT you still left out anything about tools. Not to beat a point into the ground but I already can imagine that argument I'm going to have with hubby about his caches. (those of you who have placed what you consider to be great caches please keep in mind that he has been working on this series of 8 since last October) I think they are illegal. I have also refered to us as "Oscar and Felix" when it comes to rules, and he is Oscar. He BELIEVES the hides are o.k. because he did not use a tool.

Edited July 12, 2007 by "we two want to play too"

[+briansnat]

He BELIEVES the hides are o.k. because he did not use a tool. I BELIEVE he is choosing exact wording over the spirit and intent because it suits his purpose.

 

Did he dig a hole?

 

Would he proudly show his hide to the land manager?

[Mushtang]

I found a cache a few years ago on a beach, buried UNDER at least two feet of sand. You don't have to use any tools or pointy devices to find it though, you just get on your knees and start digging with your hands.

 

I've had it on my watchlist since finding it to see if folks would get upset about it or not, and it's been found and enjoyed by many.

 

Definitely NOT one to show off to a land manager!

[+Miragee]

One time while looking for a place to put a cache, I moved a large rock. It left a hole in the ground, large enough for my Lock 'n Lock container, but by moving the rock, I revealed the home of a Tarantula. I put the rock, gently, back in place.

 

However, if I hadn't seen the Tarantula, I would have considered putting my container in that hole. If I had, I would not have been happy about someone finding it, determining it violated the "guidelines," and then Archiving my cache because it was "buried."

[+J-Way]

I think the original wording of the Guideline is quite adequate.

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.

Bury: to put in the ground and cover with earth.

Your interpretation agrees with mine, which I think agrees with the original intent behind the guideline. Unfortunately, too many people are stuck on the words "and cover with earth". Several people in this thread strongly maintain that if the lid is visible, i.e., it's not "covered with earth", then the container is not buried and should be allowed. And technically speaking they are right; if you don't cover it back up, you're not burying it. This is the main reason I object to the word "bury".

 

Dig: to break up, turn over, or remove earth, sand, etc., as with a shovel, spade, bulldozer, or claw; make an excavation.

Emphasis added by me. This is why I suggested using "dig" instead of "bury".

 

The idea of the Guideline is that a cache shall not damage the area by digging with any form of equipment. This means you did not need to dig to hide it, and won't need to dig to find it.

I agree. By the way, YOU used "dig" in this explanation and not "bury". I like your choice of words.

 

 

Thank you, well said. I have an easy solution to all these points though. Simply take a digital photo and submit it with the cache awaiting approval. No chance for this to pop up later when the approver has already seen it as it was placed.

I wouldn't recommend this, because reviewers are just mortal people who participate in searching for caches just like everyone else. Emailing a picture of the location could spoil it for them. Instead, maybe take a few digital pictures and save them for future use, like during an appeals process.

 

Of all the suggestions, tweaks, and arguments for and against, I like briansnat's wording best:

"Caches that require digging in order to hide or find. If a shovel, trowel, pick or other hard tool or object is used to create a depression or hole in order to hide the cache, or is needed to uncover it, then it is not appropriate."

I especially like the "Would he proudly show his hide to the land manager?" question.

[+"we two want to play too"]

from Mushtang:

I found a cache a few years ago on a beach, buried UNDER at least two feet of sand. You don't have to use any tools or pointy devices to find it though, you just get on your knees and start digging with your hands.

 

I've had it on my watchlist since finding it to see if folks would get upset about it or not, and it's been found and enjoyed by many.

 

Agreed, not one to show to a land manager. But you didn't report it either. Not saying that is wrong. You saw something that tweaked your interest and you wanted to follow it.

 

Now, here is where I get to contradict myself.

 

sorta.

since I think it's wrong anyway.

 

2 FREAKIN" FEET?!? Jeez Louise, and I'm givin' him a hard time about two inches!

 

Briansnat:

Yes he did, and show it off? To ahthoritay? Are you kidding?

[Mushtang]

from Mushtang:

I found a cache a few years ago on a beach, buried UNDER at least two feet of sand. You don't have to use any tools or pointy devices to find it though, you just get on your knees and start digging with your hands.

 

I've had it on my watchlist since finding it to see if folks would get upset about it or not, and it's been found and enjoyed by many.

 

Agreed, not one to show to a land manager. But you didn't report it either. Not saying that is wrong. You saw something that tweaked your interest and you wanted to follow it.

 

Now, here is where I get to contradict myself.

 

sorta.

since I think it's wrong anyway.

 

2 FREAKIN" FEET?!? Jeez Louise, and I'm givin' him a hard time about two inches!

 

Briansnat:

Yes he did, and show it off? To ahthoritay? Are you kidding?

I actually did discuss it soon afterwards with a reviewer that lives close to me. I mentioned it to him at a GGA event and he said since it was sand instead of dirt, and you could easily get to it using your hands instead of having to use a shovel, it met the guidelines.

 

Who knows if the same reviewer would have the same reaction today? I didn't mention it to him to try and get it archived, I mentioned it out of curiousity because I was thinking of hiding a cache in a gas meter box that would be under the surface of the ground, yet wouldn't require digging either. I never hid that one.

[+9Key]

Would he proudly show his hide to the land manager?

Man, that's a good overall guideline, buried cache or not!

[+StarBrand]

Maybe the wording should be "below the normal grade" or "dug a hole in ground to hide" - I agree that some try and twist the "bury" word a bit much.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I've seen plenty of caches where tools were used to bury 90% below the surface, but the finder did not need to use any tools to find the cache. I personally don't have a problem at all with it. One cache was a pressure cooker buried with just the lid exposed, but covered with leaves and sticks. You could remove the lid and the majority of the pressure cooker was buried.

 

Let's not make the guidelines so tight that all creativity is removed from the sport. Even with extremely tight guidelines, people will still disregard them and do stupid things. It all depends on the specific situation and the specific area.

 

I'd hate for the guidelines to get so strict that cache hiders would need to purposely leave out information for reviewers in order to get cool, unique caches published.

Edited July 11, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[+briansnat]

I've seen plenty of caches where tools were used to bury 90% below the surface, but the finder did not need to use any tools to find the cache. I personally don't have a problem at all with it. One cache was a pressure cooker buried with just the lid exposed, but covered with leaves and sticks. You could remove the lid and the majority of the pressure cooker was buried.

 

And all of these would be against the guidelines.

 

I'd hate for the guidelines to get so strict that cache hiders would need to purposely leave out information for reviewers in order to get cool, unique caches published.

 

They already do, otherwise the above caches would not have been published.

[+StarBrand]

I've seen plenty of caches where tools were used to bury 90% below the surface, but the finder did not need to use any tools to find the cache. I personally don't have a problem at all with it. One cache was a pressure cooker buried with just the lid exposed, but covered with leaves and sticks. You could remove the lid and the majority of the pressure cooker was buried.

 

...and you apparently see nothing wrong with digging the hole for creating those hides?? Many landmanagers ban caching for this very reason.

 

seriously - a pressure cooker? sounds more like household trash instead of a geocache.

[+Renegade Knight]

Would he proudly show his hide to the land manager?

Man, that's a good overall guideline, buried cache or not!

That's the guideline I use. "Would I be willing to show this cache to the land manager?" If yes I'm good. If not...the cache never gets past an idea.

[+Renegade Knight]

I found a cache a few years ago on a beach, buried UNDER at least two feet of sand. You don't have to use any tools or pointy devices to find it though, you just get on your knees and start digging with your hands.

...Definitely NOT one to show off to a land manager!

 

Why not? If kids build sand castles, and bury their dads there...it's viable and should be allowed as a cache. Your use of the land doesn't differ from existing practice. (If they don't do those things there...probably not a good idea after all).

Edited July 11, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+"we two want to play too"]

 

Why not? If kids build sand castles, and bury their dads there...

 

Hmmmmm

 

Is Dad really buried if we leave his top uncovered?

[+Airmapper]

I think the original wording of the Guideline is quite adequate.

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.

Bury: to put in the ground and cover with earth.

Your interpretation agrees with mine, which I think agrees with the original intent behind the guideline. Unfortunately, too many people are stuck on the words "and cover with earth". Several people in this thread strongly maintain that if the lid is visible, i.e., it's not "covered with earth", then the container is not buried and should be allowed. And technically speaking they are right; if you don't cover it back up, you're not burying it. This is the main reason I object to the word "bury".

 

Cool, I get what your saying.

 

I guess it comes down to: Is a partially submerged cache acceptable if no digging tools were used to place it there?

 

Personally I think a cache partly submerged with the lid poking out is in agreement with the guidelines as long as no tool was used to dig a hole to place it in. It would be difficult to even submerge the lower end of anything the size of an Ammo can without digging with a shovel or some "sharp object" unless the soil was very loose. That in itself should prohibit large, partially submerged caches. In my part of the country it would be nearly impossible to get a larger container like a 5-Gallon bucket down into the ground without a shovel, even an ammo can would be difficult. Preexisting holes excluded.

 

If it is indeed against the guidelines to partially submerge a cache without the use of tools, the Guidelines need to be changed to reflect that, as the current wording would allow that in my opinion. I see no problem with caches hidden in that way, and personally hope it stays as is. Adding or further restricting guidelines should not come lightly, and could serve to dig our own grave. (Pun sort of intended. )

[+J-Way]

I guess it comes down to: Is a partially submerged cache acceptable if no digging tools were used to place it there?

 

Personally I think a cache partly submerged with the lid poking out is in agreement with the guidelines as long as no tool was used to dig a hole to place it in.

 

If it is indeed against the guidelines to partially submerge a cache without the use of tools, the Guidelines need to be changed to reflect that, as the current wording would allow that in my opinion. I see no problem with caches hidden in that way, and personally hope it stays as is. Adding or further restricting guidelines should not come lightly, and could serve to dig our own grave. (Pun sort of intended. )

The other option would be for the quidelines to stay as is, but for the moderators to start enforcing the guidelines as they are written and as most people tend to interpret them. I.E., the cache you described and the lead cache described in the Sage One thread would be allowed.

 

It's really annoying when published rules that are written one way but are enforced in a different way.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I found a cache a few years ago on a beach, buried UNDER at least two feet of sand. You don't have to use any tools or pointy devices to find it though, you just get on your knees and start digging with your hands.

 

Dunno about you, but my hands are 'pointy objects'.

[+Prime Suspect]

Dunno about you, but my hands are 'pointy objects'.

 

 

 

[+ReadyOrNot]

I've seen plenty of caches where tools were used to bury 90% below the surface, but the finder did not need to use any tools to find the cache. I personally don't have a problem at all with it. One cache was a pressure cooker buried with just the lid exposed, but covered with leaves and sticks. You could remove the lid and the majority of the pressure cooker was buried.

 

...and you apparently see nothing wrong with digging the hole for creating those hides?? Many landmanagers ban caching for this very reason.

 

seriously - a pressure cooker? sounds more like household trash instead of a geocache.

 

It was one of the more difficult ones I've had to find and was placed by one of the best hiders in my area. If done properly, it can make the cache hunt very enjoyable. Idiots will always make poor decisions, but my point is that making the guidelines so strict to try to cover for all the stupid things people do will hurt the uniqueness of the sport.

 

I think the guidelines should be changed to reflect that "With permission from the land owner", burying the cache could be permitted, so long as cache seeker does not have to dig to discover the cache.

[+Krieger]

I've seen plenty of caches where tools were used to bury 90% below the surface, but the finder did not need to use any tools to find the cache. I personally don't have a problem at all with it. One cache was a pressure cooker buried with just the lid exposed, but covered with leaves and sticks. You could remove the lid and the majority of the pressure cooker was buried.

 

...and you apparently see nothing wrong with digging the hole for creating those hides?? Many landmanagers ban caching for this very reason.

 

seriously - a pressure cooker? sounds more like household trash instead of a geocache.

 

It was one of the more difficult ones I've had to find and was placed by one of the best hiders in my area. If done properly, it can make the cache hunt very enjoyable. Idiots will always make poor decisions, but my point is that making the guidelines so strict to try to cover for all the stupid things people do will hurt the uniqueness of the sport.

 

I think the guidelines should be changed to reflect that "With permission from the land owner", burying the cache could be permitted, so long as cache seeker does not have to dig to discover the cache.

 

It was my cache that started the threads dealing with this guideline. I like your wording because it covers all the salient points of the reasons for it: Pemission, allows insetting, and restricts discovery to no digging. I would suggest that the background and reasoning for the guideline be included.

[+vortexecho]

My effort:

 

"If a cache is placed, either in part or in whole, below the surface level of the existing and/or natural terrain by modifying said terrain in any way- it will not be listed."

 

Hmmm... I think you just eliminated ALL underwater caches, all caches hidden in stone or rock walls, all caches placed in dead trees in woodpecker holes with bark epoxied to the lid, all caches placed in rock piles, all caches covered by leaves, and all caches that end up covered with a layer of snow..I'm sure there are more that would be affected by that wording, but my brain is on overload trying to think of them all.

 

true