Buried definition

[Sirrus123]

Would it be considered buried if i took a trashcan, dug a hole in the ground deep enough so that all but about three inches down from the lid was showing, than covered that up with rocks and leaves, would that be buried?

if not, than would covering it over with sod or dirt be buried?

[+thedeadpirate]

Yes

[+Markwell]

Would it be considered buried if i took a trashcan, dug a hole in the ground deep enough so that all but about three inches down from the lid was showing, than covered that up with rocks and leaves, would that be buried?

if not, than would covering it over with sod or dirt be buried?

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#offlimit

 

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.

[+Kealia]

Would it be considered buried if i took a trashcan, dug a hole in the ground deep enough so that all but about three inches down from the lid was showing, than covered that up with rocks and leaves, would that be buried?

if not, than would covering it over with sod or dirt be buried?

 

I think the bold part answers your question

 

It's less about BEING buried/covered, and more about not wanting to dig up land in the first place.

[+J-Way]

Would it be considered buried if i took a trashcan, dug a hole in the ground deep enough so that all but about three inches down from the lid was showing, than covered that up with rocks and leaves, would that be buried?

if not, than would covering it over with sod or dirt be buried?

Technically, by every definition of the word "buried" that I'm aware of, your idea would NOT result in a buried cache unless you covered it back up with sod or dirt. However, Groundspeak doesn't enforce the guidelines as they are written, and instead enforce them as if they say that "digging" isn't allowed. One of my pet peeves is where a "rule" is clearly written one way but enforced a different way, especially if a simple word change would clear everything up.

 

No approver would allow the cache you described to be listed. Incidentally, I agree with the way the rule is enforced - digging should not be allowed.

[+briansnat]

Technically it's not buried if it's sunk in the ground and the lid is showing, but it is a guideline violation. The reason for the guideline is that land managers don't want us digging in their parks.

 

I guess it can be confusing to some people because if you cover a cache with leaves, sticks, rocks or duff it is technically buried, but that would not be a guideline violation because no digging is involved.

 

So to simplify things ask yourself if you had to dig to place the cache. If the answer is yes, then it's probably

no good.

Edited October 23, 2007 by briansnat

[+StarBrand]

Would it be considered buried if i took a trashcan, dug a hole in the ground deep enough so that all but about three inches down from the lid was showing, than covered that up with rocks and leaves, would that be buried?

if not, than would covering it over with sod or dirt be buried?

Technically, by every definition of the word "buried" that I'm aware of, your idea would NOT result in a buried cache unless you covered it back up with sod or dirt. However, Groundspeak doesn't enforce the guidelines as they are written, and instead enforce them as if they say that "digging" isn't allowed. One of my pet peeves is where a "rule" is clearly written one way but enforced a different way, especially if a simple word change would clear everything up.

......

See Markwell's post above - I think the guidelines are pretty clear.

[+Team Cotati]

than?

[+Team Cotati]

What would be the recommended course of action, if any, when cachers encounter caches that are "hidden" in this manner?

Edited October 23, 2007 by Team Cotati

[Sirrus123]

But if you are the property owner, or you get permission from the property owner, would it be allowed?

[+Kealia]

Likely no.

 

Why?

 

Because once a cacher finds a buried cache, they are likely to think another is hidden the same way and end up digging somewhere where they shouldn't.

 

Then caching gets a bad name.

 

Then the Frog gets mad.

 

Then it's armageddon.

[+paulandstacey]

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

 

I'm thinking "no".

[+palmetto]

But if you are the property owner, or you get permission from the property owner, would it be allowed?

 

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.

 

There's nothing in the listing guideline that says, "except for property owners".

 

That said, if you wanted to hide a buried cache on your own property, I'd suggest contacting Groundspeak first - contact@geocaching.com - and see if they'd list it. If it showed up on my review queue, with a note about how the cache was buried on your own property, I'd just send you to contact@geocaching.com.

[+CSpenceFLY]

How about if you used a high pressure water hose to make the hole? :-)

[+new_dharma]

How about if you used a high pressure water hose to make the hole? :-)

it's not a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object...you didn't dig, you eroded!

[Team CDCB]

What if you used a hole that Rabbits were constantly digging out to get into your backyard and you simply put the cache in to the hole and then some wood supports to hold up a cinder block to cover up the hole, there by killing two birds with one stone:

 

1. Added a new cache into the world.

 

2. Finally stopped them stupid rabbit from digging under the fence.

[+AStargirl]

As far as I know existing holes are allowed. I've stuck my arm in enough of them searching for caches that I think that's OK. The general idea is not to do any more digging or "damage" by creating a new man-made hole.

[Sirrus123]

As far as I know existing holes are allowed. I've stuck my arm in enough of them searching for caches that I think that's OK. The general idea is not to do any more digging or "damage" by creating a new man-made hole.

so high speed water eroding is in?

[+The Jester]

As far as I know existing holes are allowed. I've stuck my arm in enough of them searching for caches that I think that's OK. The general idea is not to do any more digging or "damage" by creating a new man-made hole.

so high speed water eroding is in?

No, only low speed water eroding is acceptable.

[+ReadyOrNot]

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

 

I'm thinking "no".

 

Then use your hand to evacuate the dirt... or if the land owner gives permission, let the land owner dig the hole and you place the cache in it, then you are using a pre-existing hole.

Edited October 24, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[+paulandstacey]

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

 

I'm thinking "no".

 

Then use your hand to evacuate the dirt... or if the land owner gives permission, let the land owner dig the hole and you place the cache in it, then you are using a pre-existing hole.

 

Sigh. You can argue semantics or look for clever little loopholes all you want. I think Kealia has it right.

[+Moore9KSUcats]

We have/had a cache that was nestled in a small rock cave behind a tree at the base of a very rocky slope. It was fine for a couple of years, until this year.

 

Well, we had some massive flooding this summer in central Texas, and the access to the path the cache was near was blocked. Some people parked on the road (something I don't like to do) and did find the cache in August and September.

 

The river is finally down (they've been letting water out of the lake since late spring or early summer, I think) and I went to check on it.

 

Now I understood what the cacher in August meant when he said he had to DIG for the cache! I think more rock fill was pushed over the slope this summer, also..... the area it was hidden was not only devastated by the flood, but covered with more rubble! They had to DIG for about 10 minutes to get to the cache.....

 

I think we are planning on archiving the cache now... trying to get to the area is very trecherous from all the flood debris, and it really isn't the pretty place it was before.

 

Really.... I wasn't the one that BURIED the cache... nature and the construction work on the land above buried it.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...ae-46e0540c4192

[+Bigg Daddy]

Would it be considered buried if i took a trashcan, dug a hole in the ground deep enough so that all but about three inches down from the lid was showing, than covered that up with rocks and leaves, would that be buried?

if not, than would covering it over with sod or dirt be buried?

 

I think the bold part answers your question

 

It's less about BEING buried/covered, and more about not wanting to dig up land in the first place.

 

dug a ho?

[4wheelin_fool]

What would be the recommended course of action, if any, when cachers encounter caches that are "hidden" in this manner?

 

3 possibilities:

 

- Post a SBA and risk getting their hindquarters flamed by the cache owner, the locals, or both.

 

- Do nothing, and just hope that the wrong person or a land manager doesn't see it and goes ballistic resulting in cache permits or an all out cache ban in the area.

 

-Send an e-mail to the reviewer that published it and let them handle it from there, as it may be grandfathered or hidden that way with the permission of the property owner.

[+wandererrob]

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.

 

They really need to change that to something like "Caches that are buried, or require digging."

 

This is a point that seems to be a constant source of confusion and arguement. It really could stand to be clarified a bit more.

Edited October 26, 2007 by wandererrob

[+Kealia]

Doesn't soemthing that is buried require digging by definition?

 

I think the guideline is pretty clear. It's those that want to circumvent it by debating semantics that cause the issues, not the guideline itself.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Doesn't soemthing that is buried require digging by definition?

 

I think the guideline is pretty clear. It's those that want to circumvent it by debating semantics that cause the issues, not the guideline itself.

 

Using that logic, all grandfathered caches should be archived, because they could lead people to believe that they are within the guidelines. Why would the guidelines specifically specify what type of instrument is used in the digging if ALL digging were not allowed. They are clearly leaving it somewhat open.

 

We're discussing guidelines... Of course we're going to be arguing semantics.. Sheeesh

[+Kealia]

You make a valid point about grandfathered caches - I can't argue with that.

 

Don't get frustrated, it's just a debate, not an argument (there's a difference).

 

I agree that they leave it open to interpretation on thier side. If they didn't, when the semantics were brought up they wouldn't be able to enforce things.

 

I think my main point is that the guideline itself is pretty clear. Don't dig. It's the people that want to dig that look for loopholes.

[+ReadyOrNot]

You make a valid point about grandfathered caches - I can't argue with that.

 

Don't get frustrated, it's just a debate, not an argument (there's a difference).

 

I agree that they leave it open to interpretation on thier side. If they didn't, when the semantics were brought up they wouldn't be able to enforce things.

 

I think my main point is that the guideline itself is pretty clear. Don't dig. It's the people that want to dig that look for loopholes.

 

I've seen some caches where the dirt was moved, but not dug with a shovel.. I think it's one of those deal with each individual circumstance.. Hey! That's why the reviewers are there, right