Jump to content

At what point is a cache 'buried'


partimcmpr

Recommended Posts

I recently found a cache that was hidden in a hole. The top of the cache was at ground level, and the cache, located in the hole, was covered with pine straw.

 

I understand that caches are not to be buried. Is this cache pushing the guidelines, or am I likely to find other caches in holes covered with straw or leaves?

 

Comments?

 

Thanks,

ParTimCmpr

Link to comment

The guidelines cover it well.

 

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

 

If the hole was pre-existing - then it may be ok. If somebody dug it out then it is probably wrong.

 

About the only exception is sand that is easily moved without tearing up any plants or rocks.

 

I've seen several hides like you describe and my guess is that 80% go directly againist both the spirt and letter of the guideline. If you feel it is blatently wrong - contact a reviewer or post a SBA log. If if it turns out to be generally ok - it still sets a bad example for others.

Link to comment

This is a buried cache

b1156ea0-037f-4184-af23-e1413b41e3c4.jpg

Any time the ground is peirced to make a hole the cache becomes buried.

 

From the guidlines

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.

Edited by JohnnyVegas
Link to comment

"Buried" is sort of a misleading term. If you put a cache in an existing depression in the ground and cover it with leaves or sticks it's technically buried, but that is OK under the guidelines.

 

If you dig a hole and sink it part way in, leaving the lid exposed (as in the above photo), that is technically not buried, but it is not allowed under the guideline.

 

If you want to know if the cache is OK ask this queston: Was digging necessary to either hide or find the cache? If the answer is yes, then it's not appropriate.

Link to comment

I recently found a cache that was hidden in a hole. The top of the cache was at ground level, and the cache, located in the hole, was covered with pine straw.

 

I understand that caches are not to be buried. Is this cache pushing the guidelines, or am I likely to find other caches in holes covered with straw or leaves?

 

Comments?

 

Thanks,

ParTimCmpr

 

Caches hidden in this manner are quite common. They are usually but not always accompanied by hints sufficient in detail to get you to the spot without too much difficulty. That, or some visual 'clue' will point the way.

Link to comment

While I admitedly haven't carried out an exhaustive study, I can say that from my direct observation that in all likelyhood there are certainly hundreds if not thousands of caches hidden in this manner.

 

I wonder what might account for that?

 

I'm sure they're out there, but I've only encountered 1 in 600+ finds. Yeah, I guess even if it's 1 out of every 600, with over 500,000 caches out there it means there are quite a few buried caches.

 

What accounts for that?

 

1. Ignorance of the guidelines.

 

2. Knowing the guidelines but not caring.

Link to comment

I'm assuming that you're referring to Starrs Mill since it mentions being in a 5gal pail. This one is most likly grandfathered.

 

Not Starrs Mill, but you are in the right geographic area. Starrs Mill was my first find actually. It was not buried, but well hidden from the casual passer-by.

 

At first I had trouble find the one I asked about, but I am still in the single digit on finds. Once I found it, I realized there were actually hints pointing to it.

 

Since it is nearby, I may go by and look at it again, but I think it is in such a good place, I really would hate to see it changed.

 

Later,

ParTimCmpr

Link to comment

I found all kinds of holes in the ground today during my hike...nature did it!! Would you assume I dug a hole if my cache was in it?

 

 

Maybe if we knew WHY the rule came about, we could do more to prevent others from circumventing it.

The guidline as they like to call them is to aviod problems with land managers. If the land managers start to have issues with geocaches it could result in geocache being band in areas.

But there is a percentage of geocachers that just do not care about what is in the guidlines. I find about 6 buried caches a year.

Link to comment

I found all kinds of holes in the ground today during my hike...nature did it!! Would you assume I dug a hole if my cache was in it?

 

 

Maybe if we knew WHY the rule came about, we could do more to prevent others from circumventing it.

 

If the hole was perfectly contoured to the shape of a square cache, it might appear to have been dug out. <_<

 

My intent was not to judge whether a particular cache was legitimate, but to better understand what to look for. Generally I would expect that a cache would be placed in a location that does not require much effort other than covering with materials in the area such as leaves, straw, or sticks. After I have found my first 1000 caches, I may change my mind!

 

Four down, many more to go! :unsure:

Link to comment

I found all kinds of holes in the ground today during my hike...nature did it!! Would you assume I dug a hole if my cache was in it?

 

Maybe if we knew WHY the rule came about, we could do more to prevent others from circumventing it.

 

Why? Because when the subject of geocaching comes up with land managers, one of the first thing they bring up is that they don't want us digging up their lands to place the things. The whole "buried treasure" thing

that the media tends to promote is the same thing that turns lands managers against the sport. So if we can

say flat out that we don't bury caches period, then it's a lot easier to talk them into allowing the sport.

Link to comment

 

Maybe if we knew WHY the rule came about, we could do more to prevent others from circumventing it.

 

Here is one example of why the rule came about. Read the description for this hunt.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...db-03be0a26718e

 

I only read the first page but I can see why based on That discription . . . "Be sure you bring a small shovel with you so you can find it! The container is plastic, so dont dig too hard."

If every cacher had to dig that would be detrimental to the environment. I've seen some cool caches yet they were "buried" :unsure:

Link to comment

Here is one example of why the rule came about. Read the description for this hunt.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...db-03be0a26718e

That one was archived back in 2001. Maybe the guidlines about digging were not published then? I seem to remember seeing the video of the first ever cache actually being buried! That was only a year earlier.

 

Yep, quite a few were hidden the way the first one was, take a 5gal pail, sink it into the ground up to the lid, then cover it with logs, leaves, etc.

If I recall correctly, the rule for burying caches didn't take effect until Sept 01.

Link to comment

<snip>

 

I've seen some cool caches yet they were "buried" :)

I have too, and have been sad to see the "Archived" notice come in for one such cache on my "Memorable Caches" bookmark list. That particular cache was not "guilty" of causing any environmental damage where it was located on BLM land, but someone "turned it in." :)

 

On the other hand, I have found buried five-gallon buckets . . . :)

 

I understand the reason for the Guidelines, but don't understand why some very cool caches get "turned in" to Groundspeak . . . :)

Link to comment

Maybe if we knew WHY the rule came about, we could do more to prevent others from circumventing it.

 

I understand the reason for the Guidelines, but don't understand why some very cool caches get "turned in" to Groundspeak . . . :)

 

Yes it is important to understand the reasons for the guidelines and not just blindly follow them. The reviewers cannot see every cache so they rely on cachers to "turn in" the caches that violate the guidelines. It would be better if cachers thought a bit about whether a "buried" cache could potentially cause a problem before turning it in. The most difficult problem to judge is the "copy-cat" factor. You may have a cache on BLM land that is partially buried, perhaps even had permission to hide this way. But some people would argue that someone will see this hide and decide it is OK to copy it in the state park where the park superintendent has a misconception of cachers as people who come in and dig up the whole park looking for a cache. The superintendent here sees the partially buried cache and thinks that geocaching.com guidelines aren't enforced so he just bans all caches in the park. The guidelines would be easy to enforce if people would read and understand the reasons for them. But unfortunately this isn't the case. Some clever ideas for caches are probably getting stifled because we have to worry about someone who sees a partially buried cache in a appropriate place and copies the idea in an inappropriate place. I personally wouldn't turn in a partially buried cache that I thought was in a location where this kind of hide would not bother the land owner/manager. But I can understand the reasoning of the "cache cop" who feels that even these have to be turned in to prevent a copy cat.

Link to comment

Would it be O.K. if you have the permission of the land Managers to make a "Sprinkler" a cache. The way I would do it would be make a hole just large enough to fit a 2" PVC pipe in it, then slip in a canister with a sprinkler head on top. Wonder if it would go through. Would be in the middle of a lawn so no one would look anywhere else I believe.

Link to comment

<snip>

 

I've seen some cool caches yet they were "buried" :)

I have too, and have been sad to see the "Archived" notice come in for one such cache on my "Memorable Caches" bookmark list. That particular cache was not "guilty" of causing any environmental damage where it was located on BLM land, but someone "turned it in." :)

 

On the other hand, I have found buried five-gallon buckets . . . :)

 

I understand the reason for the Guidelines, but don't understand why some very cool caches get "turned in" to Groundspeak . . . :D

 

Huuummmm? Let's see, I think that a cache is "cool". This cache violates guidlines. Because I think it is "cool" no one ought to report it's guideline violation.

 

Shoot the messenger.

 

Got it.

Edited by Team Cotati
Link to comment

Would it be O.K. if you have the permission of the land Managers to make a "Sprinkler" a cache. The way I would do it would be make a hole just large enough to fit a 2" PVC pipe in it, then slip in a canister with a sprinkler head on top. Wonder if it would go through. Would be in the middle of a lawn so no one would look anywhere else I believe.

 

I was out looking for a couple of micro caches today. There was a sprinkler head near one of them, and I kept wanting to tug on it to make sure it was not concealing the cache. I eventually found the cache and realized all the places I had been looking are places where a muggle would have eventually found the cache.

 

I think a sprinkler head cache would eventually get checked by someone and possibly disturbed. And do you really want people walking around yanking on sprinkler heads?

Link to comment

Would it be O.K. if you have the permission of the land Managers to make a "Sprinkler" a cache. The way I would do it would be make a hole just large enough to fit a 2" PVC pipe in it, then slip in a canister with a sprinkler head on top. Wonder if it would go through. Would be in the middle of a lawn so no one would look anywhere else I believe.

If you have permission from the land manager, and you can "smoosh" the fake sprinkler pipe cache into the ground without digging, you should be good to go.

 

If you have to dig a hole to construct the cache's hiding place, Groundspeak will want very specific confirmation that the land manager knows about this and understands the consequences. These would include, for example, geocachers messing with the real sprinklers 30 feet away. If Groundspeak is convinced that the land manager is OK with that, then your cache can be listed, assuming there's no other issues.

Link to comment

I've seen a number of sprinkler-head caches. Never really thought of them as being "buried" caches since you don't have to dig or uncover anything to find them and they are so common. If they break the rules, then why aren't sprinkler heads banned?

 

One small cache I (and a couple of other cachers) had a hard time finding was placed in a small crevice at a vine-covered fence and covered with leaves. Bearing in mind the "buried" rule, I never even thought to look for something below ground level when it looked flat. But...the hider did not dig the hole.

Link to comment

So... if you have permission from the land owner (for example... myself) can you dig a hole? :laughing:

 

Your reviewer will try to convince you not to. A big part of the problem comes from copycats. They see your buried cache, think it's a grand idea and try it in a state park.

 

I've seen a number of sprinkler-head caches. Never really thought of them as being "buried" caches since you don't have to dig or uncover anything to find them and they are so common. If they break the rules, then why aren't sprinkler heads banned?

 

I think there is a distinction between a placement that requires digging and one where you just push a stake in the ground. The only sprinkler head cache I found fit in the latter category.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Your reviewer will try to convince you not to. A big part of the problem comes from copycats. They see your buried cache, think it's a grand idea and try it in a state park.

 

Some places, placing a cache off-trail is not a big deal. Should off-trail caches also be banned? Someone might hunt a cache off-trail and then go place an off-trail cache in an area where it's a no-no. The whole copy-cat excuse doesn't fly. Human beings are smart enough to figure out the rules for the area that want to hide the cache. If they aren't smart enough to do that, then they aren't going to follow the guidelines anyways, are they?

Link to comment

Ummmm.... in reference to the OP and not sprinkler heads....

 

If you could move the pine straw away without the use of "shovel, trowel or pointy object" (IE with your hands) then you shouldn't have a problem with the guidelines. The pine straw covering is no different from UPS or UPR hides.

 

It seems it would be relatively easy to determine if the "hole" or "depression" was pre-existing or was dug by the hider with an examination of the hole. Is there vegetation or normal forest floor debris (leaves, moss, bark etc) in it under the container? What's the condition of the soil. Does the hole precisely match the container? Or, of course, if there's a mound of soil nearby the volume of which matches closely the depression, one could suspect it was dug, but even that still leaves reasonable doubt the guidelines were violated.

 

We have many varmint holes and depressions here in NE Ohio which would be perfect places for a cache and I've found a few. I always give benefit of the doubt that it's OK unless it's very obvious it's not.

Link to comment

I've seen a number of sprinkler-head caches. Never really thought of them as being "buried" caches since you don't have to dig or uncover anything to find them and they are so common. If they break the rules, then why aren't sprinkler heads banned?

 

One small cache I (and a couple of other cachers) had a hard time finding was placed in a small crevice at a vine-covered fence and covered with leaves. Bearing in mind the "buried" rule, I never even thought to look for something below ground level when it looked flat. But...the hider did not dig the hole.

The problem is that the reviewers depend on cachers to contact them if there is a problem with a cache. Most cachers will not report an illegal cache because the locals and the owner of the cache will get upset.

Just post a SBA sometime when you find a bad cache and see what happens.

I have sent e-mails to cache owners in the past, they either do not reply or they say thanks for the note, but they do not correct the problem.

 

I sent the owner of the cache in my recent photo an e-mail, there is not much of a chance he will ever respond.

 

There are lots of cachers that feel the guidlines do not apply to them, they just play dumb and say "I did not know" followed by "Well I found one just like it, how was I suppose to know"

 

It is this kind of attitude that is going to be the downfall of geocaching, it has happend in some parts of the country already. But people just want to keep their heads in the ground, next to their caches.

 

The guidlines are pretty clear on what a buried caches is.

Link to comment

Would it be O.K. if you have the permission of the land Managers to make a "Sprinkler" a cache. The way I would do it would be make a hole just large enough to fit a 2" PVC pipe in it, then slip in a canister with a sprinkler head on top. Wonder if it would go through. Would be in the middle of a lawn so no one would look anywhere else I believe.

 

My brother just placed one a couple of weeks ago like that.

 

I may be adding a small trowel to my winter caching kit after a find I made about a week

ago. The cache was an ammo can hidden in a small depression and covered by a few logs. It was frozen to the ground and took about ten minutes of chipping the frozen dirt off it with a pointy stick before I could free it and open the cache.

Link to comment

 

I may be adding a small trowel to my winter caching kit after a find I made about a week

ago. The cache was an ammo can hidden in a small depression and covered by a few logs. It was frozen to the ground and took about ten minutes of chipping the frozen dirt off it with a pointy stick before I could free it and open the cache.

 

Here's a recent log on one of my caches: Old School / New Books

 

It's not where I hid it. A finder did a nice job of moving it where it would get swamped or frozen. C'est la vie!

Link to comment

Bad subject.

I recently had a cache that was inside a box that housed a ammo can, on top was a log cut in half lenght wise and a hinge put on it so it looked like it was split and sitting on the ground. When you pulled up on the log the cache was exposed inside a wooden box. This cache was there for sometime before a NEW MEDEATOR was introduced into our area. He made me remove it> this was part of a 8 step multi cache and every one who found it loved it. NOW when it I take that same cache and sit it on top of the ground and then I or someone puts dirt or sand around it THEN WHAT? Wasnt buried, nothing was dug to make it that way, No pointy or shovel was used, Whats the difference? I see no problem with these type of caches, We are all here to enjoy the sport and makeing it a likke more interesting than the last guys. As long as its in a safe manner and nothing is destroyed I see no problem with it.

 

 

 

I may be adding a small trowel to my winter caching kit after a find I made about a week

ago. The cache was an ammo can hidden in a small depression and covered by a few logs. It was frozen to the ground and took about ten minutes of chipping the frozen dirt off it with a pointy stick before I could free it and open the cache.

 

Here's a recent log on one of my caches: Old School / New Books

 

It's not where I hid it. A finder did a nice job of moving it where it would get swamped or frozen. C'est la vie!

Link to comment
this was part of a 8 step multi cache and every one who found it loved it

Just because everyone who found the cache loved it does not mean it is a good placement.

I have seen lots of caches that are illegal that lots of cachers had found before me, just becasue they liked the cache does not make a good hide. Most cachers do not read the guidlines for placing a cache or they do not understand the guidelines for placing a cache. There may even be some that do not care about the guidlines.

 

edit due to caffine overdose that made e type too fast.

Edited by JohnnyVegas
Link to comment

Bad subject.

I recently had a cache that was inside a box that housed a ammo can, on top was a log cut in half lenght wise and a hinge put on it so it looked like it was split and sitting on the ground. When you pulled up on the log the cache was exposed inside a wooden box. This cache was there for sometime before a NEW MEDEATOR was introduced into our area. He made me remove it> this was part of a 8 step multi cache and every one who found it loved it. NOW when it I take that same cache and sit it on top of the ground and then I or someone puts dirt or sand around it THEN WHAT? Wasnt buried, nothing was dug to make it that way, No pointy or shovel was used, Whats the difference? I see no problem with these type of caches, We are all here to enjoy the sport and makeing it a likke more interesting than the last guys. As long as its in a safe manner and nothing is destroyed I see no problem with it. ...

 

New reviewers sometimes have a bit to much gusto. They need to to stick with the job because it's a tough job, but they don't need to flame out causing problems where there are none.

 

IF your cache was as you say it was, it was both fine and grandfathered.

Link to comment

I understand the reason for the Guidelines, but don't understand why some very cool caches get "turned in" to Groundspeak . . . ;)

 

Yes it is important to understand the reasons for the guidelines and not just blindly follow them. The reviewers cannot see every cache so they rely on cachers to "turn in" the caches that violate the guidelines. It would be better if cachers thought a bit about whether a "buried" cache could potentially cause a problem before turning it in. The most difficult problem to judge is the "copy-cat" factor. You may have a cache on BLM land that is partially buried, perhaps even had permission to hide this way. But some people would argue that someone will see this hide and decide it is OK to copy it in the state park where the park superintendent has a misconception of cachers as people who come in and dig up the whole park looking for a cache. The superintendent here sees the partially buried cache and thinks that geocaching.com guidelines aren't enforced so he just bans all caches in the park. The guidelines would be easy to enforce if people would read and understand the reasons for them. But unfortunately this isn't the case. Some clever ideas for caches are probably getting stifled because we have to worry about someone who sees a partially buried cache in a appropriate place and copies the idea in an inappropriate place. I personally wouldn't turn in a partially buried cache that I thought was in a location where this kind of hide would not bother the land owner/manager. But I can understand the reasoning of the "cache cop" who feels that even these have to be turned in to prevent a copy cat.

 

 

The problem is that the reviewers depend on cachers to contact them if there is a problem with a cache. Most cachers will not report an illegal cache because the locals and the owner of the cache will get upset.

Just post a SBA sometime when you find a bad cache and see what happens.

I have sent e-mails to cache owners in the past, they either do not reply or they say thanks for the note, but they do not correct the problem.

 

I sent the owner of the cache in my recent photo an e-mail, there is not much of a chance he will ever respond.

 

There are lots of cachers that feel the guidlines do not apply to them, they just play dumb and say "I did not know" followed by "Well I found one just like it, how was I suppose to know"

 

It is this kind of attitude that is going to be the downfall of geocaching, it has happend in some parts of the country already. But people just want to keep their heads in the ground, next to their caches.

 

The guidlines are pretty clear on what a buried caches is.

 

 

I went looking for a cache and could not find it. When I was told by another cacher that I had found it I put a DNF and I will admit the comment I made I went a little overboard. My DNF was deleted by the owner then I got an e-mail (a not so nice email) from the owner on how I should have email him with my comments and he lectured me on common courtesy. Then, some not so nice comments back to me. I did not email the owner back because I did not want to start a war of words. Then the cache was archived by our reviewer, unfortunately for me because of the timing of the archiving and my comments, the owner ASSUMED I complained to the reviewer. Then owner of the cache made some more comments on the cache site that was achieved.

 

 

Then the owner proceeded to find a cache I had put out and made some negative comments about the cache. After that I got another email from that person saying about how I got the cache archived (and other comments) because I went to the reviewer. He ASSUMED because of my comments on his cache that I went to reviewer. He never asked me. I again did not email back the owner and decided to let the subject drop.

 

 

So if you even think about contacting the local reviewer about a cache beware of the repercussions that may come of it from the owner and/or others.

Link to comment

...Yes it is important to understand the reasons for the guidelines and not just blindly follow them. The reviewers cannot see every cache so they rely on cachers to "turn in" the caches that violate the guidelines. It would be better if cachers thought a bit about whether a "buried" cache could potentially cause a problem before turning it in....

 

The bold is key. If you understand the guidelines and why they exist then you know the exceptions what's good and what's bad. That's as a cache owner asking to get a cache listed. As a finder you have no clue about any of the legwork and discussions that have taken place before hand. That's why it's bad business to second guess the cache, the discussions, the approval and blindly follow the guidelines when trying to right all the wrongs in the caching world through the use of the archive button.

 

As for the copycat factor, that's just smoke. If the cache is good the cache is good. If when someone tries to list one that's not good it should not be listed. It's as simple as that and should be allowed to be as simple as that. There is no "could this cache be copied inappropriately rule" because the answer for all caches is "yes".

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
As for the copycat factor, that's just smoke. If the cache is good the cache is good. If when someone tries to list one that's not good it should not be listed. It's as simple as that and should be allowed to be as simple as that.

 

It's not as simple as that. The reviewers often have no clue that the cache is buried. Once in a while a hider will mention that it is buried and the reviewer will catch it, but most of the time the only way the reviewer will ever know is if someone tells him, or if he finds it himself.

Link to comment
As for the copycat factor, that's just smoke. If the cache is good the cache is good. If when someone tries to list one that's not good it should not be listed. It's as simple as that and should be allowed to be as simple as that.

 

It's not as simple as that. The reviewers often have no clue that the cache is buried. Once in a while a hider will mention that it is buried and the reviewer will catch it, but most of the time the only way the reviewer will ever know is if someone tells him, or if he finds it himself.

That's a fair point. It highlighs another problem. I'm on my 5th or 6th reviewer. Do they all take good enough notes for their succesors so that if we did work things out even though the cache appears to break a guideline that the next reviewer who gets a report from some random finder, can see the answer?

Link to comment
As for the copycat factor, that's just smoke. If the cache is good the cache is good. If when someone tries to list one that's not good it should not be listed. It's as simple as that and should be allowed to be as simple as that.

 

It's not as simple as that. The reviewers often have no clue that the cache is buried. Once in a while a hider will mention that it is buried and the reviewer will catch it, but most of the time the only way the reviewer will ever know is if someone tells him, or if he finds it himself.

That's a fair point. It highlighs another problem. I'm on my 5th or 6th reviewer. Do they all take good enough notes for their succesors so that if we did work things out even though the cache appears to break a guideline that the next reviewer who gets a report from some random finder, can see the answer?

 

As far as I know, most do. But its also why it's a good idea to mention any circumstances on the cache page.

Link to comment

We have found many of those sprinker head caches. Not a single one looked as though it was 'pushed' into the ground. They were partially buried so that only the top 1" or so was visible. You know, like a real type sprinkler head. Some of them were actually sitting loose inside a larger piece of PVC which was buried.

 

I doubt that the hider used his hands to prepare the hole in the ground, maybe he did, but I doubt it.

 

There's got to be more to this than simply saying that you pushed the thing into the ground. That or the prohibition against burying things such as a sprinkelr head would never be enforcable. Makes you wonder.

 

Ought all of these be archived? None be archived?

Edited by Team Cotati
Link to comment

We have found many of those sprinker head caches. Not a single one looked as though was 'pushed' into the ground. They were partially buried so that only the top 1" or so was visible. You know, like a real type sprinkler head. Some of them were actually sitting loose inside a larger piece of PVC which was buried.

 

I doubt that the hider used his hands to prepare the hole in the ground, maybe he did, but I doubt it.

 

There's got to be more to this than simply saying that you pushed the thing into the ground. That or the prohibition against burying things such as a sprinkelr head would never be enforcable. Makes you wonder.

 

Ought all of these be archived? None be archived?

If the person who turned in the clever cache I found half a mile off the highway near a very cool outcropping of rocks on over-grazed BLM land in a rural area of Colorado finds those caches, they'll get turned in and Archived. ;)

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...