+Team Cotati Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 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. Those probably won't qualify because they are not near anything cool nor are they in and of themselves cool. This coolness thing seems to be pretty important these days. No wonder Mrs. Team Cotati says that she wants to 'archive' me. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 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. How may of them have you reported to the reviewer? Quote Link to comment
+kraushad Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 (edited) I am NOT advocating any change in policy, just thinking out loud. I am more of a moderate about this "buried" rule. I understand and value protecting land and protecting the integrity of nature. I certainly like the part of the rule that says that no cache should require a tool (shovel, pointy object, whatever) to RETRIEVE the cache. I like this because I certainly see the repercussions of hundreds of cachers digging holes to try and find a cache. The destruction to surrounding lands would be very damaging and unsightly, not to mention annoying and counter to the beliefs of preservation that most nature enthusiasts, including myself, hold. HOWEVER, I feel that a carefully excavated hole in the woods, or other open land area, suitable to hold the bottom 2/3 of an ammo can is not really impacting nature all that much (if all at really), and can help make for creative hides. As long as the seekers understand that they do not have to dig to retrieve the cache, you eliminate the problems of a multitude of holes and destructive digging, while still allowing for a little creativity in a hide. The rock hide pictured above technically doesn't follow the current guidlines, but it hardly causes even minor damage to the environment, either visually or biologically, and in my opinion should be fine. It is creative, and adds to the fun of geocaching for me, and as long as the seeker knows that he/she does not have to dig to retrieve, no damage would be neccesary for many cachers to enjoy retrieving it. I am not advocating digging up concrete for an urban cache, nor would I create a hole in a cemetary for a hide, but a rock hide (like above) just seems to expand the fun of the game, with no long term effects on the environment. I am very new to this activity, and I am not complaining at all, just thinking out loud. There is probably more to the rule that I don't yet understand. My opinion -- worth what you paid for it! Edited January 31, 2008 by kraushad Quote Link to comment
+Team Cotati Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 (edited) 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. How may of them have you reported to the reviewer? Zero. And the reason is that The Team doesn't feel that they are 'buried'. But if you think that, going forward, we ought to suggest to a reviewer that all such caches be archived, then we will give that recommendation all due consideration. Would that be your recommendation? Edited January 31, 2008 by Team Cotati Quote Link to comment
+Derb522002 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 My questions would be for allowing moderate digging of holes are: 1. What is a moderate hole? 2. Who is going to monitor the digging to set the standard ? 3. One persons moderate hole is another person’s big hole. You know if moderate holes were allowed people would take advantage of the situation and then it would be out of control. So if you say no for everyone then the rule applies for everyone. I am sure that when the rules were set there was some research done on this. The reviewer cannot go out and find every cache he/she approves. When people write descriptions they don’t say in description a moderate hole so how would the reviewer know unless they were told. How many caches have gotten approved because of the cache description and nothing was said about it being buried or stuck in the ground? Then if someone reports it and it is archived the owners gets mad and wonders why thier cache was archived. Just my .02 Quote Link to comment
+ZSandmann Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 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. Was that 'cache cave' by chance? Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 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. How may of them have you reported to the reviewer? Zero. And the reason is that The Team doesn't feel that they are 'buried'. But if you think that, going forward, we ought to suggest to a reviewer that all such caches be archived, then we will give that recommendation all due consideration. Would that be your recommendation? I would recommended reporting guideline violations when you find them. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 HOWEVER, I feel that a carefully excavated hole in the woods, or other open land area, suitable to hold the bottom 2/3 of an ammo can is not really impacting nature all that much (if all at really), and can help make for creative hides. As long as the seekers understand that they do not have to dig to retrieve the cache, you eliminate the problems of a multitude of holes and destructive digging, while still allowing for a little creativity in a hide. The rock hide pictured above technically doesn't follow the current guidlines, but it hardly causes even minor damage to the environment, either visually or biologically, and in my opinion should be fine. It is creative, and adds to the fun of geocaching for me, and as long as the seeker knows that he/she does not have to dig to retrieve, no damage would be neccesary for many cachers to enjoy retrieving it. I agree that damage from hides like this is negligible. But digging is is a concern among land managers. It's often the first subject brought up when discussing geocaching with them. The perception that we bury caches has caused a lot of damage to the sport over the years and it's a perception that we have been fighting nearly since the beginning of the sport. Land managers don't want people digging on their lands, regardless of the size of the hole. So when we discuss geocaching with land managers rather than saying "we only bury small ones", or "we only bury them when..." or "We do bury but leave the lids exposed" or a host of other qualifiers, it's so much easier to say "Geocaches are not buried". Quote Link to comment
+Miragee Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 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. Was that 'cache cave' by chance? No, it was "Cabin Creek Cache." Lots of people found that cache and enjoyed the hide. Here is where it was: Quote Link to comment
+JohnnyVegas Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I am NOT advocating any change in policy, just thinking out loud. I am more of a moderate about this "buried" rule. I understand and value protecting land and protecting the integrity of nature. I certainly like the part of the rule that says that no cache should require a tool (shovel, pointy object, whatever) to RETRIEVE the cache. I like this because I certainly see the repercussions of hundreds of cachers digging holes to try and find a cache. The destruction to surrounding lands would be very damaging and unsightly, not to mention annoying and counter to the beliefs of preservation that most nature enthusiasts, including myself, hold. HOWEVER, I feel that a carefully excavated hole in the woods, or other open land area, suitable to hold the bottom 2/3 of an ammo can is not really impacting nature all that much (if all at really), and can help make for creative hides. As long as the seekers understand that they do not have to dig to retrieve the cache, you eliminate the problems of a multitude of holes and destructive digging, while still allowing for a little creativity in a hide. The rock hide pictured above technically doesn't follow the current guidlines, but it hardly causes even minor damage to the environment, either visually or biologically, and in my opinion should be fine. It is creative, and adds to the fun of geocaching for me, and as long as the seeker knows that he/she does not have to dig to retrieve, no damage would be neccesary for many cachers to enjoy retrieving it. I am not advocating digging up concrete for an urban cache, nor would I create a hole in a cemetary for a hide, but a rock hide (like above) just seems to expand the fun of the game, with no long term effects on the environment. I am very new to this activity, and I am not complaining at all, just thinking out loud. There is probably more to the rule that I don't yet understand. My opinion -- worth what you paid for it! The guidelines are very clear about what a buried cache is, but then again you have never placed a cache if you had you would know what the guildlines say about buried caches. Then if you feel the guidelines do not suit your style of geocacing perhaps you could start your own listing service in which anything goes. As derb 5220002 mentioned 1. What is a moderate hole? 2. Who is going to monitor the digging to set the standard ? 3. One persons moderate hole is another person’s big hole. For those that feel a cache is illegal, posting a SBA on a cache page is not the only option. You can send a e-mail to the reviewer for that area with your concerns. Quote Link to comment
+JohnnyVegas Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 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. How may of them have you reported to the reviewer? Zero. And the reason is that The Team doesn't feel that they are 'buried'. But if you think that, going forward, we ought to suggest to a reviewer that all such caches be archived, then we will give that recommendation all due consideration. Would that be your recommendation? I would recommended reporting guideline violations when you find them. He cannot do that, reporting illegal caches in northern california is not the norm. but placing illegal caches in northern california is not an uncommon practice. Quote Link to comment
+Team Cotati Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 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. How may of them have you reported to the reviewer? Zero. And the reason is that The Team doesn't feel that they are 'buried'. But if you think that, going forward, we ought to suggest to a reviewer that all such caches be archived, then we will give that recommendation all due consideration. Would that be your recommendation? I would recommended reporting guideline violations when you find them. Will do, sir. Roger-Wilco..10-4. Out. Quote Link to comment
+JohnnyVegas Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 10-4. Out It shoud be 10-4 / 10-7 or it could be QSL QRT Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 My questions would be for allowing moderate digging of holes are: 1. What is a moderate hole? 2. Who is going to monitor the digging to set the standard ? 3. One persons moderate hole is another person’s big hole. ... 1) No holes. 2) No holes. 3) No holes. This policy makes it simple. A hole is an exception with a very high bar. Quote Link to comment
+Derb522002 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 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. How may of them have you reported to the reviewer? Zero. And the reason is that The Team doesn't feel that they are 'buried'. But if you think that, going forward, we ought to suggest to a reviewer that all such caches be archived, then we will give that recommendation all due consideration. Would that be your recommendation? I would recommended reporting guideline violations when you find them. I agree no hole. So if owner thinks they know who complained about the cache there is possibly the person would get harassed. And the owner may be guessing wrong. I know I would think about not report an illegal cache because of what happened to me. I would think let someone else do it. So I guess you have a catch 22 going on about reporting illegal caches. Quote Link to comment
+Team Cotati Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 (edited) 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. How may of them have you reported to the reviewer? Zero. And the reason is that The Team doesn't feel that they are 'buried'. But if you think that, going forward, we ought to suggest to a reviewer that all such caches be archived, then we will give that recommendation all due consideration. Would that be your recommendation? I would recommended reporting guideline violations when you find them. He cannot do that, reporting illegal caches in northern california is not the norm. but placing illegal caches in northern california is not an uncommon practice. I don't know whether or not it is the "norm". I do know however that on the couple of occasions where I have done that, the response or lack of response from the reviewers involved was, to say the least, not encouraging. Edited January 31, 2008 by Team Cotati Quote Link to comment
+JohnnyVegas Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 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. How may of them have you reported to the reviewer? Zero. And the reason is that The Team doesn't feel that they are 'buried'. But if you think that, going forward, we ought to suggest to a reviewer that all such caches be archived, then we will give that recommendation all due consideration. Would that be your recommendation? I would recommended reporting guideline violations when you find them. I agree no hole. So if owner thinks they know who complained about the cache there is possibly the person would get harassed. And the owner may be guessing wrong. I know I would think about not report an illegal cache because of what happened to me. I would think let someone else do it. So I guess you have a catch 22 going on about reporting illegal caches. This happend here a while ago between two cachers that use to cache together a lot. Cacher 1) That cache you hid is illegal because you dug a hole to hide it. Cacher 2) You don't know what you are talking about, it is not all the way under the ground. Cacher 1) It does not matter, you are not suppose to dig a hole to hide a cache Cacher 2) Says who Cacher 1) It's in the guidelines for hiding a cache Cacher 2) You don't know what you are talking about Cacher 1) Forget about it, it's not worth the argument The cache was never reported as illegal, but Cacher 1 and 2 have not talked much in the past two years as a result of the argument. Anyone that wants to post and SBA is in for a lot of heat, but as I have mentioned, you can send an e-mail to the local reviewer with your concerns. No one will see your e-mail other than the reviewer. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 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. ... Nature digs holes, nature fills holes in. Stick a cache in a hole and it's going to get filled in to that perfectly square shape that makes someone gasp in shock that someone would be so abusive of the guidlines. They would be wrong but what the heck. The rule came about becaues land managers almost always inserth the word "buried" in front of "Treasure". My understand is that is was a specific memo from the NPS that prompsted the rule. Quote Link to comment
+JohnnyVegas Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 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. How may of them have you reported to the reviewer? Zero. And the reason is that The Team doesn't feel that they are 'buried'. But if you think that, going forward, we ought to suggest to a reviewer that all such caches be archived, then we will give that recommendation all due consideration. Would that be your recommendation? I would recommended reporting guideline violations when you find them. He cannot do that, reporting illegal caches in northern california is not the norm. but placing illegal caches in northern california is not an uncommon practice. I don't know whether or not it is the "norm". I do know however that on the couple of occasions where I have done that, the response or lack of response from the reviewers involved was, to say the least, not encouraging. A photo is worth 1000 words, did you send a photo Quote Link to comment
+Rattlebars Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 FWIW What if there's an existing hole and you bring dirt in, place the cache and fill it around it? Or, if you use normal forest floor debris to fill in? As I mentioned before, we've go lots of varmint holes around here and an ammo box or PVC pipe fit rather nicely in them requiring very little bark/moss/leaves/sticks to make them conform to the surroundings. BTW - I'm on the side of NO DIGGING, but covering should be OK. Quote Link to comment
Donald, Daisy and Kids Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 My questions would be for allowing moderate digging of holes are:1. What is a moderate hole? well my personal opinion of a moderate hole is: Something which is approximately 50 cubic meters but then again I work in civil construction where some major bulk earthworks take only short times. For example, today on the job today, they shifted 10000 cubic meters of gravel in just under 9 hours. A small hole would take us about 5 mins to dig, but would easily hide a large family car, a moderate hole would probably hide your house, and a large hole would have taken 3-5 years to dig out (mining). It is all in the definition of the individual really! Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 FWIW What if there's an existing hole and you bring dirt in, place the cache and fill it around it? Or, if you use normal forest floor debris to fill in? As I mentioned before, we've go lots of varmint holes around here and an ammo box or PVC pipe fit rather nicely in them requiring very little bark/moss/leaves/sticks to make them conform to the surroundings. BTW - I'm on the side of NO DIGGING, but covering should be OK. An existing hole is OK. You might want to mention that this on your cache page though. You don't have to specify that it's a hole, but you can write something like "The hiding place was a naturally occurring one and no guidelines were violated with this hide method" Quote Link to comment
+kraushad Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 (edited) I am NOT advocating any change in policy, just thinking out loud. I am more of a moderate about this "buried" rule. I understand and value protecting land and protecting the integrity of nature. I certainly like the part of the rule that says that no cache should require a tool (shovel, pointy object, whatever) to RETRIEVE the cache. I like this because I certainly see the repercussions of hundreds of cachers digging holes to try and find a cache. The destruction to surrounding lands would be very damaging and unsightly, not to mention annoying and counter to the beliefs of preservation that most nature enthusiasts, including myself, hold. HOWEVER, I feel that a carefully excavated hole in the woods, or other open land area, suitable to hold the bottom 2/3 of an ammo can is not really impacting nature all that much (if all at really), and can help make for creative hides. As long as the seekers understand that they do not have to dig to retrieve the cache, you eliminate the problems of a multitude of holes and destructive digging, while still allowing for a little creativity in a hide. The rock hide pictured above technically doesn't follow the current guidlines, but it hardly causes even minor damage to the environment, either visually or biologically, and in my opinion should be fine. It is creative, and adds to the fun of geocaching for me, and as long as the seeker knows that he/she does not have to dig to retrieve, no damage would be neccesary for many cachers to enjoy retrieving it. I am not advocating digging up concrete for an urban cache, nor would I create a hole in a cemetary for a hide, but a rock hide (like above) just seems to expand the fun of the game, with no long term effects on the environment. I am very new to this activity, and I am not complaining at all, just thinking out loud. There is probably more to the rule that I don't yet understand. My opinion -- worth what you paid for it! The guidelines are very clear about what a buried cache is, but then again you have never placed a cache if you had you would know what the guildlines say about buried caches. Then if you feel the guidelines do not suit your style of geocacing perhaps you could start your own listing service in which anything goes. I am not sure whether your response intended to be flippant or not, however, you will note that I stated at the outset of my post that I was not advocating a change in policy. I will add that I choose to play by the rules that exist and will continue to do so. I have no desire to form a geo-revolution and overthrow what seems to be an extremely well-run and well-thought out project. I was merely expressing my understanding and opinion of the rule as stated. Also, please do not assume that because I have not placed a cache, that I have not read the guidlines for placing a cache. For those that chose to take my "moderate" hole example to the extreme, I will clarify "moderate" to mean something bigger than a 35mm film canister, and smaller than a one-gallon milk jug. For those that asked about who would monitor the digging - each cache hider would monitor their own digging, just as it is now. Any argument that this won't work because many people won't follow the rules is fallacious, becasue if everyone followed the current rules, this discussion wouldn't be necessary. While I might disagree slightly with a rule or guidleine, this is no way means that I will not follow it. Briansnat - I appreciate the professional and polite explanation you provided and in light of your comments I can understand even more the need for such a rule. Thank you. Edited February 1, 2008 by kraushad Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 ...What if there's an existing hole and you bring dirt in, place the cache and fill it around it? Or, if you use normal forest floor debris to fill in?... Realisticly you shouldn't bring in the dirt. The risk of noxious weeds becomes a factor. Using the natural forrest litter would get you the result you want. Just don't use a shovel to dig another hole to fill in your cache that's in a natural hole. Quote Link to comment
+fairyhoney Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 If a person goes out during the muddy season and were to be able to "push" a container into the ground, Is That feasible- I don't even know if it would even work Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 If a person goes out during the muddy season and were to be able to "push" a container into the ground, Is That feasible- I don't even know if it would even work I think you know the answer. This is my take. If it's undisturbed and you make a bunch of muck by pushing the container into the ground...it may not break the guidelines but it does break the spirit. In other spots like a trail that's rutted and muddy, or the local 4x4 mud pit, you could and would not be breaking the spirit of the fule, but you really would have a bad spot for the cache. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 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? You can push it into the ground without using your hand. Personally, I'd wait for a soggy day and step on it. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 If a person goes out during the muddy season and were to be able to "push" a container into the ground, Is That feasible- I don't even know if it would even work Reviewers have chimed in on that hypothetical. The cache would not violate the guidelines. Quote Link to comment
+JohnnyVegas Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 This topic sure died off Quote Link to comment
+Right Wing Wacko Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I wonder what might account for that? A plentiful supply of shovels, trowels and other pointy objects? No, I don't blame the shovel when it's used to dig a hole. Quote Link to comment
Geo-Joe-N-Josh Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 As long as you don't need a shovel to dig it up I wouldn't call it burried. Quote Link to comment
Geo-Joe-N-Josh Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 If you don't need a shovel I wouldn't call it Burried. Quote Link to comment
+JohnnyVegas Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 As long as you don't need a shovel to dig it up I wouldn't call it burried. No, if it is in the ground and anything was used to make the hole, it is burried. Being able to access the cache without a shovel has nothing to do with determaning if a cache is burried. Quote Link to comment
+Okiebryan Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Shovels don't dig holes, people dig holes.... Wait... that's guns Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Shovels don't dig holes, people dig holes.... Wait... that's guns Guns dig holes? Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 As long as you don't need a shovel to dig it up I wouldn't call it burried. You wouldn't but the guidelines do. The cache would not be published. Quote Link to comment
+JohnnyVegas Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 This cache was arcived for being buried. A shovel was not needed to find the cache. Quote Link to comment
Rostropovich Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 This cache was archived for being buried. A shovel was not needed to find the cache. If all caches that were buried were placed as carefully as the one above appears, GC.com would not have a sufficient reason to impose a ban on the practice; However, as we all know many would be placed inappropriately causing many negative effects on the environment. If a hole was improperly dug to hide a cache the erosion process can be significantly accelerated. This would lead to hideous scars on the land and disgruntled land managers. The Geocaching world would shrink as many public places would ban any Geocache placements. I applaud Geocaching.com for their protection of the environment and ensuring Geocaching may continue for many decades by placing the Ban. Note: Will not be trying Sprinkler Idea after further thought. Quote Link to comment
+JohnnyVegas Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 If a hole was improperly dug to hide a cache Any hole that is dug to hide a cache is a hole that is improperly dug Just like the hole that was dug in the photo, the pipe in the ground was placed there the by the owner of the cache, the cacher dug the hole. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 If all caches that were buried were placed as carefully as the one above appears, GC.com would not have a sufficient reason to impose a ban on the practice Yes they would. The neatness of the hole is irrelevant. Most land managers do not want us digging on their lands to place or find geocaches. From an environmental standpoint a 6 inch deep hole is insignificant. But from most land manager's standpoints any digging is unacceptable. Quote Link to comment
cowcreekgeeks Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 There sure do seem to be a lot of *holes* around here! Quote Link to comment
GeoPirates2007 Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 I found another, two buried caches found in one week Looks to me like this was " Smooshed into ground, which makes it legal, I think, maybe Quote Link to comment
+JohnnyVegas Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 You were not there, so how would you know how it was placed. It is a burried cache. Two of the reviewers for the area in which the cache has been placed cache in this are on a regular basis, lets see what happens when one of them finds the cache Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.