Buried caches

[+bluiisjim]

How do I go about getting geocaching to consider modifying their rule about buried caches. By buried I mean a lid at ground level such as a valve type box. I understand the reason for not wanting people to go digging in places that don't belong to them, but if it is a park employee doing it for a City, or it's in your own property, a valve box or water meter box is very user friendly and easily accessible to the handicapped. It allows caches to be hidden in areas that are not otherwise accessible such as grass or some landscaping.

 

The reason I am requesting this modification is because it's already commonly done without permission from geocaching.com. I have long been a believer that laws should have a purpose and if that purpose is no longer valid they should be modified or discarded.

 

I only have 200 finds but they have been spread out over 6 states and 3 countries. I have seen many valve boxes, water meter boxes, a hole in the ground with a rock on top, a hole in the ground with a flat board laying there and a container attached to the board, a tree branch on the ground with the lid attached and the container in a hole, and a metal post set just for a cache under the cap. Considering I am fairly new at this I'm sure there are many other types of holes in the ground.

 

I believe there should be a mechanism for obtaining permission.

[+Don_J]

How do I go about getting geocaching to consider modifying their rule about buried caches. By buried I mean a lid at ground level such as a valve type box. I understand the reason for not wanting people to go digging in places that don't belong to them, but if it is a park employee doing it for a City, or it's in your own property, a valve box or water meter box is very user friendly and easily accessible to the handicapped. It allows caches to be hidden in areas that are not otherwise accessible such as grass or some landscaping.

 

The reason I am requesting this modification is because it's already commonly done without permission from geocaching.com. I have long been a believer that laws should have a purpose and if that purpose is no longer valid they should be modified or discarded.

 

I only have 200 finds but they have been spread out over 6 states and 3 countries. I have seen many valve boxes, water meter boxes, a hole in the ground with a rock on top, a hole in the ground with a flat board laying there and a container attached to the board, a tree branch on the ground with the lid attached and the container in a hole, and a metal post set just for a cache under the cap. Considering I am fairly new at this I'm sure there are many other types of holes in the ground.

 

I believe there should be a mechanism for obtaining permission.

 

First, there are no Geocaching Laws, (at least not from Groundspeak). They are guidelines.

Second, I too have found dozens of caches that utilize existing holes, utility boxes, etc. I have never considered them as being "buried".

 

The basic consensus is if you have to use a "pointy object" to create the hide, or to facilitate the find, then it's not allowed.

 

Of your examples, the only one that concerns me is the setting of the metal post to put a cache under it's cap. Technically, hitting the ground with a post hole digger to set the post, clearly violates the guidelines. However, they are guidelines. Was the post set in a vacant field that already has 100 posts in it, or was it set in an area that requires a EIR before a fence can be built?

 

Most importantly, the guideline should NOT be altered. Allowing caches that are truly "buried" would be the death of the sport. Geocaching with a shovel is a really bad idea.

 

(Edit for additional commentary)

Edited May 24, 2009 by Don_J

[+bluiisjim]

How do I go about getting geocaching to consider modifying their rule about buried caches. By buried I mean a lid at ground level such as a valve type box. I understand the reason for not wanting people to go digging in places that don't belong to them, but if it is a park employee doing it for a City, or it's in your own property, a valve box or water meter box is very user friendly and easily accessible to the handicapped. It allows caches to be hidden in areas that are not otherwise accessible such as grass or some landscaping.

 

The reason I am requesting this modification is because it's already commonly done without permission from geocaching.com. I have long been a believer that laws should have a purpose and if that purpose is no longer valid they should be modified or discarded.

 

I only have 200 finds but they have been spread out over 6 states and 3 countries. I have seen many valve boxes, water meter boxes, a hole in the ground with a rock on top, a hole in the ground with a flat board laying there and a container attached to the board, a tree branch on the ground with the lid attached and the container in a hole, and a metal post set just for a cache under the cap. Considering I am fairly new at this I'm sure there are many other types of holes in the ground.

 

I believe there should be a mechanism for obtaining permission.

 

First, there are no Geocaching Laws, (at least not from Groundspeak). They are guidelines.

Second, I too have found dozens of caches that utilize existing holes, utility boxes, etc. I have never considered them as being "buried".

 

The basic consensus is if you have to use a "pointy object" to create the hide, or to facilitate the find, then it's not allowed.

 

Of your examples, the only one that concerns me is the setting of the metal post to put a cache under it's cap. Technically, hitting the ground with a post hole digger to set the post, clearly violates the guidelines. However, they are guidelines. Was the post set in a vacant field that already has 100 posts in it, or was it set in an area that requires a EIR before a fence can be built?

 

Most importantly, the guideline should NOT be altered. Allowing caches that are truly "buried" would be the death of the sport. Geocaching with a shovel is a really bad idea.

 

(Edit for additional commentary)

The reason I asked was because my new cache was turned down because it was going to be a valve box. I agree digging to find a cache is out, but lifting a ground level lid is no different than opening any other cache. All of the examples I listed required digging. Mostly, I hear people say it's the don't ask don't tell rule.

Edited May 24, 2009 by bluiiscouple

[knowschad]

Mostly, I hear people say it's the don't ask don't tell rule.

 

And you failed to listen to this... why???

[CoyoteRed]

The reason I asked was because my new cache was turned down because it was going to be a valve box. I agree digging to find a cache is out, but lifting a ground level lid is no different than opening any other cache.

Actually, the most important element is whether you can trivially return the location to its original condition after the cache is removed.

 

Mostly, I hear people say it's the don't ask don't tell rule.

Don't ask, don't tell means that when your reviewer finds out you're toast. I know of one person who did that and next thing you know he's here in the forums complaining about not being able to place caches without explicit permission.

 

I take it you've already placed the valve box, right? I assuming this because you said your cache was turned down and hopefully you're not submitting caches that are not in place. Anyway, you've seen previous caches that for whatever reason are, looked, or seemed buried. Did you know how any of those were accomplished? Were there existing holes? Were these on the cache owner's personal property? Where they placed there by the land stewards for purposes other than geocaching? Are were they, in fact, illegal placements? Do you know?

 

Second, what is your spot going to look like when you remove your valve box? Are you going to leave a hole? Will anyone be able to tell that there ever was a valve box there?

 

Okay, good. You're going to go to the extra effort of returning the location to its pristine condition. What about all of those potential buried caches--if there were no buried cache rule--that was simply abandoned? We can't get folks to simply pick up old archived caches, what makes you think they're going to put any effort in fixing the hole?

 

This site very much caters to the lowest common denominator in geocaching. Many of the rules are good for the clientele this site seeks. The no burying rule is one of them. I wouldn't want to see that changed.

[+atmospherium]

The reason I am requesting this modification is because it's already commonly done without permission from geocaching.com.

 

Umm...ok, I should be allowed to shoot people I don't like because that sort of thing is already commonly done without permission from the local law enforcement officer. Do you see the problem here?

 

I have long been a believer that laws should have a purpose and if that purpose is no longer valid they should be modified or discarded.

 

But in this case the purpose of the law (read: guideline) is still quite valid, no matter if someone, or even a whole bunch of someones, disregards the law (guideline).

[Keystone]

The reason I am requesting this modification is because it's already commonly done without permission from geocaching.com. I have long been a believer that laws should have a purpose and if that purpose is no longer valid they should be modified or discarded.

This was one of the first listing guidelines added after it became clear that "use your common sense" would not work on a large scale. Together with the "cache contents" guideline, this is one of the listing guidelines which I would least expect to see changed in any meaningful way. Why is that? When Geocaching.com lackeys, site volunteers and regular geocachers speak with land managers, the two most common questions do not change: "Are these things buried?" and "What's to prevent people from leaving illegal materials in the caches?" It is quite helpful when talking to land managers to be able to point to these clear guidelines, and to say that they're enforced. Sorry, but the benefit of this outweighs one person's right to get creative with a trowel.

I believe there should be a mechanism for obtaining permission.

There is. Contact Groundspeak to discuss whether an exception is possible. They may want to speak personally with the land manager, to make sure that the consequences of allowing a buried cache are well understood.

 

I, too, have found buried caches. I tend to have a greater impact on the environment from making a thorough search, because I arrive at Ground Zero assuming that the cache won't be buried. I don't much like the "surprise" when I finally find the non-compliant cache.

 

Those caches don't stay listed for very long after I visit them.

[+briansnat]

Mostly, I hear people say it's the don't ask don't tell rule.

 

Not quite. When you submit your cache you check a box that says you read and understand the guidelines.

 

The reviewer assumes you are telling the truth so he sees no need to ask. If he finds out that you were not being truthful your cache will be archived immediately.

[+gof1]

Mostly, I hear people say it's the don't ask don't tell rule.

 

Not quite. When you submit your cache you check a box that says you read and understand the guidelines.

 

The reviewer assumes you are telling the truth so he sees no need to ask. If he finds out that you were not being truthful your cache will be archived immediately.

 

And I suspect you may have more difficulty with subsequent cache submissions.

[+StarBrand]

I've been doing this for about as long as anybody. I've only seen 6 valve box caches. Four of those were clearly in existance only for a cache - the other 2 utilized existing valve boxes. Two were on private property. The remaining 2 were in City parks - I checked up on permission and finding none - I submitted the NA (SBA) log without hesitation.

 

I worked hard with local park managers to get caching allowed without permits - one important issue was that we cachers do not allow buried caches. I pointed out the guideline and assured them we could police ourselves. Don't tell me you can sink a box down so just the lid shows - and have room for a cache and didn't dig your hole.

 

Don't do it.

[+AZWheeler]

I don't think this scenario has been mentionerd.....

 

How about if a stake is driven into the ground to support some cache container that sits above ground?

[+StarBrand]

I don't think this scenario has been mentionerd.....

 

How about if a stake is driven into the ground to support some cache container that sits above ground?

Easily covered in the 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"

 

A stke is clearly a pointy object and in your case being used to hide a cache - so not allowed.

 

What kind of container requires a support of that type anyway??

[+AZWheeler]

What kind of container requires a support of that type anyway??

 

One example I saw....Headhardhat's fire hydrant:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...&hl=hydrant

 

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

What kind of container requires a support of that type anyway??

 

One example I saw....Headhardhat's fire hydrant:

Well there ya go! Literalism at its finest!

 

At the moment there are 822,578 active geocaches listed around the world... from among them an exception can be found to every Guideline if we look for exact adherence to every word. Finding the extreme does not mean that the Guideline is flawed and not applicable to the norm.

 

Pushing the stake to hold the referenced fire hydrant cache into the ground indeed violates the letter of "no pointy objects" but is clearly not what is meant by "no digging".

 

If you find an existing utility box in the ground and can get permission (the box is bound to be private property) then go for it.

 

If you own the property, dig all the holes you want to.

 

If you can get explicit permission (as in written) from someone clearly in authority on land you do not own, then bury away.

 

Short of those exceptions, don't dig. Simple, really.

[+hitech squirrel]

I don't think this scenario has been mentionerd.....

 

How about if a stake is driven into the ground to support some cache container that sits above ground?

Easily covered in the 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"

 

A stke is clearly a pointy object and in your case being used to hide a cache - so not allowed.

 

What kind of container requires a support of that type anyway??

 

Stake was not used to dig. Stake did nothing to hide the cache. Stake did nothing to find the cache.

 

Dang! I'm hungry.

[+sbell111]

I don't think this scenario has been mentionerd.....

 

How about if a stake is driven into the ground to support some cache container that sits above ground?

Easily covered in the 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"

 

A stke is clearly a pointy object and in your case being used to hide a cache - so not allowed.

 

What kind of container requires a support of that type anyway??

This has been discussed several times in most of the 'sprinkler head' threads. Pushing something into the ground does not violate the 'buried' guideline. Edited June 12, 2009 by sbell111

[+Sapience Trek]

Those caches don't stay listed for very long after I visit them.

 

Exactly. Remember, reviewers are cachers too, very often in the area they review.

[Skippermark]

Mostly, I hear people say it's the don't ask don't tell rule.

 

Not quite. When you submit your cache you check a box that says you read and understand the guidelines.

 

The reviewer assumes you are telling the truth so he sees no need to ask. If he finds out that you were not being truthful your cache will be archived immediately.

And the trust factor will be lost, which is never good.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

I believe there should be a mechanism for obtaining permission.

 

First get the permission of the land owner/manager.

When you have that, the cache is good.

[+Arrow42]

What would the feeling be if I was the land owner and I wanted to place a cache in the style the original poster wants? I'm assuming that's a "contact Groundspeak for permission" kind of deal?

[+sbell111]

What would the feeling be if I was the land owner and I wanted to place a cache in the style the original poster wants? I'm assuming that's a "contact Groundspeak for permission" kind of deal?

Previously, it has been stated that these could be allowed on a case by case basis with specific permission. It is one of those things that should be asked of TPTB prior to submitting the cache for review.

Edited June 12, 2009 by sbell111

[knowschad]

What would the feeling be if I was the land owner and I wanted to place a cache in the style the original poster wants? I'm assuming that's a "contact Groundspeak for permission" kind of deal?

 

I believe that would be totally permissable, yet probably still frowned on by many as setting a bad example for geocaching in general.

[+Arrow42]

Previously, it has been stated that these could be allowed on a case by case basis with specific permission. It is one of those things that should be asked of TPTB prior to submitting the cache for review.

 

Ok... I have some "kinda one-day I'd like to try this" kind of ideas floating around in my head.

[+Renegade Knight]

Previously, it has been stated that these could be allowed on a case by case basis with specific permission. It is one of those things that should be asked of TPTB prior to submitting the cache for review.

 

Ok... I have some "kinda one-day I'd like to try this" kind of ideas floating around in my head.

Like welding a 38 (which renders it non working) as the handle of a cache that't hidden in a bucket burried under sand on your property full of cold beer for the over age cachers who pass your ID check and who want a cold brew with you?

[+AZWheeler]

Thanks.....looks like the guideline is open to some reasonable interpretation.

[+J-Way]

What would the feeling be if I was the land owner and I wanted to place a cache in the style the original poster wants? I'm assuming that's a "contact Groundspeak for permission" kind of deal?

Exceptions can be granted for using existing holes. So as the land owner, do all the landscaping you desire. Rent a bulldozer if it helps. During the process of landscaping, leave a hole.

 

The next day to go out to place your cache, and, "Look! An existing hole!"

 

 

The disadvantage to this is it sets a precedent. A new finder could see this cache as an example of what's allowed, and try to duplicate the hide style by digging a hole in a public park (I'm assuming they would use a shovel instead of a bulldozer for this). When the maintenance worker sees this guy with a shovel and finds out he's placing a geocache, then geocaching gets banned.

 

Another bad scenario would be if I asked a land manager for permission to place a cache. This person in curious about this new activity, so he goes to check out a few local caches to see what it's like. He happens to find a few caches similar to the one described in the OP. He doesn't want people digging holes on his land, so he denies permission to me and to all future caches on his property.

 

So no digging. I've actually petitioned to have the rule change to specifically mention "digging", but it never went anywhere.

[+JohnnyVegas]

How do I go about getting geocaching to consider modifying their rule about buried caches. By buried I mean a lid at ground level such as a valve type box. I understand the reason for not wanting people to go digging in places that don't belong to them, but if it is a park employee doing it for a City, or it's in your own property, a valve box or water meter box is very user friendly and easily accessible to the handicapped. It allows caches to be hidden in areas that are not otherwise accessible such as grass or some landscaping.

 

The reason I am requesting this modification is because it's already commonly done without permission from geocaching.com. I have long been a believer that laws should have a purpose and if that purpose is no longer valid they should be modified or discarded.

 

I only have 200 finds but they have been spread out over 6 states and 3 countries. I have seen many valve boxes, water meter boxes, a hole in the ground with a rock on top, a hole in the ground with a flat board laying there and a container attached to the board, a tree branch on the ground with the lid attached and the container in a hole, and a metal post set just for a cache under the cap. Considering I am fairly new at this I'm sure there are many other types of holes in the ground.

 

I believe there should be a mechanism for obtaining permission.

This is a cache I found today, I am about 99.999% sure it is illegal

[+bittsen]

How do I go about getting geocaching to consider modifying their rule about buried caches. By buried I mean a lid at ground level such as a valve type box. I understand the reason for not wanting people to go digging in places that don't belong to them, but if it is a park employee doing it for a City, or it's in your own property, a valve box or water meter box is very user friendly and easily accessible to the handicapped. It allows caches to be hidden in areas that are not otherwise accessible such as grass or some landscaping.

 

The reason I am requesting this modification is because it's already commonly done without permission from geocaching.com. I have long been a believer that laws should have a purpose and if that purpose is no longer valid they should be modified or discarded.

 

I only have 200 finds but they have been spread out over 6 states and 3 countries. I have seen many valve boxes, water meter boxes, a hole in the ground with a rock on top, a hole in the ground with a flat board laying there and a container attached to the board, a tree branch on the ground with the lid attached and the container in a hole, and a metal post set just for a cache under the cap. Considering I am fairly new at this I'm sure there are many other types of holes in the ground.

 

I believe there should be a mechanism for obtaining permission.

This is a cache I found today, I am about 99.999% sure it is illegal

 

Illegal, no. Against the guidelines, possibly, unless it was put there before the guideline on digging or if it's placed on private property or was buried in place with the express permission of whomever controls that piece of land.

[+JohnnyVegas]

How do I go about getting geocaching to consider modifying their rule about buried caches. By buried I mean a lid at ground level such as a valve type box. I understand the reason for not wanting people to go digging in places that don't belong to them, but if it is a park employee doing it for a City, or it's in your own property, a valve box or water meter box is very user friendly and easily accessible to the handicapped. It allows caches to be hidden in areas that are not otherwise accessible such as grass or some landscaping.

 

The reason I am requesting this modification is because it's already commonly done without permission from geocaching.com. I have long been a believer that laws should have a purpose and if that purpose is no longer valid they should be modified or discarded.

 

I only have 200 finds but they have been spread out over 6 states and 3 countries. I have seen many valve boxes, water meter boxes, a hole in the ground with a rock on top, a hole in the ground with a flat board laying there and a container attached to the board, a tree branch on the ground with the lid attached and the container in a hole, and a metal post set just for a cache under the cap. Considering I am fairly new at this I'm sure there are many other types of holes in the ground.

 

I believe there should be a mechanism for obtaining permission.

This is a cache I found today, I am about 99.999% sure it is illegal

 

Illegal, no. Against the guidelines, possibly, unless it was put there before the guideline on digging or if it's placed on private property or was buried in place with the express permission of whomever controls that piece of land.

I forgot to mention cache this part of the cache page Hidden: 6/21/2009

[+gof1]

No problem with that if the CO obtained appropriate permission. At least there is no problem from a rules point of view. Not sure about your area but around here it would probably fill with water during a good downpour.

[+Unkle Fester]

The reason I am requesting this modification is because it's already commonly done without permission from geocaching.com. I have long been a believer that laws should have a purpose and if that purpose is no longer valid they should be modified or discarded.

This was one of the first listing guidelines added after it became clear that "use your common sense" would not work on a large scale. Together with the "cache contents" guideline, this is one of the listing guidelines which I would least expect to see changed in any meaningful way. Why is that? When Geocaching.com lackeys, site volunteers and regular geocachers speak with land managers, the two most common questions do not change: "Are these things buried?" and "What's to prevent people from leaving illegal materials in the caches?" It is quite helpful when talking to land managers to be able to point to these clear guidelines, and to say that they're enforced. Sorry, but the benefit of this outweighs one person's right to get creative with a trowel.

I believe there should be a mechanism for obtaining permission.

There is. Contact Groundspeak to discuss whether an exception is possible. They may want to speak personally with the land manager, to make sure that the consequences of allowing a buried cache are well understood.

 

I, too, have found buried caches. I tend to have a greater impact on the environment from making a thorough search, because I arrive at Ground Zero assuming that the cache won't be buried. I don't much like the "surprise" when I finally find the non-compliant cache.

 

Those caches don't stay listed for very long after I visit them.

Great Example, Lincoln City Parks and Recreation has a lot of hides using valve boxes in city parks. someone complained and he was asked to remove them. After a discussion with Groundspeak, he was allowed to keep them, being a city park manager - but they asked him to list the caches with a special permission granted note on the page and add a new profile for the parks department. He thought it was kind of silly, after all, he works with the parks director. But I see the point. You wouldn't want CacherFred to go home and put a valve box in the neighborhood park. That would give the sport some good press.

[+Unkle Fester]

Boy, looking at the forums when half asleep can be odd, thought for half a second the title of this one was "Buried Cachers", which from my perspective is perfectly acceptable...

[+Team OV]

I am weighing in on this topic because I am disgusted by the actions of a cacher in my area. To the point where I think any cache with his logs should be deleted. Regardless of your opinion, you do not DESTROY another cachers hard work. Regardless of your opinion, you do not weigh in because you are PISSED OFF. Mind your own business and come up with another idea. I have run into this person at events and it disgusts me that they are any part of this game, sport or hobby...whatever you would like to call.

[+Team OV]

Did you ask if it was on private property, did you ask if it was already there....or did you go off on your own agenda because you were turned down and now your pissed off. Get over it and move on...

[+briansnat]

egardless of your opinion, you do not weigh in because you are PISSED OFF.

 

You just did.

[+AZWheeler]

I am weighing in on this topic because I am disgusted by the actions of a cacher in my area. To the point where I think any cache with his logs should be deleted. Regardless of your opinion, you do not DESTROY another cachers hard work. Regardless of your opinion, you do not weigh in because you are PISSED OFF. Mind your own business and come up with another idea. I have run into this person at events and it disgusts me that they are any part of this game, sport or hobby...whatever you would like to call.

 

huh?

Edited August 1, 2009 by AZWheeler

[+edscott]

I don't think this scenario has been mentionerd.....

 

How about if a stake is driven into the ground to support some cache container that sits above ground?

Easily covered in the 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"

 

A stke is clearly a pointy object and in your case being used to hide a cache - so not allowed.

 

What kind of container requires a support of that type anyway??

 

Done a birdhouse or two that were on stakes in the ground. Also recently found one buried cache and DNFd another one that, now that I read the logs, I feel is most likely buried.

Edited August 1, 2009 by edscott

[+J-Way]

I am weighing in on this topic because I am disgusted by the actions of a cacher in my area. To the point where I think any cache with his logs should be deleted. Regardless of your opinion, you do not DESTROY another cachers hard work. Regardless of your opinion, you do not weigh in because you are PISSED OFF. Mind your own business and come up with another idea. I have run into this person at events and it disgusts me that they are any part of this game, sport or hobby...whatever you would like to call.

Did somebody report and/or remove your precious cache that violates a basic and core Geocaching.com guideline? Good for them.

[+Team OV]

For starters...I did not have a cache removed based on guidelines. I actually read them and follow them. Other caches are being removed because one cacher is complaining and the caches do follow the guidelines. But I guess it helps to know the reviewer. Before you commend my cache being removed (which is not the case), maybe you should think about this other person who is going out and intentionally destroying caches because he has had some not get approved because he is not following the guidelines. That is what is the problem. Not the fact I did not follow the guidelines. So this one arrogant cacher is destroying caches. Maybe you should focus on sportsmanship since this game revolves around the seekers doing the hiding. Or do you share and agree with such childish sportsmanship.

[+Team OV]

egardless of your opinion, you do not weigh in because you are PISSED OFF.

 

You just did.

 

Guess that was kinda the point. You should share that with the bitter old man.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Team OV

[Keystone]

Team OV, what do your posts have to do with the topic of buried caches? Are the caches you are referring to being archived because of the buried caches guideline? We are missing your point because we are only getting glimpses of the story.

 

Regardless of whether it's a buried cache or some other problem, if a reviewer has a credible report that a cache does not meet the listing guidelines, we are obligated to take action. Sometimes it's an e-mail, sometimes it's disabling the listing while the problem's fixed, and sometimes it's archiving the listing.

 

Most of the reports I receive are from people I've never met. To the extent a reviewer gives extra attention to problems reported by a personal acquaintance, it's likely because the report has more credibility coming from a known source.

 

Conversely, it's safe to say that reviewers are generally more strict when deciding issues with a cache placed by a friend. That's in order to avoid the appearance of favoritism.

[+Team OV]

Team OV, what do your posts have to do with the topic of buried caches? Are the caches you are referring to being archived because of the buried caches guideline? We are missing your point because we are only getting glimpses of the story.

 

Regardless of whether it's a buried cache or some other problem, if a reviewer has a credible report that a cache does not meet the listing guidelines, we are obligated to take action. Sometimes it's an e-mail, sometimes it's disabling the listing while the problem's fixed, and sometimes it's archiving the listing.

 

Most of the reports I receive are from people I've never met. To the extent a reviewer gives extra attention to problems reported by a personal acquaintance, it's likely because the report has more credibility coming from a known source.

 

Conversely, it's safe to say that reviewers are generally more strict when deciding issues with a cache placed by a friend. That's in order to avoid the appearance of favoritism.

 

Refer to JohnnyVegas' pictures on the above thread at his interpretation of a buried cache. He complained and the cache was archieved prior to speaking with the cache owner. The cache he is picturing has upset him because he had a buried cache not get approved. There is not object used to dig up this cache. It was placed in a pre-exsisting box on the cache owners property. The lid is fully exposed above the ground. No digging was done to place the container. Favortism works both ways, I guess the wrong side got it this time. And I guess the fact that a grown man is destroying a cache based on his own hurt feelings should upset a few people and it is being condoned.

[Keystone]

Thanks for letting us know what you were talking about.

 

The referenced example is a buried cache. Rectangular deep holes don't magically appear from nowhere in hard packed ground. Had the cache been reported to me, I would have taken action as well.

[+Team OV]

Thanks for letting us know what you were talking about.

 

The referenced example is a buried cache. Rectangular deep holes don't magically appear from nowhere in hard packed ground. Had the cache been reported to me, I would have taken action as well.

 

So to confirm, since my local reviewer refused to discuss it, any cache placed below ground level in any container that had been placed in the ground many years ago...is a buried cache. Is this correct? The local reviewer responded to an inquiry email stating he refused to give the reason out to anyone but the cache owner and complainer. So, any cache below ground level in a sewer drain for example should be archived, correct? Since a hole in the ground did not just appear and get cemented in? Just want to make sure everyone understands the meaning of "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". We have several local caches below ground level that have been activated and stay active.

[+bittsen]

Thanks for letting us know what you were talking about.

 

The referenced example is a buried cache. Rectangular deep holes don't magically appear from nowhere in hard packed ground. Had the cache been reported to me, I would have taken action as well.

 

So to confirm, since my local reviewer refused to discuss it, any cache placed below ground level in any container that had been placed in the ground many years ago...is a buried cache. Is this correct? The local reviewer responded to an inquiry email stating he refused to give the reason out to anyone but the cache owner and complainer. So, any cache below ground level in a sewer drain for example should be archived, correct? Since a hole in the ground did not just appear and get cemented in? Just want to make sure everyone understands the meaning of "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". We have several local caches below ground level that have been activated and stay active.

 

Personally, I think the example shown should be allowed. Sometimes the knee jerk reaction is incorrect but people who knee-jerk don't want to admit they are wrong. Maybe that is what is going on.

[Keystone]

Thanks for letting us know what you were talking about.

 

The referenced example is a buried cache. Rectangular deep holes don't magically appear from nowhere in hard packed ground. Had the cache been reported to me, I would have taken action as well.

 

So to confirm, since my local reviewer refused to discuss it, any cache placed below ground level in any container that had been placed in the ground many years ago...is a buried cache. Is this correct? The local reviewer responded to an inquiry email stating he refused to give the reason out to anyone but the cache owner and complainer. So, any cache below ground level in a sewer drain for example should be archived, correct? Since a hole in the ground did not just appear and get cemented in? Just want to make sure everyone understands the meaning of "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". We have several local caches below ground level that have been activated and stay active.

No, I won't confirm that. I have no desire to play word games with you. I'm off to buy camping supplies! Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

[+Team OV]

Thanks for letting us know what you were talking about.

 

The referenced example is a buried cache. Rectangular deep holes don't magically appear from nowhere in hard packed ground. Had the cache been reported to me, I would have taken action as well.

 

So to confirm, since my local reviewer refused to discuss it, any cache placed below ground level in any container that had been placed in the ground many years ago...is a buried cache. Is this correct? The local reviewer responded to an inquiry email stating he refused to give the reason out to anyone but the cache owner and complainer. So, any cache below ground level in a sewer drain for example should be archived, correct? Since a hole in the ground did not just appear and get cemented in? Just want to make sure everyone understands the meaning of "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". We have several local caches below ground level that have been activated and stay active.

No, I won't confirm that. I have no desire to play word games with you. I'm off to buy camping supplies! Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

 

Thank you for not clarifing the policies of geocaching.com. It is not word games, it is understanding how the volunteer reviewers decide what stays and goes. It seems noone wants to clarify. That way it is left up to thieir whim on that particular day. Also, have a good weekend. Sorry to have wasted your time.

[+Krypton]

Thanks for letting us know what you were talking about.

 

The referenced example is a buried cache. Rectangular deep holes don't magically appear from nowhere in hard packed ground. Had the cache been reported to me, I would have taken action as well.

 

I will respond as I am the one who personally found the cache and I did not receive any notice of this cache being buried. I have archived two within the last month that were placed the same and the other cache was at the trail head of a hiking trail in a public park. To help keep down copycat placements such as the one in the park (the CO told me he was copying another placement) I felt to deal with it quickly and swiftly was the thing to do. It was referred to appeals and that is all I will say on the matter.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

Thanks for letting us know what you were talking about.

 

The referenced example is a buried cache. Rectangular deep holes don't magically appear from nowhere in hard packed ground. Had the cache been reported to me, I would have taken action as well.

 

I will respond as I am the one who personally found the cache and I did not receive any notice of this cache being buried. I have archived two within the last month that were placed the same and the other cache was at the trail head of a hiking trail in a public park. To help keep down copycat placements such as the one in the park (the CO told me he was copying another placement) I felt to deal with it quickly and swiftly was the thing to do. It was referred to appeals and that is all I will say on the matter.

 

Which shows why the hider should have made it clear to the original reviewer exactly what the hide style was and received explicit approval for his "buried" cache then, an once of prevention beats a pound of cure.

[+briansnat]

Thanks for letting us know what you were talking about.

 

The referenced example is a buried cache. Rectangular deep holes don't magically appear from nowhere in hard packed ground. Had the cache been reported to me, I would have taken action as well.

 

I will respond as I am the one who personally found the cache and I did not receive any notice of this cache being buried. I have archived two within the last month that were placed the same and the other cache was at the trail head of a hiking trail in a public park. To help keep down copycat placements such as the one in the park (thO told me he was copying another placement) I felt to deal with it quickly and swiftly was the thing to do. It was referred to appeals and that is all I will say on the matter.

 

Which shows why the hider should have made it clear to the original reviewer exactly what the hide style was and received explicit approval for his "buried" cache then, an once of prevention beats a pound of cure.

 

True and mention should also be made on the cache page that the hide complies with the guidelines because it uses an existing feature. That may help prevent copycats.

Edited August 1, 2009 by briansnat