Jump to content

When is a buried cache not a buried cache?


Recommended Posts

My dad is keen to help with our families' geocaching efforts & came up with a devious hide for us already that we conceived together, but, he came up with one on his own that I'm not sure about & am looking for some opinions.

 

I understand that buried caches are a no-no & would not consider burying one specifically, to be clear. The problem is that the cache that he came up with is partially buried.

 

What he's built is something that's turnip shaped / sized & is intended to be inserted into a hole in the ground. The cache has a permanent faux top / camo surface that is intended to be left uncovered.

 

To retrieve it, one would have to recognize what they're looking at, pull it out of the ground & dismantle it.

 

I'm leaning towards not using it in it's current form (basically because I don't think we should use shovels to hide or retrieve), but would appreciate some input from the community about whether this one is crossing the line or not.

Link to comment

There is an easy test. Do you need to dig a hole to hide it? If the answer yes, it is against the guidelines.

 

The term buried is somewhat misleading. The cache you describe technically isn't buried, but is against the guidelines. If you were to place a cache in an existing depression in the ground and cover it with leaves, rocks, duff. etc. it is technically buried, but fine under the guidelines.

 

To make sense of it you need to consider the reason for the guideline. Land managers don't want us digging in their parks. Its the reason metal detecting has been banned in many places and the reason for some early geocaching bans as well.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

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

 

I would say that you are "ok" as long as you do not use a shovel, trowel or other "pointy" object to dig the hole. One other option is to find an existing hole.

 

There's a cache in our area that has a benchmark attached to a foot long cylinder. The benchmark is attached to a screw-top screwed on to the cylinder (similar to those containers that tennis balls come in. Everything except the top was buried in the ground, encased in a block of cement. The cache was extracted by unscrewing the "benchmark"... Was that against the guidelines? Just like with real law, its important to look at the "intent" of the law/guideline. What is the intent of this guideline? Obviously we don't want people digging up property looking for caches. Can you imagine what an area would look like if a cache was buried?

 

So ask yourself, "Does this cache violate the intent of the guideline?"... I would say no.

Link to comment

briansnat has already given the correct and only answer to this question.

 

As a reviewer, even if the cache is buried with an exposed lid, per the example ReadyOrNot gives above me, that's an archived cache, not a published cache. If I were to find this cache while out geocaching, it's an archived cache.

 

If the cache is on your own private property, please email

contact@geocaching.com and ask them about it before submitting it to a review. They might give you an okay for that; I would archive the listing, unpublished.

I note no language in the guideline that says either, it's okay on your own property, or it's okay for the placer to dig, if the finder doesn't have to. On the contrary, it reads, "whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate." Bold, mine.

Edited by palmetto
Link to comment
So ask yourself, "Does this cache violate the intent of the guideline?"... I would say no.

 

Actually I would say yes it does violate the intent of the guidelines. The "shovel, trowel or other "pointy" object" line is in there to allow for things like caches buried under leaves, etc.

 

In a forest with a thick, healty O horizon layer you can easily excavate a good sized hole using just your fingers, and though that does not volate the 'shovel, trowel or pointy object" clause it still violates the intent of the guideline.

 

The point of the guideline is to keep us in the good graces of land managers. Digging holes, regardless whether you use a shovel, pick, trowel, your fingers or a jet of water from a power washer can jeopardize that.

Link to comment

That is just like every fake sprinkler out there should be archived.

 

But I will add, if the hole is preexisting (like a depresssion or gap in rocks) then it should be fine. I went after one that a cofee can was stuck inbetween three rocks in the gap and the lid was camo'd with a fake fern. It worked out a lot tougher than it sounds.

 

The whole fake sprinkler hide I'd bet has destroyed a number of real ones.

Link to comment

So, to clarify, this cache container does exist, he's built it. But, it has not been deployed & no listing exists.

 

I cannot post a picture, I have not figured out how to do that & just dont have time to learn right now.

 

The golf tee analogy fits though.

 

Regardless, I think I've got enough feedback on it.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
So ask yourself, "Does this cache violate the intent of the guideline?"... I would say no.

 

Actually I would say yes it does violate the intent of the guidelines. The "shovel, trowel or other "pointy" object" line is in there to allow for things like caches buried under leaves, etc.

 

In a forest with a thick, healty O horizon layer you can easily excavate a good sized hole using just your fingers, and though that does not volate the 'shovel, trowel or pointy object" clause it still violates the intent of the guideline.

 

The point of the guideline is to keep us in the good graces of land managers. Digging holes, regardless whether you use a shovel, pick, trowel, your fingers or a jet of water from a power washer can jeopardize that.

 

What if the cache is not on managed land? If the intent is to keep land managers happy, then that should be reflected in the guideline. One could argue that there is a big difference between a hole in a public, managed park, versus an unmanaged, undeveloped, wooded area.

Link to comment

briansnat has already given the correct and only answer to this question.

 

Since you apparently have the power to end discussion and make the determination as to what is the only correct answer possible for this question, why don't you go ahead and close this topic. If you don't have that power, then why don't you stop acting like you do...

Link to comment

What if the cache is not on managed land? If the intent is to keep land managers happy, then that should be reflected in the guideline. One could argue that there is a big difference between a hole in a public, managed park, versus an unmanaged, undeveloped, wooded area.

 

If you could absolutely guarantee that none of the finders were newbies who then took the idea home with them for use hiding their own cache, then yes.

But the chances are you couldn't guarantee that.

 

I agree with you that the intention of the guideline is to keep Land Managers happy. All of them. Not just those relevant to this particular hide.

Link to comment

I get that we are not supposed to intentionally make holes. However, I do have a question. In areas with heavy deciduous trees it is possible for a cache that remains unfound for a year or two to be buried in composting leaves that turn to soil and bury the cache. One of our first finds was like this. It hadn't been found for a while. The ammo box had been placed in a natural depression between two logs. Time and nature covered it in deep leaves and about halfway down the leaves had turned to soil, meaning that the ammo box was half buried in soil. (We finally found it by tripping over it and noting that it made an odd sound.)

 

Once we found the cache my beloved turned to me with a look of great disappointment and said, "I thought you said these things can't be buried." He grumbled about the "buried" cache for days and can still be set off harumphing with a reference to that cache.

 

I understand that we cannot stop nature from doing what it wants to do with our caches. But does the cache owner bear a responsibility to ensure that his cache doesn't turn into a buried cache if it is not found for a while? Is this part of the maintenance we will need to plan for here since we live in an area of dense vegetation and trees?

 

Carolyn

Link to comment

briansnat has already given the correct and only answer to this question.

 

Since you apparently have the power to end discussion and make the determination as to what is the only correct answer possible for this question, why don't you go ahead and close this topic. If you don't have that power, then why don't you stop acting like you do...

palmetto is a reviewer. I took her response to be "a reviewers take" on how the guidelines should be interpreted. One problem with the no digging/burying guideline is that reviewers generally cannot tell if a cache is buried (let alone if it violates the intent of the guideline) from the cache listing. Unless the CO uses a hint like "OEVAT N FUBIRY", the reviewer is going to have no idea how the cache is hidden. This guideline relies on geocachers using common sense when hiding caches and on finders using common sense as to when to report a cache that might be buried. Reviewers I have talked to seem to be quick to archive a buried cache should they find one unless they know that Grounspeak has granted an exception. The general geocaching population is more likely to take a few like ReadyOrNot and only report the caches if they think it will cause a problem with the current land manager. The rule applies to any property, including privately owned, as there is a desire to let property managers know that digging is never part of geocaching. When an exception is made to allow digging to hide a cache, it must not only be with permission of the land/owner manager but also obvious that was the case, so that some geocacher that doesn't read the guideline doesn't decide that this is such a good hiding technique they want to copy it and hide a cache just like it in a public park without permission.

Link to comment

My dad is keen to help with our families' geocaching efforts & came up with a devious hide for us already that we conceived together, but, he came up with one on his own that I'm not sure about & am looking for some opinions.

 

I understand that buried caches are a no-no & would not consider burying one specifically, to be clear. The problem is that the cache that he came up with is partially buried.

 

What he's built is something that's turnip shaped / sized & is intended to be inserted into a hole in the ground. The cache has a permanent faux top / camo surface that is intended to be left uncovered.

 

To retrieve it, one would have to recognize what they're looking at, pull it out of the ground & dismantle it.

 

I'm leaning towards not using it in it's current form (basically because I don't think we should use shovels to hide or retrieve), but would appreciate some input from the community about whether this one is crossing the line or not.

 

Your biggest problem is posting your question on the national forums.. :ph34r::ph34r::ph34r::ph34r:

Link to comment

I get that we are not supposed to intentionally make holes. However, I do have a question. In areas with heavy deciduous trees it is possible for a cache that remains unfound for a year or two to be buried in composting leaves that turn to soil and bury the cache. One of our first finds was like this. It hadn't been found for a while. The ammo box had been placed in a natural depression between two logs. Time and nature covered it in deep leaves and about halfway down the leaves had turned to soil, meaning that the ammo box was half buried in soil. (We finally found it by tripping over it and noting that it made an odd sound.)

 

Once we found the cache my beloved turned to me with a look of great disappointment and said, "I thought you said these things can't be buried." He grumbled about the "buried" cache for days and can still be set off harumphing with a reference to that cache.

 

I understand that we cannot stop nature from doing what it wants to do with our caches. But does the cache owner bear a responsibility to ensure that his cache doesn't turn into a buried cache if it is not found for a while? Is this part of the maintenance we will need to plan for here since we live in an area of dense vegetation and trees?

 

Carolyn

 

Oh, come on. You know the answer to this question..

Link to comment

briansnat has already given the correct and only answer to this question.

 

As a reviewer, even if the cache is buried with an exposed lid, per the example ReadyOrNot gives above me, that's an archived cache, not a published cache. If I were to find this cache while out geocaching, it's an archived cache. ...

 

I agree with BS's summary of the burial rule. I also think reviewers shouldn't be in the business of second guessing approved caches. Archiving them willy nilly is an abuse of power. My first thought was that this cache exaclty as described could be placed in any of hundreds of spots that abount in my area and work as intended without lifting a single spoonful of soil. Only when they clarified they thought that meant digging did it become clear that while they can place it 100% in compliance with the guidelines they were pondering the digging part.

 

Of course natural holes are common here. Maybe they aren't so common in your area.

Link to comment

....I understand that we cannot stop nature from doing what it wants to do with our caches. But does the cache owner bear a responsibility to ensure that his cache doesn't turn into a buried cache if it is not found for a while? Is this part of the maintenance we will need to plan for here since we live in an area of dense vegetation and trees?

 

Carolyn

 

Nature is indifferent and will compost or not as it see's fit in, on, under, near, or given time, inside a cache. The cache owner bears no responsilbity for what nature does. They do have an obligatin when nature's actions require some maintance to get out there ina maintain it as time and life allow. I don't think that includes lifting the cache a few mm each year to compensate for the natural deposition of matieral.

 

Besides, some of these caches are destined to be interesting archaeolgoical finds.

Link to comment

....I understand that we cannot stop nature from doing what it wants to do with our caches. But does the cache owner bear a responsibility to ensure that his cache doesn't turn into a buried cache if it is not found for a while? Is this part of the maintenance we will need to plan for here since we live in an area of dense vegetation and trees?

 

Carolyn

 

Nature is indifferent and will compost or not as it see's fit in, on, under, near, or given time, inside a cache. The cache owner bears no responsilbity for what nature does. They do have an obligatin when nature's actions require some maintance to get out there ina maintain it as time and life allow. I don't think that includes lifting the cache a few mm each year to compensate for the natural deposition of matieral.

 

Besides, some of these caches are destined to be interesting archaeolgoical finds.

 

Thank you. Though in the case I described it actually wasn't a few millimeters. It was a good several inches. But it is good to know that this is not included in maintenance.

 

Carolyn

Link to comment
I note no language in the guideline that says either, it's okay on your own property, or it's okay for the placer to dig, if the finder doesn't have to. On the contrary, it reads, "whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate." Bold, mine.

If you have a cacher who placed a cache that violated the guidelines but was allowed because it was on private property with permission and someone new comes along and sees it, they may not know that special permission was given and think that type of hide is okay.

 

So, they go to place their first cache and may not read the guidelines (it seems to me that not everyone reads the guidelines) and decide to bury their cache or something else because they saw a hide like that once.

 

Yes, people are supposed to read the guidelines, but some don't and will just copy the hide styles of others.

Edited by Skippermark
Link to comment

What if the cache is not on managed land? If the intent is to keep land managers happy, then that should be reflected in the guideline. One could argue that there is a big difference between a hole in a public, managed park, versus an unmanaged, undeveloped, wooded area.

 

If you could absolutely guarantee that none of the finders were newbies who then took the idea home with them for use hiding their own cache, then yes.

But the chances are you couldn't guarantee that.

 

I agree with you that the intention of the guideline is to keep Land Managers happy. All of them. Not just those relevant to this particular hide.

 

Correct me if i'm wrong, but when someone submits a cache for approval, are they not required to read and accept the cache placement guidelines?

 

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

 

What I can guarantee to you is that it is the responsibility of the person placing a cache to read and abide by the guidelines. Bottom line, it's not my responsibility to guarantee anything to you regarding what a newbie does (or a seasoned veteran for that matter) after visiting one of my caches and I believe the guidelines back up my assertion pretty clearly...

Link to comment

 

Oh, come on. You know the answer to this question..

 

I wouldn't ask if I knew the answer. I actually never ask questions I know the answer to. Do you do that?

 

I really work at niceness so I am not certain why I get attacked here.

 

Carolyn

Because it is why some people come to the playground. Ignore them.

 

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

 

I would say that you are "ok" as long as you do not use a shovel, trowel or other "pointy" object to dig the hole. One other option is to find an existing hole.

 

There's a cache in our area that has a benchmark attached to a foot long cylinder. The benchmark is attached to a screw-top screwed on to the cylinder (similar to those containers that tennis balls come in. Everything except the top was buried in the ground, encased in a block of cement. The cache was extracted by unscrewing the "benchmark"... Was that against the guidelines? Just like with real law, its important to look at the "intent" of the law/guideline. What is the intent of this guideline? Obviously we don't want people digging up property looking for caches. Can you imagine what an area would look like if a cache was buried?

 

So ask yourself, "Does this cache violate the intent of the guideline?"... I would say no.

 

Do you think it is possible that this particular cache was granted a specific exception to the guidelines because of who hid it, where it was hid, how it was placed, and what it represents? If the answer is yes, then the intent of the guidelines isn't the issue here.

 

And to try and get this thread back On Track-to the OP the best thing to do is contact your local reviewer and discuss this question with them directly. If you do not know who they are, open the nearest cache to you and scroll to the very bottom. Their "published" log should be the first entry.

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment

briansnat has already given the correct and only answer to this question.

 

As a reviewer, even if the cache is buried with an exposed lid, per the example ReadyOrNot gives above me, that's an archived cache, not a published cache. If I were to find this cache while out geocaching, it's an archived cache. ...

 

I agree with BS's summary of the burial rule. I also think reviewers shouldn't be in the business of second guessing approved caches. Archiving them willy nilly is an abuse of power. My first thought was that this cache exaclty as described could be placed in any of hundreds of spots that abount in my area and work as intended without lifting a single spoonful of soil. Only when they clarified they thought that meant digging did it become clear that while they can place it 100% in compliance with the guidelines they were pondering the digging part.

 

Of course natural holes are common here. Maybe they aren't so common in your area.

 

Using natural holes would be forbidden according to what I've been reading in this thread, because someone might come to the conclusion that its ok to dig a hole, even though the guidelines say that you can't...

 

Using that logic, we should immediately archive all grandfathered caches that aren't in step with current guidelines, because someone may think that its ok after visiting a grandfathered cache.

Link to comment

What if its a cache buried under rocks? Ive found one of those recently and it most certainly wasnt slipped into an existing hole.

 

Claire xx

 

I think that's fine. From what I can tell the issue deals with the action taken by the hider. If the hider must dig a hole to prepare the place, that's wrong. But if the hider wants to pile things on top of the cache, that's fine.

 

Secondarily, the hide should not encourage the cache seeker to use a shovel to unearth it. However, if the hider didn't mean to force the seeker to dig, but nature covered the cache in sand or humus or rocks, that is acceptable.

 

Carolyn

Edited by Steve&GeoCarolyn
Link to comment

It sounds like it might be similar to a fake sprinkler head from my reading.

Those should be banned. theres a cache here that continually suffers from wet logs because its near where sprinkler heads are and its probably cache hunters not putting the heads back on thats causing the 20 foot water spikes when sprinklers turn on.

for the record, the cache ISN'T a fake sprinkler!

Link to comment

What if its a cache buried under rocks? Ive found one of those recently and it most certainly wasnt slipped into an existing hole.

 

Claire xx

 

I think that's fine. From what I can tell the issue deals with the action taken by the hider. If the hider must dig a hole to prepare the place, that's wrong. But if the hider wants to pile things on top of the cache, that's fine.

 

Carolyn

 

I think that's where some confusion happens. I've found lots of caches that were placed in the crotch of a tree then pine needles put on top of the container to provide camo. If the cache isn't found for awhile nature will add more camo on it's own.

 

I have also found a cache that was stuck in a small hole in between roots at the bottom of the tree, and again fallen pine needles were pushed over the container to hide it.

 

In both cases, the container was hidden in a naturally created "hole" but in the latter it "felt" like I was digging out the container because I had to move pine needles that were on the ground to discover the hole.

 

I don't know what kind of container the OP is talking about but I have found one that was a fake turnip that was "pushed into a depression" (pretty easy to do when it's under a large pine tree). It looked like it was a large turnip growing in the ground.

Link to comment

What if its a cache buried under rocks? Ive found one of those recently and it most certainly wasnt slipped into an existing hole.

 

Claire xx

 

I think that's fine. From what I can tell the issue deals with the action taken by the hider. If the hider must dig a hole to prepare the place, that's wrong. But if the hider wants to pile things on top of the cache, that's fine.

 

Carolyn

 

I think that's where some confusion happens. I've found lots of caches that were placed in the crotch of a tree then pine needles put on top of the container to provide camo. If the cache isn't found for awhile nature will add more camo on it's own.

 

I have also found a cache that was stuck in a small hole in between roots at the bottom of the tree, and again fallen pine needles were pushed over the container to hide it.

 

In both cases, the container was hidden in a naturally created "hole" but in the latter it "felt" like I was digging out the container because I had to move pine needles that were on the ground to discover the hole.

 

I don't know what kind of container the OP is talking about but I have found one that was a fake turnip that was "pushed into a depression" (pretty easy to do when it's under a large pine tree). It looked like it was a large turnip growing in the ground.

If the hole is already there when i get there in my opinion its not going to be considered buried.

course to avoid politics i won't hide there. if i can't unearth it with my fingers, its a dnf.

Link to comment

It sounds like it might be similar to a fake sprinkler head from my reading.

Those should be banned. theres a cache here that continually suffers from wet logs because its near where sprinkler heads are and its probably cache hunters not putting the heads back on thats causing the 20 foot water spikes when sprinklers turn on.

for the record, the cache ISN'T a fake sprinkler!

If the non-sprinkler head cache in Arizona suffers from wet logs, it is not the fault of sprinkler head caches any more than it is the fault of the pool in my back yard or rain showers in Haiti. It is the fault of the cache owner who didn't use a suitable container to keep the cache dry.

Link to comment
Using natural holes would be forbidden according to what I've been reading in this thread, because someone might come to the conclusion that its ok to dig a hole, even though the guidelines say that you can't...

 

You are not reading this thread correctly.

 

If you place a cache into an existing hole, why wouldn't a cacher assume that you dug the hole? According to what everyone is saying, dumb cacher will see the hole and assume they can do the same thing.... And it's your fault, even though you may have gotten permission or, in the case of the example, used an existing hole.

 

Personally, if I have a good cache idea that involves "digging", I would go ahead and use my common sense... It's always easier to ask for forgiveness than deal with asking permission from a reviewer and getting an explicit denial..

 

Let's remember that these are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Geocaching.com is simply a listing service - they don't run the game.

Link to comment
Using natural holes would be forbidden according to what I've been reading in this thread, because someone might come to the conclusion that its ok to dig a hole, even though the guidelines say that you can't...

 

You are not reading this thread correctly.

 

If you place a cache into an existing hole, why wouldn't a cacher assume that you dug the hole? According to what everyone is saying, dumb cacher will see the hole and assume they can do the same thing.... And it's your fault, even though you may have gotten permission or, in the case of the example, used an existing hole.

 

Personally, if I have a good cache idea that involves "digging", I would go ahead and use my common sense... It's always easier to ask for forgiveness than deal with asking permission from a reviewer and getting an explicit denial..

 

Let's remember that these are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Geocaching.com is simply a listing service - they don't run the game.

 

Your question was answered in this thread above. Just because someone sees a "buried" cache, doesn't mean they can place one themselves. They are required to read the Placement Guidelines before placing a cache. ***Doesn't mean they will, but we can't correct stupidity here.***

Edited by Mike & Kate
Link to comment
Using natural holes would be forbidden according to what I've been reading in this thread, because someone might come to the conclusion that its ok to dig a hole, even though the guidelines say that you can't...

 

You are not reading this thread correctly.

 

If you place a cache into an existing hole, why wouldn't a cacher assume that you dug the hole? According to what everyone is saying, dumb cacher will see the hole and assume they can do the same thing.... And it's your fault, even though you may have gotten permission or, in the case of the example, used an existing hole.

 

Personally, if I have a good cache idea that involves "digging", I would go ahead and use my common sense... It's always easier to ask for forgiveness than deal with asking permission from a reviewer and getting an explicit denial..

 

Let's remember that these are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Geocaching.com is simply a listing service - they don't run the game.

 

Your question was answered in this thread above. Just because someone sees a "buried" cache, doesn't mean they can place one themselves. They are required to read the Placement Guidelines before placing a cache. ***Doesn't mean they will, but we can't correct stupidity here.***

 

That's exactly my point.. But people keep using it as an excuse. If I get permission or its on my own property, I should be able to dig a hole. The fact that someone can't read the guidelines is not my problem. My point to Briansnat is that nowhere in the guidelines does it speak to this "Monkey see, monkey do" excuse and pleasing land managers.

Link to comment

What if its a cache buried under rocks? Ive found one of those recently and it most certainly wasnt slipped into an existing hole.

 

Claire xx

 

I think that's fine. From what I can tell the issue deals with the action taken by the hider. If the hider must dig a hole to prepare the place, that's wrong. But if the hider wants to pile things on top of the cache, that's fine.

 

Secondarily, the hide should not encourage the cache seeker to use a shovel to unearth it. However, if the hider didn't mean to force the seeker to dig, but nature covered the cache in sand or humus or rocks, that is acceptable.

 

Carolyn

Very nicely answered.

Link to comment

It sounds like it might be similar to a fake sprinkler head from my reading.

Those should be banned. theres a cache here that continually suffers from wet logs because its near where sprinkler heads are and its probably cache hunters not putting the heads back on thats causing the 20 foot water spikes when sprinklers turn on.

for the record, the cache ISN'T a fake sprinkler!

If the non-sprinkler head cache in Arizona suffers from wet logs, it is not the fault of sprinkler head caches any more than it is the fault of the pool in my back yard or rain showers in Haiti. It is the fault of the cache owner who didn't use a suitable container to keep the cache dry.

I disagree - to a degree, :ph34r: if sprinkler head caches were specifically banned, no one would take real sprinklers apart - in theory (you can't fix stupid B) ). When they do, they rarely put them together correctly causing a jet of water to shoot out as not intended. Don't mis-read what I'm saying, a cache should be able to take moisture, that's not my point.

 

If a cache owner does a hide correctly given the average weather for the location and an unruly cacher comes along and destroys a sprinkler next door, that part is not the cache owners problem, or better, becomes the Cache owners problem after the fact for two reasons:

 

First, he now has to maintain a wet log that shouldn't be and/or change the container, possibley making a successful hide less so

 

Second, now that damage is impacting the area from cachers, the CO has the responsability to make things right (Morals and Ethics) because the unruly cacher will not. Irrigation systems will always be considered private property even if on public land. It becomes an issue of vandallism. Who's going to get the blame? Yup, the CO and GC in general B)

 

I would like to say that unruly cachers should not be the CO's problem, but it becomes his problem - like it or not.

 

I'd say let's ban stupid cachers, but I'd be at the top of the list. :ph34r::wacko::P

Link to comment
I disagree - to a degree, :ph34r: if sprinkler head caches were specifically banned, no one would take real sprinklers apart - in theory (you can't fix stupid B) ). When they do, they rarely put them together correctly causing a jet of water to shoot out as not intended. Don't mis-read what I'm saying, a cache should be able to take moisture, that's not my point.

 

If a cache owner does a hide correctly given the average weather for the location and an unruly cacher comes along and destroys a sprinkler next door, that part is not the cache owners problem, or better, becomes the Cache owners problem after the fact for two reasons:

 

First, he now has to maintain a wet log that shouldn't be and/or change the container, possibley making a successful hide less so

 

Second, now that damage is impacting the area from cachers, the CO has the responsability to make things right (Morals and Ethics) because the unruly cacher will not. Irrigation systems will always be considered private property even if on public land. It becomes an issue of vandallism. Who's going to get the blame? Yup, the CO and GC in general B)

 

I would like to say that unruly cachers should not be the CO's problem, but it becomes his problem - like it or not.

 

I'd say let's ban stupid cachers, but I'd be at the top of the list. :ph34r::wacko::P

 

Not quite correct in your first paragraph.

I took apart my first sprinkler head before I had ever heard of, or seen, a sprinkler head cache.

What strikes me funny is that the cache I was looking for actually turned out to be a sprinkler head cache.

Link to comment
If you place a cache into an existing hole, why wouldn't a cacher assume that you dug the hole?

 

Because I put a note on the cache page that "the hole was previously existing and no guidelines were violated to hide this cache".

 

My point to Briansnat is that nowhere in the guidelines does it speak to this "Monkey see, monkey do" excuse and pleasing land managers.

 

The guidelines were introduced specifically to please land managers. It wasn't "Hey, lets make up some rules because we like making up rules", it was "Hey, were going to need some rules or we're gonna get ourselves banned everywhere". Most of the guidelines, particularly the early ones, were born out of specific concerns or complaints from land managers.

 

As far as the guidelines speaking to the Monkey See, monkey do effect:

 

At times a cache may meet the listing requirements for the site but the reviewers, as experienced cachers, may see additional concerns that you as a cache placer may not have noticed. As a courtesy, the reviewer may bring additional concerns about cache placement to your attention and offer suggestions before posting

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
It sounds like it might be similar to a fake sprinkler head from my reading.
Those should be banned. theres a cache here that continually suffers from wet logs because its near where sprinkler heads are and its probably cache hunters not putting the heads back on thats causing the 20 foot water spikes when sprinklers turn on.

for the record, the cache ISN'T a fake sprinkler!

If the non-sprinkler head cache in Arizona suffers from wet logs, it is not the fault of sprinkler head caches any more than it is the fault of the pool in my back yard or rain showers in Haiti. It is the fault of the cache owner who didn't use a suitable container to keep the cache dry.
I disagree - to a degree, :ph34r:if sprinkler head caches were specifically banned, no one would take real sprinklers apart - in theory (you can't fix stupid :D ). When they do, they rarely put them together correctly causing a jet of water to shoot out as not intended. Don't mis-read what I'm saying, a cache should be able to take moisture, that's not my point.

 

If a cache owner does a hide correctly given the average weather for the location and an unruly cacher comes along and destroys a sprinkler next door, that part is not the cache owners problem, or better, becomes the Cache owners problem after the fact for two reasons:

 

First, he now has to maintain a wet log that shouldn't be and/or change the container, possibley making a successful hide less so

 

Second, now that damage is impacting the area from cachers, the CO has the responsability to make things right (Morals and Ethics) because the unruly cacher will not. Irrigation systems will always be considered private property even if on public land. It becomes an issue of vandallism. Who's going to get the blame? Yup, the CO and GC in general :D

 

I would like to say that unruly cachers should not be the CO's problem, but it becomes his problem - like it or not.

 

I'd say let's ban stupid cachers, but I'd be at the top of the list. :lol::D:D

Your entire argument seems to hinge on the bit that I've bolded. The problem is, your logic is flawed, both globally and in relation to your specific cache.

 

The hypothesis that if no sprinkler head caches ever existed, no sprinkler heads would be taken apart is obviously incorrect. If this were true, no one would ever have been able to find a sprinkler head cache. (I've chosen not to discuss the fact that one needs not take apart a sprinkler head to find a fake sprinkler head for the sake of your argument.) The adjusted hypothesis that if sprinkler head caches were now banned then no one would take apart sprinkler heads is similarly flawed because 1) those people that were unaware of the ban would still search for them and 2) existing sprinkler head caches would likely be grandfathered, leading some cachers to inspect sprinkler heads.

 

Your hypothesis is specifically flawed in relation to your referenced cache because you have no direct knowledge that cachers are, in fact, disassembling the offending sprinkler head.

Link to comment

It sounds like it might be similar to a fake sprinkler head from my reading.

Those should be banned. theres a cache here that continually suffers from wet logs because its near where sprinkler heads are and its probably cache hunters not putting the heads back on thats causing the 20 foot water spikes when sprinklers turn on.

for the record, the cache ISN'T a fake sprinkler!

 

Any chance it would be this cache, recently disabled because... well, you'll see?

Link to comment
It sounds like it might be similar to a fake sprinkler head from my reading.

Those should be banned. theres a cache here that continually suffers from wet logs because its near where sprinkler heads are and its probably cache hunters not putting the heads back on thats causing the 20 foot water spikes when sprinklers turn on.

for the record, the cache ISN'T a fake sprinkler!

This has been covered before.

 

You can’t blame fake sprinkler heads for the bad behavior of cachers at other caches.

 

Think about it: Awareness of fake sprinkler heads is not a prerequisite for cache seekers to be willing to tamper with real sprinkler heads. Clever cache seekers will with poor judgment will pursue any idea they believe might lead to a find. Whether there are fake sprinkler head caches or not, real sprinkler heads will occasionally get torn up.

 

Irresponsible cachers will vandalize things no matter how many shoot-from-the-hip bans are enacted. You can’t legislate good judgment.

 

As for the buried cache question: If digging is required to find the cache, then the cache hide is bad. If not, then the hide might be okay. As with all hides, good judgment is critical.

 

I agree with those who comply with the spirit of the rule rather than slavishly following the wording. This is a hidden treasure game, not a buried treasure game. As Briansnat correctly observes: If cachers start digging up parks and other public landscaping with shovels this hobby will soon cease to exist.

 

(Of course, even if we all obey both the spirit AND the letter of the rule, there will always be some reckless goober out there digging holes looking for geocaches. You can’t legislate good judgment.)

Link to comment

Shamelessly bumping because nobody has commented on my post about (#43), and I'm assuming that is because nobody is looking at the link that I included.

 

The reason I posted it there is that, 1) I'm 99.99% certain that it is the cache that was discussed above, and 2) it was disabled by the local reviewer after Jeremy posted a Needs Maint log on it! I thought that was a pretty interesting coincidence.

Link to comment

Shamelessly bumping because nobody has commented on my post about (#43), and I'm assuming that is because nobody is looking at the link that I included.

 

The reason I posted it there is that, 1) I'm 99.99% certain that it is the cache that was discussed above, and 2) it was disabled by the local reviewer after Jeremy posted a Needs Maint log on it! I thought that was a pretty interesting coincidence.

 

Well, I found that cache. And when I did it was nowhere near 'buried'.

As I recall it was tucked under the slab supporting the power transformers for the park lighting, with some rocks obscuring the container. Not exactly 'Hide of the Year' material, but certainly not buried.

Link to comment

Shamelessly bumping because nobody has commented on my post about (#43), and I'm assuming that is because nobody is looking at the link that I included.

 

The reason I posted it there is that, 1) I'm 99.99% certain that it is the cache that was discussed above, and 2) it was disabled by the local reviewer after Jeremy posted a Needs Maint log on it! I thought that was a pretty interesting coincidence.

 

Well, I found that cache. And when I did it was nowhere near 'buried'.

As I recall it was tucked under the slab supporting the power transformers for the park lighting, with some rocks obscuring the container. Not exactly 'Hide of the Year' material, but certainly not buried.

 

I saw your name in the logs.

 

I think the original reference to that cache in this thread was probably way off topic. It was more about how sprinkler caches (buried) should be banned because, when fooled around with by cachers, they can get otherwise innocent caches like this one wet.

Link to comment

It sounds like it might be similar to a fake sprinkler head from my reading.

Those should be banned. theres a cache here that continually suffers from wet logs because its near where sprinkler heads are and its probably cache hunters not putting the heads back on thats causing the 20 foot water spikes when sprinklers turn on.

for the record, the cache ISN'T a fake sprinkler!

 

Any chance it would be this cache, recently disabled because... well, you'll see?

no. this one is a magnetic sign and around 530-6pm when the sprinklers come on, theres like 3 that shoot 20 feet in the air, its spray painted white on back with lines to sign on. the sigs were all washed off by the shower they get daily.

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...