Cache placement - archived cache

[aginsa]

I felt bad about distracting the cache container thread, so I started a new one

 

Moderator said:

"Just to clarify. only the general location (based on the coordinates given) was given the OK, as far as proximity issues were concerned. You said nothing about how you intended to place the cache."

 

Yes you are correct. I would be willing to move the cache a few feet, but I dont wont to be met with the same issue when completed.

 

However I dont feel that I did anything wrong, and would like to personally meet a review at the site. How do you propose I resolve this issue?

[+briansnat]

Hard to say what the issue was from your post. Could you give more details?

[+Touchstone]

Working with your Local Volunteer Reviewer is probably the best option. I'm not sure how practical it is to meet at the cache location particularly in a large State such as Texas. I seriously doubt you'll get much resolution on the Forums.

[+bittsen]

Who archived the cache?

[knowschad]

As you may know, I saw your posting and the questioning of it in the Cool Cache Containers thread. You said that you offered to work with your local reviewer, and possibly even to show him/her the cache. That sounds like a perfect solution if you can.

 

 

One cache that I know of that is somewhat similar, although very much scaled down from that, uses a metal rod that is fastened to the underside of the "log", and that metal rod is stuck into the ground. While you still should check with your reviewer first, that may well be an acceptable solution.

[Clan Riffster]

...and that metal rod is stuck into the ground...

Just make sure the rod is not pointy, or someone will call it buried.

 

Seriously though, did the reviewer who archived your cache offer any contact information? If so, that's a good place to start. If not, click on his name/link and send him an e-mail through his profile. Describe how you sunk the post, and include pictures, demonstrating that it is simply set into a depression with loose dirt piled in. Offer to demonstrate it in person, if he'll meet you there.

[knowschad]

...and that metal rod is stuck into the ground...

Just make sure the rod is not pointy, or someone will call it buried.

 

Seriously though, did the reviewer who archived your cache offer any contact information? If so, that's a good place to start. If not, click on his name/link and send him an e-mail through his profile. Describe how you sunk the post, and include pictures, demonstrating that it is simply set into a depression with loose dirt piled in. Offer to demonstrate it in person, if he'll meet you there.

I think that it has already been established that a stake can be stuck into the ground. I am not so certain, however, that the diameter of said stake has likewise been established.

[Clan Riffster]

There's your solution, aginsa. Just tell TPTB that it's a really fat stake, not a telephone pole!

[aginsa]

Ha Ha thanks Riffster and Knowschad, your suggestions are appreciated. I have followed your advice and I hope to eventually have some resolution. My concern is that the reviewer who archieved the cache might not be open to a dialoge on the issue. Could the reviewer who archived the cache be someone other than the local reviewer?

 

As a newbie I was unclear how to procede.

 

The irony is that I'm fighting for a cache that might have 12 finds in a year.

[GOF and Bacall]

I felt bad about distracting the cache container thread, so I started a new one

 

Moderator said:

"Just to clarify. only the general location (based on the coordinates given) was given the OK, as far as proximity issues were concerned. You said nothing about how you intended to place the cache."

 

Yes you are correct. I would be willing to move the cache a few feet, but I dont wont to be met with the same issue when completed.

 

However I dont feel that I did anything wrong, and would like to personally meet a review at the site. How do you propose I resolve this issue?

 

Keystone was not saying that your cache is too close to another. He was saying that the only thing the reviewer approved was the location, not the method of placement. The problem is that you said a portion of the cache has been buried. That is one of the big nonos when hiding a cache.

 

In order to get it reactivated you will need to convince the reviewer that it is not buried. Try taking photos of the whole thing on its side showing that it is not extending into the ground.

[knowschad]

Another thought about the placement: forget the stake idea... large or small. Instead, fasten a large (say, 4' x4' ) piece of weatherproof plywood to the bottom of the pole, and cover it with soil. Cachers standing on the plywood will think the pole is a permanent fixture if they try to wiggle it.

[+Touchstone]

Could the reviewer who archived the cache be someone other than the local reviewer?

 

I think the Guidelines spells it out pretty clearly:

 

If your cache has been archived and you wish to appeal the decision, first contact the reviewer and explain why you feel your cache meets the guidelines. Exceptions may sometimes be made, depending on the nature of a cache. If you have a novel type of cache that "pushes the envelope" to some degree, then it is best to contact your local reviewer and/or Groundspeak before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site. The guidelines should address most situations, but Groundspeak administrators and reviewers are always interested in new ideas. If, after exchanging email with the reviewer, you still feel your cache has been misjudged, your next option is to ask the volunteer to post the cache for all of the reviewers to see in their private discussion forum. Sometimes a second opinion from someone else who has seen a similar situation can help in suggesting a way for the cache to be published. Next, you should feel free to post a message in the "Geocaching Topics" section of the Groundspeak Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks. If the majority believes that it should be published, then Groundspeak administrators and volunteers may review the submission and your cache may be unarchived. Finally, if you believe that the reviewer has acted inappropriately, you may send an email with complete details, waypoint name (GC*****) and a link to the cache, to Groundspeak’s special address for this purpose: appeals@geocaching.com. For all other purposes, whenever these Guidelines ask the cache owner to "contact Groundspeak," use the contact@geocaching.com email address.

 

Looks like you skipped a couple of steps and went straight to the Forums, but "no harm, no foul" as they say

[aginsa]

GOF & Bacall said "Keystone was not saying that your cache is too close to another"....

 

LOL, well that was actually the FIRST archival of this cache. I spent two lunch hours setting up the following.

 

It was on a rope and pulley system the kids came up with. The down side it was 200ft too close to another cache.

 

Lesson learned.. study the rules.

 

Followed the rules, but was rash in my description on the Cool Cache Container thread. Thank you Lord for the lesson of humiltiy. LOL. My bad.

[aginsa]

Current placement is this:

 

 

The issue started when I used the term buried. Doh! Idiot

 

Touchstone said "Looks like you skipped a couple of steps and went straight to the Forums, but "no harm, no foul" as they say "

What better use of our time than to debate a - 12 finds in a year cache - in the middle of Texas?

 

Touchstone said "Next, you should feel free to post a message in the "Geocaching Topics" section of the Groundspeak Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks. If the majority believes that it should be published, then Groundspeak administrators and volunteers may review the submission and your cache may be unarchived. "

Ohhh no! LOL

[GOF and Bacall]

Looks like you are quite the creative cache hider. you put thought into your hides instead of just tossing a film can out every .10 mile. That is appreciated. I think once you get a handle on just what the guidelines mean you fellow cachers in the area are in for a treat.

[+Rockin Roddy]

GOF & Bacall said "Keystone was not saying that your cache is too close to another"....

 

LOL, well that was actually the FIRST archival of this cache. I spent two lunch hours setting up the following.

 

It was on a rope and pulley system the kids came up with. The down side it was 200ft too close to another cache.

 

Lesson learned.. study the rules.

 

Followed the rules, but was rash in my description on the Cool Cache Container thread. Thank you Lord for the lesson of humiltiy. LOL. My bad.

 

Depending on how you attached the pulley system to the tree, this placement could be against guidelines. You cannot screw a hook or pound a nail into the tree to secure the pulleys, but you can make loose loops attached around the tree's limbs and hook the pulleys from the loose loops (I know I didn't explain this very well, but I hope most understand). This goes for live trees as well as dead, or even for any structure...that you yourself don't own!

 

Looking closely at the picture, it appears you screwed the hooks into the tree, and used a nail as the "anchor".

 

I have a cache that is in a tree as well. My teen son climbed the tree and made the cable loops which we used to attach the pulleys (three of them to make pulling simple), the rope then hangs overhead about 20' off the gound, it comes down a tree (which has a pulley system the same as described) about 50' away. First, you need to find the container (which isn't easy since there's a little added natural "camo" LOLOL), then you need to find the rope...

Edited November 20, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[Keystone]

Moderator said:

"Just to clarify. only the general location (based on the coordinates given) was given the OK, as far as proximity issues were concerned. You said nothing about how you intended to place the cache."

 

Keystone was not saying that your cache is too close to another. He was saying that the only thing the reviewer approved was the location, not the method of placement.

Where exactly did I have this conversation? I have no recollection of it, nor of any other interaction with the OP.

[+Renegade Knight]

Looks like you are quite the creative cache hider. you put thought into your hides instead of just tossing a film can out every .10 mile. That is appreciated. I think once you get a handle on just what the guidelines mean you fellow cachers in the area are in for a treat.

 

Agreed.

Thinking outside the box often results in run ins with the box... In this case that's a good thing.

[+wenestvedt]

What about attaching a flat plate (plywood?), say 1'x1' or 2'x'2', to the bottom of the post and smearing it with glue, then scattering sand on it? You could put *that* flat on the ground and drop a few handfuls of dirt on its edges. No burying, no foul.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I've seen this type of hide done many times and each time, the bottom was just covered with natural camo (in this case, the loose dirt around it could be piled up around the bottom). No need to bury or attach anything else.

[aginsa]

Very good ideas, but I'm still waiting on the reviewer to open a dialoge with me. I dont want to put any wasted effort into the cache without knowing what he/she wants in return.

 

Its only been a day, but I should expect some eventual coresponce... right? (Ive posted review notes on the cache listing and sent an email)

[+momof6furrballs]

OK, maybe I'm not seeing something here, but the way I see it is that the cache ITSELF is not buried. The cache is the green lock n lock with the Geocache sticker on the side. The cache is placed in a hollow stump post. The hollow post is partially buried, yes. But the cache isn't. Probably a good majority of that post is above ground. The cache itself is above ground. The cache is NOT buried.

 

If this type of hide is a no no, then shouldn't all LPC's be archived? Every one of those light poles had a shovel or pointy object used to dig a hole, the concrete forms placed, concrete poured, and the pole attached to it. The cache itself is in the skirt, it isn't buried. And, perhaps even more closely related to this, every micro-in-a-fence-post-cap cache should be archived. Every one of those fence posts had a shovel or pointy object used to dig a hole, and the fence post put in that hole.

 

Seriously, what's the difference here? Not trying to be combative, just seriously curious and trying to understand the "guidelines", as I have contemplated a similar hide in our area sometime in the future.

 

If the issue is ME personally "burying" the post, what if I hired a contractor to do it for me? Then I come by a couple weeks later... Oh, lookie here, here is a stump post with a hole in it!!! Looks like a great place for a cache!!!!

 

--Question asked by Dad of 6 FB. Mom of 6 has nothing to do with my twisted mind.

[+Rockin Roddy]

OK, maybe I'm not seeing something here, but the way I see it is that the cache ITSELF is not buried. The cache is the green lock n lock with the Geocache sticker on the side. The cache is placed in a hollow stump post. The hollow post is partially buried, yes. But the cache isn't. Probably a good majority of that post is above ground. The cache itself is above ground. The cache is NOT buried.

 

If this type of hide is a no no, then shouldn't all LPC's be archived? Every one of those light poles had a shovel or pointy object used to dig a hole, the concrete forms placed, concrete poured, and the pole attached to it. The cache itself is in the skirt, it isn't buried. And, perhaps even more closely related to this, every micro-in-a-fence-post-cap cache should be archived. Every one of those fence posts had a shovel or pointy object used to dig a hole, and the fence post put in that hole.

 

Seriously, what's the difference here? Not trying to be combative, just seriously curious and trying to understand the "guidelines", as I have contemplated a similar hide in our area sometime in the future.

 

If the issue is ME personally "burying" the post, what if I hired a contractor to do it for me? Then I come by a couple weeks later... Oh, lookie here, here is a stump post with a hole in it!!! Looks like a great place for a cache!!!!

 

--Question asked by Dad of 6 FB. Mom of 6 has nothing to do with my twisted mind.

 

If the property was yours, you could do just that. If you had permission to place the post, you could do just that. Using existing fence posts, with permission, is OK as well. Most people don't bother to obtain permission ofr those fence post cap hides, this is a bad idea, you should get permission if it's not your property!

[+momof6furrballs]

If the property was yours, you could do just that. If you had permission to place the post, you could do just that. Using existing fence posts, with permission, is OK as well. Most people don't bother to obtain permission ofr those fence post cap hides, this is a bad idea, you should get permission if it's not your property!

 

I guess I had assumed the permission thing had already been granted in my own case. But the OP's situation is such that the discussion is on whether the cache is "buried". It is not. It is in a hollow stump, and above the ground.

 

Now if the OP's cache issue was solely a permission issue, then yes. I can agree with the (temporary) archival. Permission to place a cache is of utmost importance.

 

-edited for grammar.

Edited November 20, 2009 by momof6furrballs

[+Rockin Roddy]

If the property was yours, you could do just that. If you had permission to place the post, you could do just that. Using existing fence posts, with permission, is OK as well. Most people don't bother to obtain permission ofr those fence post cap hides, this is a bad idea, you should get permission if it's not your property!

 

I guess I had assumed the permission thing had already been granted in my own case. But the OP's situation is such that the discussion is on whether the cache is "buried". It is not. It is in a hollow stump, and above the ground.

 

Now if the OP's cache issue was solely a permission issue, then yes. I can agree with the (temporary) archival. Permission to place a cache is of utmost importance.

 

-edited for grammar.

 

If the hider dug a hole to place the end of that pole into, then it is technically buried regardless of whether the container is below ground or not. It's not a hollow stump, it's a telephone pole which appears to have been partially buried to make it stationary. A simple solution would be to just put it on the ground and build up dirt around the base to give the appearance of it being buried.

[+momof6furrballs]

If the property was yours, you could do just that. If you had permission to place the post, you could do just that. Using existing fence posts, with permission, is OK as well. Most people don't bother to obtain permission ofr those fence post cap hides, this is a bad idea, you should get permission if it's not your property!

 

I guess I had assumed the permission thing had already been granted in my own case. But the OP's situation is such that the discussion is on whether the cache is "buried". It is not. It is in a hollow stump, and above the ground.

 

Now if the OP's cache issue was solely a permission issue, then yes. I can agree with the (temporary) archival. Permission to place a cache is of utmost importance.

 

-edited for grammar.

 

If the hider dug a hole to place the end of that pole into, then it is technically buried regardless of whether the container is below ground or not. It's not a hollow stump, it's a telephone pole which appears to have been partially buried to make it stationary. A simple solution would be to just put it on the ground and build up dirt around the base to give the appearance of it being buried.

 

Then following this to it's logical conclusion, what is the difference between this, and the cache in a fence post cap? They both had a hole dug, and the pole placed into that hole.

 

I'm seriously trying to understand this.

[+9Key]

If the property was yours, you could do just that. If you had permission to place the post, you could do just that. Using existing fence posts, with permission, is OK as well. Most people don't bother to obtain permission ofr those fence post cap hides, this is a bad idea, you should get permission if it's not your property!

 

I guess I had assumed the permission thing had already been granted in my own case. But the OP's situation is such that the discussion is on whether the cache is "buried". It is not. It is in a hollow stump, and above the ground.

 

Now if the OP's cache issue was solely a permission issue, then yes. I can agree with the (temporary) archival. Permission to place a cache is of utmost importance.

 

-edited for grammar.

 

If the hider dug a hole to place the end of that pole into, then it is technically buried regardless of whether the container is below ground or not. It's not a hollow stump, it's a telephone pole which appears to have been partially buried to make it stationary. A simple solution would be to just put it on the ground and build up dirt around the base to give the appearance of it being buried.

 

Then following this to it's logical conclusion, what is the difference between this, and the cache in a fence post cap? They both had a hole dug, and the pole placed into that hole.

 

I'm seriously trying to understand this.

Generally a fence post cap hide is on an existing post, not one that the CO planted.

[Clan Riffster]

I'm seriously trying to understand this.

Groundspeak has no problem with Bob the Builder digging a hole to place a lamp post in a Wally World parking lot.

Further, Groundspeak would have no problem if Bob dug a hole to place a set of poles along his property line.

Neither involve caches... at that point. Any hole produced, was not done for the sake of hiding a cache.

 

Now, if BillyBob the Cacher comes along and digs a hole to bury part of a cache, (such as the pole that is its camo), you've got a problem.

This problem can be negated sometimes, if the hole is on the cacher's property, or if they can show explicit permission for digging it.

 

Groundspeak has gotten a few black eyes over the years regarding the myth that cachers "dig for treasure".

 

Their guideline against digging was created to address these concerns.

[+bittsen]

 

Then following this to it's logical conclusion, what is the difference between this, and the cache in a fence post cap? They both had a hole dug, and the pole placed into that hole.

 

I'm seriously trying to understand this.

 

Here is the difference.

 

Digging, for the sole reason of placing a cache, is against the guidelines.

[+momof6furrballs]

Well, I'm only a newcomer to the game, and don't have the years, thousands of finds, and the wisdom that most here do. I just try to play the game within the established parameters / rules / guidelines that are set by Groundspeak, so I can continue to have fun with this game for years to come.

 

When I read the rule that states: "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 interpret that to mean exactly that. Literally. Don't go digging a 3 x 3 hole with the shovel, tossing the rubbermaid into it, and covering it back up with the extracted pile of dirt and expect someone to find it. That part is crystal clear to me, and something I have no issue with.

 

What I'm having trouble understanding, is this example being discussed. Clearly, the cache itself is not buried. The cache itself is that lock n lock. It is placed inside a hollow log / stump / sawed-off pole. The cache is above ground. HOW that object (log/stump/pole) that the cache is inside of got planted into the earth shouldn't be an issue, IMHO.

 

If the issue then is WHO placed that object, WHEN it was placed, and it's original intended purpose... I think... goes far beyond the scope of the original rule. Because for example, and as SOME have stated... if I constructed a fence, on my property, that had the slightest potential of me, sometime in the future, as a Geocacher, using one of the pole caps to place a micro, it wouldn't be allowed because I... dug... the... hole. However, if the fence was already there and in place before I purchased the property, then it's OK. But then again, I own the fence, I hereby giveth myself permission, so why should it matter either way?

 

To me, regardless if it is a fence post or a stump/log/pole stuck in the ground, it shouldn't matter. As long as the cache itself isn't buried, it's OK. With permission of course.

 

Certainly, the permission issue is foremost. In all cases permission should be obtained for the placement of ANY kind of cache. Including LPC's, micros in a fence post, micros in someone's front yard, and stumps planted along side a road.

 

Oh well, shucks. I'm not a lawyer, nor am I the one that created that rule / guideline. I'm just a newbie player trying to abide by the rules to the best of my feeble mind.

 

Thanks everyone for the interesting discussion. I think I found the answers I was looking for. I promise I will never dig a hole.

 

Cache on.

 

-Dad of 6 FB

[Clan Riffster]

HOW that object (log/stump/pole) that the cache is inside of got planted into the earth shouldn't be an issue, IMHO.

The guideline interpretations are mostly based on perception. Our game is, for the most part, played on property belonging to municipal, county, state or federal properties. If the managers of those properties developed a belief that we, as cachers, were going to be digging holes to hide caches, or to hide poles containing caches, they would be well within their rights to ban our game from their list of allowed activities. Most land managers see hole digging, by anyone not under their employ, as a bad thing. Groundspeak recognises this, and created that guideline to ward off potential future complaints.

 

Post script: Don't sweat being new. We all were at one point!

[+momof6furrballs]

HOW that object (log/stump/pole) that the cache is inside of got planted into the earth shouldn't be an issue, IMHO.

The guideline interpretations are mostly based on perception. Our game is, for the most part, played on property belonging to municipal, county, state or federal properties. If the managers of those properties developed a belief that we, as cachers, were going to be digging holes to hide caches, or to hide poles containing caches, they would be well within their rights to ban our game from their list of allowed activities. Most land managers see hole digging, by anyone not under their employ, as a bad thing. Groundspeak recognises this, and created that guideline to ward off potential future complaints.

 

Post script: Don't sweat being new. We all were at one point!

 

Thanks Clan!

 

I think that answer is the clearest so far. And coming from you, as a member of Law Enforcement, now it makes sense.

 

-Do6FB

[+ZeroHecksGiven]

 

This is great, nice work. I did a cache similar to this a month or so ago and it was a ton of fun and was causing a few DNF's for ever 10 finds or so. I may do something along these lines at some point so thanks for posting it, I wasn't sure how to hide the cut line

[+Roland_oso]

What better use of our time than to debate a - 12 finds in a year cache - in the middle of Texas?

 

I understand the concerns of the reviewer and there are ways to place such a cache without digging a hole, but I seriously think you underestimate your fellow Texas cachers when you state that it will get less than 12 finders a year.

 

Even if it's in the middle of nowhere TX, lots of cachers in Texas cover a lot of ground playing this game.

 

Just saying.........

 

Cool hide by the way!

[aginsa]

So if I talk with the Wilson County Road Commission and they do not object to this placement I should be fine?

 

Where O where is my reviewer?

[GOF and Bacall]

Moderator said:

"Just to clarify. only the general location (based on the coordinates given) was given the OK, as far as proximity issues were concerned. You said nothing about how you intended to place the cache."

 

Keystone was not saying that your cache is too close to another. He was saying that the only thing the reviewer approved was the location, not the method of placement.

Where exactly did I have this conversation? I have no recollection of it, nor of any other interaction with the OP.

 

I'm sorry. It was Prime Reviewer, in the CCC thread with the smoking keyboard. Oh wait, this is geocaching not Clue.

My bad.

[GOF and Bacall]

So if I talk with the Wilson County Road Commission and they do not object to this placement I should be fine?

 

Where O where is my reviewer?

 

Without knowing the area it is hard to say. You may need to get permission from whomever owns the property the road right of way cuts through.

 

While you can get a buried cache approved with proper permission from property owners/managers it tends to give other cachers like ideas and then we have another thread open up like this one. Or worse someone buries a cache and the property owner/manager sees it and that is the end of caching in another area.

[+Castle Mischief]

So if I talk with the Wilson County Road Commission and they do not object to this placement I should be fine?

 

Where O where is my reviewer?

 

Hang in there. Like you said, it's only been a day. Keep in mind these are volunteers and they have jobs and families like the rest of us. You'll hear back from the reviewer, it's just takes longer some times than at others.

[+Don_J]

If the property was yours, you could do just that. If you had permission to place the post, you could do just that. Using existing fence posts, with permission, is OK as well. Most people don't bother to obtain permission ofr those fence post cap hides, this is a bad idea, you should get permission if it's not your property!

 

I guess I had assumed the permission thing had already been granted in my own case. But the OP's situation is such that the discussion is on whether the cache is "buried". It is not. It is in a hollow stump, and above the ground.

 

Now if the OP's cache issue was solely a permission issue, then yes. I can agree with the (temporary) archival. Permission to place a cache is of utmost importance.

 

-edited for grammar.

 

It seems that most of us missed the first part of this discussion because it started in another thread ???

 

Are we to take it that the OP actually set the "stump" in the ground? If so, this is much different than using an existing fixture.

 

Some clarification might help keep this discussion on track.

Thanks.

[GOF and Bacall]

These posts from the CCC thread should get folks up to speed on what the confusion is about.

 

Not sure how original this one is, but it took a bit of time to create and setup. My first - waiting for FTF.

 

 

Not sure how original this one is, but it took a bit of time to create and setup. My first - waiting for FTF.

I've never seen one quite like it! I assume that metal band that I see in the top picture is covering a saw cut, and the top part lifts off? How is the pole fastened to the ground? Was it once a real phone pole? Very cool!

Yes it was an old discarded telephone pole. I had to search for awhile to find one with a large enough diameter to hold the cache container. The center hole and cut were made with a chain saw, and alot of time... didnt know how hard that treated wood was . The total length is about 4 1/2 feet with most of that buried to keep things in place. The metal band, covered with reflective tape, hides the cut and is fastened directly to the lid. Finally I put the GC ID on the outside.

[aginsa]

How is this cache fastened to the ground?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Thus, the moral to the story is: If you are going to flaunt the guidelines, do not brag about it in the forum...

[aginsa]

Thus, the moral to the story is: If you are going to flaunt the guidelines, do not brag about it in the forum...

As you can clearly see, I am a newbie. I in no way intened to flaunt the guildelines and even offered a public apology in the original thread. Your way off base, I'm in this forum attempting to obtain some support in this matter.

[+Touchstone]

How is this cache fastened to the ground?

 

The usual reply for that question can also be found in the Guidelines...

 

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches.

 

And to be honest, it seems rather irrelevant without knowing any specifics about the cache your comparing to.

 

It's not usually a great tactic to drag other Listings into the conversation. It's best just to stick with your cache and how it meets the spirit of the Guidelines. As noted above, your strongest argument would be to get explicit permission for the placement.

[+bittsen]

How is this cache fastened to the ground?

 

Chances are it is attached to a stake that is forced into the ground that, at least, one reviewer (and/or forum moderator) has stated does not violate the guidelines.

 

The term "digging" refers to removing soil from a location. Forcing something into the ground does not remove soil so it is not digging.

 

I hope that clears things up a little.

Edited November 21, 2009 by bittsen