Jump to content

Why the angst over caches in the ground?


cx1
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I just realized something that I'm too lazy to check out.

 

The little checkbox on the hidey form says that you have read the guidelines but does it say your cache adheres to the guidelines?

You have 18 hides, so 18 times you have checked the boxes that commit to the Reviewer that you have read and understand the Guidelines and Terms of Use and that you commit to abide by them.

 

Yet you apparently have not even read them? :laughing:

 

Yes, checking those boxes states that your cache adheres to the Guidelines and will do so as long as it is listed on this service.

Link to comment

No it doesn't.

 

checkboxes.jpg

 

Neither of those check boxes states that your cache actually adheres to the guidelines, which is the point Bittsen was making. The only thing you actually agree to is the TOU.

 

Maybe he'll enlighten us as to what difference it makes whether or not the checkbox specifically says your cache adheres to the guidelines.

 

By checking that box you are stating that you understand the guidelines. If your cache is found to be in violation of those guidelines, then you have no right to belly ache when a reviewer archives it.

Link to comment

No it doesn't.

 

checkboxes.jpg

 

Neither of those check boxes states that your cache actually adheres to the guidelines, which is the point Bittsen was making. The only thing you actually agree to is the TOU.

 

Maybe he'll enlighten us as to what difference it makes whether or not the checkbox specifically says your cache adheres to the guidelines.

 

By checking that box you are stating that you understand the guidelines. If your cache is found to be in violation of those guidelines, then you have no right to belly ache when a reviewer archives it.

Among other places, but specifically bolded here from the TOU - you commit that your cache adheres to the Guidelines:

 

6. License to Use Submissions

 

All comments, articles, tutorials, screenshots, pictures, graphics, tools, downloads, and all other materials submitted to Groundspeak in connection with the Site or available through the Site (collectively, "Submissions") remain the property and copyright of the original author. If You submit Submissions to Groundspeak, You must adhere to any applicable submission guidelines that may be posted from time to time on the Site. By submitting any Submission to Groundspeak, You grant Groundspeak a worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, fully-paid royalty-free license and right to use, reproduce, distribute, import, broadcast, transmit, modify and create derivative works of, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend copies of, publicly display and publicly perform that Submission for any purpose and without restriction or obligation to You.

Link to comment

Using an existing hole and tossing some leaves or other debris over it has been discussed in this thread already,and seems to be an acceptable method.The big fuss is over Team Juniper who wants the rules changed to permit him to dig holes with tools and bury wooden boxes and buckets to place his cache in.This would use tools to hide and to find the cache.Read the Team Juniper posts in this thread.

 

Yeah, temporary free internet, won't last but given the opportunity a reply is in order...

 

Saying that the big fuss is all over Team Juniper is just plain wrong. I'm just participating in a forum thread, giving a voice to a point of view that is definitely held by more people than just Team Juniper.

 

What I've been saying in this thread so far is that:

 

- While I would like to see the rules changed, they don't have to change for me.

- The current rules don't reflect the current situation in the real world

- I've come across a whole lot of caches that would be considered to be buried

- All of those caches were approved

- While some of the might have been placed in a way that doesn't follow the guidelines, there are buried ones that have been placed with full knowledge of all the parties involved, including the land manager

- All of my own hides are according to the guidelines and are in no way, shape or form buried

- I might consider a buried cache if after considering all the alternatives it remains the best possible way of hiding it

 

So what you said in the quote above is way of base.

Link to comment

What I said was not off base at all.Its the truth.You are off base with your continued disregard for the rules.

I just don't read Team Juniper's comments that way. I think he is stating the the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. If the purpose to prevent cachers digging in places where land owner/managers are concerned with digging, why not allow digging but only if it is on your own land or if you get explicit permission to dig. The ability to partially bury caches opens up several options for hiding regular and large size caches where they might be difficult to hide otherwise. By making exceptions almost impossible to get, we many missing out on some more creative hides and instead encourage more micro and small caches hidden in the same familiar fashion.

 

Now one can argue it this impression is valid. First of all you can get an exception, we just don't know if this is easy or difficult. Second, one can argue it having to work around the guideline doesn't actually encourage more creativity that we might get if we could just bury a bucket flush with the ground. And finally you can argue that some land managers may be concerned about someone seeing a buried with permission cache, and copying that hide without getting the proper permission.

Link to comment

What I said was not off base at all.Its the truth.You are off base with your continued disregard for the rules.

Dude, what country do you live in where disagreement with the rules equates to disregarding them?

Just because I follow a law doesn't mean I have to agree with it, just abide it 'till an opportunity arises to change it.

Opportunities never come about if people don't talk about it.

 

Am I disregarding the rules by saying...

"If a person wants to modify their property for a cache, be it by shovel or by backhoe then they should be allowed."?

If you think I am, then I defy you to prove that merely saying equates to doing.

 

On top of all of that, this isn't a rule that is being debated, it is a guideline.

When you decide to look the words up, allow me to make a suggestion, look up the individual words in the definitions before you say "They sort of resemble each other on the surface so they must be the same".

Link to comment

What I said was not off base at all.Its the truth.You are off base with your continued disregard for the rules.

Dude, what country do you live in where disagreement with the rules equates to disregarding them?

State your opinion. Cool. Debate and defend your opinion, that's cool too. But once you have discovered that your opinion is in the minority and that you are not going to sway folks to your way of thinking then it's time to either accept that the majority is happy with the status quo and go along with them or find another way to approach the change you wish to make. Restating, rewording and restating your opinion ad nauseum while arguing with those who obviously are immovably attached to their opinion isn't likely to help you achieve your goals. :)

Link to comment

What I said was not off base at all.Its the truth.You are off base with your continued disregard for the rules.

Dude, what country do you live in where disagreement with the rules equates to disregarding them?

State your opinion. Cool. Debate and defend your opinion, that's cool too. But once you have discovered that your opinion is in the minority and that you are not going to sway folks to your way of thinking then it's time to either accept that the majority is happy with the status quo and go along with them or find another way to approach the change you wish to make. Restating, rewording and restating your opinion ad nauseum while arguing with those who obviously are immovably attached to their opinion isn't likely to help you achieve your goals. :)

Too true, but a flagrant accusation based on a gross interpretation, still reeks of...

 

~~~too add~~~

I would have pointed it out regardless of what side the arguer fell on.

Edited by Vater_Araignee
Link to comment

What I said was not off base at all.Its the truth.You are off base with your continued disregard for the rules.

Read my posts correctly: I've never hidden a buried cache, I've only only found buried caches. How can you call that disregard for the rules? I'm only debating a possible rule change and if you call that disregard for the rules, I'd say you're way of base.

Link to comment
What I've been saying in this thread so far is that: - While I would like to see the rules changed, they don't have to change for me.

- The current rules don't reflect the current situation in the real world

 

Actually they do. In the real world buried caches are a concern for many people who manage public lands and private preserves.

 

-I've come across a whole lot of caches that would be considered to be buried

 

So have most of us. Because they exist it doesn't change things. Caches exist that violate all kinds of guidelines. Do we throw the each guideline out because we can find examples of caches that break each one?

 

- All of those caches were approved

 

They were not "approved". They were published with the understanding that the CO has conformed with the guidelines. If the CO lies to the reviewer then of course caches that violate the guidelines might get published.

 

I think he is stating the the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. If the purpose to prevent cachers digging in places where land owner/managers are concerned with digging, why not allow digging but only if it is on your own land or if you get explicit permission to dig.

 

When negotiating with land managers about allowing geocaches on their lands, it's a lot better to be able to tell them that geocaches are never buried period, than to say "Well we don't bury caches - usually, except when ___ or ____ and ____ and maybe _____ and sometimes ____ and _____ or _____, but other than that we generally don't bury caches most of the time."

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

What I said was not off base at all.Its the truth.You are off base with your continued disregard for the rules.

I just don't read Team Juniper's comments that way. I think he is stating the the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. If the purpose to prevent cachers digging in places where land owner/managers are concerned with digging, why not allow digging but only if it is on your own land or if you get explicit permission to dig. The ability to partially bury caches opens up several options for hiding regular and large size caches where they might be difficult to hide otherwise. By making exceptions almost impossible to get, we many missing out on some more creative hides and instead encourage more micro and small caches hidden in the same familiar fashion.

 

Now one can argue it this impression is valid. First of all you can get an exception, we just don't know if this is easy or difficult. Second, one can argue it having to work around the guideline doesn't actually encourage more creativity that we might get if we could just bury a bucket flush with the ground. And finally you can argue that some land managers may be concerned about someone seeing a buried with permission cache, and copying that hide without getting the proper permission.

Thx, that's the gist of what I'm arguing.

 

The caches I've enjoyed most are multicaches of a couple of kilometres with (physical) puzzle waypoints. Almost all of these had either a buried waypoint or a buried final stash and both are mostly size regular or above. IMHO most of them wouldn't be possible without burying. The rest of the less interesting caches you see over here are usually traditionals of the micro container cache size.

Link to comment

What I said was not off base at all.Its the truth.You are off base with your continued disregard for the rules.

Read my posts correctly: I've never hidden a buried cache, I've only only found buried caches. How can you call that disregard for the rules? I'm only debating a possible rule change and if you call that disregard for the rules, I'd say you're way of base.

Ok,I admit that the word "disregard"" was not the best choice and I apologise to a all I offended.It is true that he has not buried any caches.Its just frustrating to see how many people in this thread have explained to him why the guidlines should be followed,yet he feels they should be changed for him or the area he lives.Once again sorry for the use of"disregard".I should have said that he has disregard for all the advise and reasons given to him in this thread.

Link to comment

 

I think he is stating the the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. If the purpose to prevent cachers digging in places where land owner/managers are concerned with digging, why not allow digging but only if it is on your own land or if you get explicit permission to dig.

 

When negotiating with land managers about allowing geocaches on their lands, it's a lot better to be able to tell them that geocaches are never buried period, than to say "Well we don't bury caches - usually, except when ___ or ____ and ____ and maybe _____ and sometimes ____ and _____ or _____, but other than that we generally don't bury caches most of the time."

When negotiating with land managers it would be better to tell the truth. The phase "geocaches are never buried" is poppycock. Caches are buried under piles of rocks, they are buried under sticks, they are buried under fallen leaves, they are even sometimes buried in the ground in existing holes, or in rare case where an exception is made or where the reviewer has no idea the cache was hidden in violation of the guidelines they are hidden in holes dug for the purpose.

 

The real issues is being able to tell land managers that geocaching is not about buried treasure. It is about about finding a hidden container using a GPS. Geocachers will not descend on their parks with shovels and picks looking for a caches. Just as they shouldn't show up with machetes or chain saws. I've ofter wondered the need for the no digging guideline since we already the no deface guideline. Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method [may be quickly archived]. It seems what land manager need to know is that cachers won't deface anything whether to hide or find a cache and if it is discovered that someone has done this the listing on geocaching.com will be quickly archived.

 

The no deface and no dig guidelines go hand-in-hand with the permission guideline. The idea is to get blanket permission for geocaching from as many land managers as possible. Most land managers don't have the time to write their own rules for caches placed on the property they manage. And if they do, they understand that most geocachers only see the Geocaching.com guidelines and until the reviewer asks if they complied with a local land manager's guidelines they might not even know these exists. In that respect, briansnat is correct. The guidelines are written the way they are to make them acceptable to the greatest possible number of land managers while keeping them simple for geocachers to follow.

Link to comment

 

I think he is stating the the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. If the purpose to prevent cachers digging in places where land owner/managers are concerned with digging, why not allow digging but only if it is on your own land or if you get explicit permission to dig.

 

When negotiating with land managers about allowing geocaches on their lands, it's a lot better to be able to tell them that geocaches are never buried period, than to say "Well we don't bury caches - usually, except when ___ or ____ and ____ and maybe _____ and sometimes ____ and _____ or _____, but other than that we generally don't bury caches most of the time."

When negotiating with land managers it would be better to tell the truth. The phase "geocaches are never buried" is poppycock. Caches are buried under piles of rocks, they are buried under sticks, they are buried under fallen leaves, they are even sometimes buried in the ground in existing holes, or in rare case where an exception is made or where the reviewer has no idea the cache was hidden in violation of the guidelines they are hidden in holes dug for the purpose.

 

The real issues is being able to tell land managers that geocaching is not about buried treasure. It is about about finding a hidden container using a GPS. Geocachers will not descend on their parks with shovels and picks looking for a caches. Just as they shouldn't show up with machetes or chain saws. I've ofter wondered the need for the no digging guideline since we already the no deface guideline. Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method [may be quickly archived]. It seems what land manager need to know is that cachers won't deface anything whether to hide or find a cache and if it is discovered that someone has done this the listing on geocaching.com will be quickly archived.

 

The no deface and no dig guidelines go hand-in-hand with the permission guideline. The idea is to get blanket permission for geocaching from as many land managers as possible. Most land managers don't have the time to write their own rules for caches placed on the property they manage. And if they do, they understand that most geocachers only see the Geocaching.com guidelines and until the reviewer asks if they complied with a local land manager's guidelines they might not even know these exists. In that respect, briansnat is correct. The guidelines are written the way they are to make them acceptable to the greatest possible number of land managers while keeping them simple for geocachers to follow.

Good point.Sometimes I think the definition of "buried"comes into play.As in your first paragraph,I pesnonally would call those "covored".And "buried",would use tools.But that is just my interpritation of the words.There is somewhat of a grey area there.So depending on how a person defines the word"buried"might be an issue with the guidelines.Just another way to look at it.

Link to comment

 

At the very least, I think its clear that there are multiple possibilities. If it was a cacher, I hope they get caught doing that sort of thing. What'll they do next... light a forest fire because they couldn't find the ammo can?

this just made me laugh at the mention of it.

 

also in my area i haven't seen a single cache in the ground, usually hidden in guardrails on bridges, under a branch of an evergreen tree or even a nano hidden in the top of a pinecone. all i know is that there are alot of places where there aren't any "buried caches" or anything like it. and it seems like everybody is just getting P.O'd at eachother so just cool it like seriously :)

Link to comment

What I said was not off base at all.Its the truth.You are off base with your continued disregard for the rules.

Read my posts correctly: I've never hidden a buried cache, I've only only found buried caches. How can you call that disregard for the rules? I'm only debating a possible rule change and if you call that disregard for the rules, I'd say you're way of base.

I apologize for that post Team Juniper.It was very off base.Bad wording on my part.I do understand that you do not disregard the rules,you are just looking for change.And I didnt mean to say that you did.My bad.

Link to comment

So you want the rules changed for your area.Have you considered the fact that people travel to different countries to geocache?How are people supposed to know the rules if they are different in every region?Who would write and keep up on all the different rules?That is why I believe a blanket rule is the best for all.Then people can travel to other places and not worry about accidentally breaking a rule and messing things up for the locals in that area.

A lot of rules differ by country already, road rules are one example, and you're supposed to know them for the country you are in and the ones you are going to. Why can't the same be possible for geocaching?

 

If you'd go to England, thinking the road rules are a blanket rule, and drive on the right, you'd be certainly messing things up for the locals.

 

Blanket rules are a utopian idea.

If you want to change things, where the majority of people (here on these boards) are against the changes then I would suggest that you seceed from this organization and start your own and see where that takes you. If its successful and doesn't raise the ire of land managers, then kudo's to you.

Other than that, adhere to the rules of this US based organization.

Link to comment

If you want to bury a cache in the ground go to NV/AZ, the rule of burying a cache container does not apply there. In fact, NV/AZ is the only state that I have seen a cache hidden in the middle of a highway. It is in a grate between the north and southbound lanes of I-15 leading out of Mesquite, NV into Utah.

Link to comment

If you want to bury a cache in the ground go to NV/AZ, the rule of burying a cache container does not apply there. In fact, NV/AZ is the only state that I have seen a cache hidden in the middle of a highway. It is in a grate between the north and southbound lanes of I-15 leading out of Mesquite, NV into Utah.

 

Um... no.

 

I'm pretty sure the reviewer(s) for NV/AZ will tell you the buried guideline is in place in their state(s). Also pretty sure that grate in the middle of the highway (while a "grate" topic for another thread all-together regarding right-of-way) is a preexisting hole and no digging was required to hide or find it.

Link to comment

Been reading a lot in the forums as of late to somewhat get ready for a new geocaching season.

I have noticed that whenever anyone mentions a cache placed in any fashion that somehow interacts with the ground that there are several folks that either get quite upset or at least have a snide comment to make about it.

Clearly if no 'pointy' object is neither needed to place or find the cache I don't understand why people get so upset. I am curious as to why. Is there some long historic post war that transpired?

 

i'm putting a cache in the coffin with me.

Link to comment

All being said, have you been told that placing a GC in a municiple water valve and meter concrete vault is wrong, illegal and should be moved? I have..what are your thoughts on this?

It is a tad off topic but...

Messing with the municipal water supply?

Excellent way to put your physical well being into jeopardy.

And I don't mean you got your self hurt, I mean you got somebody to hurt you.

Just like you may be crazy enough not to consider what you can be implicated in doing, there is somebody crazy enough not to consider the ramifications of what they will do to you because of those implications.

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...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...