Jump to content

Would this be a violation of the rules?


mchaos
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I have a cache that would have to be partially in the ground.

 

Would coring the ground, which is by definition, "not digging" nor will a pointy, or sharp tool be used, or any kind of object to dig. Simply a piece of pipe driven into the ground, and then pulled out removing a core of dirt?

 

Next.....

 

If a hole existed already, and I did not make said hole. And I did not make it to place a cache, and I was given permission to place a cache in said hole..... Would that be a violation of the rules????

 

 

It will not be "Buried"

Link to comment

I have a cache that would have to be partially in the ground.

 

Would coring the ground, which is by definition, "not digging" nor will a pointy, or sharp tool be used, or any kind of object to dig. Simply a piece of pipe driven into the ground, and then pulled out removing a core of dirt?

 

Next.....

 

If a hole existed already, and I did not make said hole. And I did not make it to place a cache, and I was given permission to place a cache in said hole..... Would that be a violation of the rules????

 

 

It will not be "Buried"

 

In those cases where I have seen similarly placed caches, the cache owner had gotten explicit permission from the land owner for such placement due to digging being against the guidelines in any form. In at least one case, it took several months of back and forth communication before they were given permission for exactly what you are describing. I'm going to guess that each of those cases likely had to clearly inform the reviewer of said permission before the cache was even considered. Chances are that if you cannot prove clear permission from the land owner for such a placement, most reviewers, if not all reviewers (I can't speak for all reviewers...just for what the guidelines say), are going to deny the cache.

 

EDIT: Oh yeah, and just a reminder that prior cache placement is usually not considered as proof that a future placement is okay. That's also something clearly said in the guidelines. Most reviewers would probably tell you that if you tried to argue "Well it's been done before."

Edited by TripCyclone
Link to comment
Would coring the ground, which is by definition, "not digging" nor will a pointy, or sharp tool be used, or any kind of object to dig. Simply a piece of pipe driven into the ground, and then pulled out removing a core of dirt?

 

Next.....

 

If a hole existed already, and I did not make said hole. And I did not make it to place a cache, and I was given permission to place a cache in said hole..... Would that be a violation of the rules????

 

If you own the property, then there is a bit of flexibility, even if some might feel that it encourages similar hides.

 

If you do not own the property but have written permission (I'm assuming you'd need written permission for something like this), then I would guess it would be very similar to property you owned.

 

If you manage to find an existing hole that works, then it should not be a problem. For instance, if you were to find an abandoned well and built a cache that went over it and looked like a drain, then that should be fine.

 

If you core the hole, then you are going to run afoul of the guidelines. Even though the coring tool may be blunt, it still removes earth and if you were to remove the cache, then it would be obvious something was missing.

 

Toz may say this is someone enforcing their own version of the guidelines. However, I believe the spirit of that particular guideline is to ensure that the ground is not removed.

 

Using a thin steel rod, for instance, to stake a cache would probably be fine because if you were to pull the cache up and step on the hole, no one would ever know you had a cache there. You have simply displaced the earth rather than removed it.

 

But you should really consult with your local reviewer to get a solid answer.

Link to comment

You already posted this under the "cool cache containers" thread and received several comments. Why are you posting it in a new separate thread? Trying to find the one cacher who will say "sure, no problem"? Not to mention the fact that there have been several threads dedicated to caches in the ground.

Lock time!

Link to comment

I have a cache that would have to be partially in the ground.

 

Would coring the ground, which is by definition, "not digging" nor will a pointy, or sharp tool be used, or any kind of object to dig. Simply a piece of pipe driven into the ground, and then pulled out removing a core of dirt?

 

Next.....

 

If a hole existed already, and I did not make said hole. And I did not make it to place a cache, and I was given permission to place a cache in said hole..... Would that be a violation of the rules????

 

 

It will not be "Buried"

 

In those cases where I have seen similarly placed caches, the cache owner had gotten explicit permission from the land owner for such placement due to digging being against the guidelines in any form. In at least one case, it took several months of back and forth communication before they were given permission for exactly what you are describing. I'm going to guess that each of those cases likely had to clearly inform the reviewer of said permission before the cache was even considered. Chances are that if you cannot prove clear permission from the land owner for such a placement, most reviewers, if not all reviewers (I can't speak for all reviewers...just for what the guidelines say), are going to deny the cache.

 

EDIT: Oh yeah, and just a reminder that prior cache placement is usually not considered as proof that a future placement is okay. That's also something clearly said in the guidelines. Most reviewers would probably tell you that if you tried to argue "Well it's been done before."

 

 

Would coring the ground, which is by definition, "not digging" nor will a pointy, or sharp tool be used, or any kind of object to dig. Simply a piece of pipe driven into the ground, and then pulled out removing a core of dirt?

 

Next.....

 

If a hole existed already, and I did not make said hole. And I did not make it to place a cache, and I was given permission to place a cache in said hole..... Would that be a violation of the rules????

 

If you own the property, then there is a bit of flexibility, even if some might feel that it encourages similar hides.

 

If you do not own the property but have written permission (I'm assuming you'd need written permission for something like this), then I would guess it would be very similar to property you owned.

 

If you manage to find an existing hole that works, then it should not be a problem. For instance, if you were to find an abandoned well and built a cache that went over it and looked like a drain, then that should be fine.

 

If you core the hole, then you are going to run afoul of the guidelines. Even though the coring tool may be blunt, it still removes earth and if you were to remove the cache, then it would be obvious something was missing.

 

Toz may say this is someone enforcing their own version of the guidelines. However, I believe the spirit of that particular guideline is to ensure that the ground is not removed.

 

Using a thin steel rod, for instance, to stake a cache would probably be fine because if you were to pull the cache up and step on the hole, no one would ever know you had a cache there. You have simply displaced the earth rather than removed it.

 

But you should really consult with your local reviewer to get a solid answer.

 

I think I have already shown that I have no problem seeking permission and that I will engage in seeking permission. However this time I will not place it until I have it. As a matter of fact I have already sent an email along to the person in charge of the land.

 

I'm quite certain the land owners would rather you use the device in a safe area off to the side of the golf course.....rather than to occupy an existing hole on the green. B)

 

HAHA, funny. I had actually been thinking while making this of some way to make the container in the hole, but not to limit the functionality of the hole. Of course it would be silly to put it on the course. Was just a thought. I am sure a golfer would not want to wait for some one to finagle the hole before he tee's off.

Edited by mchaos
Link to comment

You already posted this under the "cool cache containers" thread and received several comments. Why are you posting it in a new separate thread? Trying to find the one cacher who will say "sure, no problem"? Not to mention the fact that there have been several threads dedicated to caches in the ground.

Lock time!

 

He's posting to a new thread by request so that we can keep all the discussion on the subject here instead of muddying up the CCC thread.

Link to comment

You already posted this under the "cool cache containers" thread and received several comments. Why are you posting it in a new separate thread? Trying to find the one cacher who will say "sure, no problem"? Not to mention the fact that there have been several threads dedicated to caches in the ground.

Lock time!

 

He's posting to a new thread by request so that we can keep all the discussion on the subject here instead of muddying up the CCC thread.

 

Here here. As well gratebear if you had read in the CCC thread it was asked to make a new thread as too keep it out of the CCC's thread.

 

As well, I asked a specific opinion, and regardless of what any one says, I am and already have sought permission to place the cache as intended. As well I will not place it with out that permission.

 

Once I have permission I will contact the reviewer and hash it out then. There are caches of this type, and placed with permission.

 

I will not do it if it can't be done, although I will intently seek a way to do it.

 

As well, should I come across an existing hole, it may just get placed there, provided it is okay to do so.

Link to comment

Even though the coring tool may be blunt, it still removes earth and if you were to remove the cache, then it would be obvious something was missing.

 

Toz may say this is someone enforcing their own version of the guidelines. However, I believe the spirit of that particular guideline is to ensure that the ground is not removed.

 

 

No offence but this makes no sense to me. If the rule was supposed to be "No digging" then it should say "No digging" If it meant to be "Do not remove the earth", then it should say that.

 

The rule is:

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.

 

If this game was real life, and you took this to court, certainly they would rule that it would be ok to dig a hole with your bare hands. And the term "bury" to me means to completely cover with dirt, not to just surround the object with dirt. I think the rule was more meant to stop geocachers from digging holes all over the place looking for the cache. If the access to the cache opening were exposed and the rest of the container was in the ground, I would think that is ok.

Edited by pmolan
Link to comment

Both valid points.

 

This rule is definitely for stopping holes everywhere. I will be getting specific permission to place this. As well it will not be buried. Nor will any tool be used for retrieving it.

 

I am sure it will be allowed as long as I have specific permission to do so.

Link to comment

Anyone who thinks that removing soil by "coring" is within the guidelines is an idiot.

 

***This is not a personal attack. It's a generic comment. It is not meant to address any one person's opinion or thought.

 

If that was the case, a better choice of a word other then stupid would be much better.

 

By saying, "Anyone who thinks that removing soil by "coring" is within the guidelines is an idiot." you are insinuating that I am an idiot.

 

Perhaps something like this would be less of an attack,

 

"Anyone who thinks that removing soil by "coring" is within the guidelines should consult a reviewer.."

 

As your comment was, that would be called offensive.

Link to comment

ive seen caches that were in the ground, ie, an underground sprinkler head, this kind of cache has to be "dug" to get the container in the ground, your not gonna stomp it into the ground. explain to Groundspeak, i believe Groundspeak is refering to finding a cache and a cacher has to dig it up to get it. my 2 cents worth.

Link to comment

Anyone who thinks that removing soil by "coring" is within the guidelines is an idiot.

 

***This is not a personal attack. It's a generic comment. It is not meant to address any one person's opinion or thought.

 

If that was the case, a better choice of a word other then stupid would be much better.

 

By saying, "Anyone who thinks that removing soil by "coring" is within the guidelines is an idiot." you are insinuating that I am an idiot.

 

Perhaps something like this would be less of an attack,

 

"Anyone who thinks that removing soil by "coring" is within the guidelines should consult a reviewer.."

 

As your comment was, that would be called offensive.

 

To clarify and demonstrate how it's not a personal attack, I offer the following.

 

I really don't believe that you think coring is within the guidelines. I believe you are (1) stirring the pot and (2) intent on breaking the rules.

 

Quite honestly, it really tweaks my melon when people decide to play THIS game with their own rules, ignoring (and pretending to reinterpret) the guidelines.

Edited by bittsen
Link to comment

I have a cache that would have to be partially in the ground.

 

Would coring the ground, which is by definition, "not digging" nor will a pointy, or sharp tool be used, or any kind of object to dig. Simply a piece of pipe driven into the ground, and then pulled out removing a core of dirt?

 

Next.....

 

If a hole existed already, and I did not make said hole. And I did not make it to place a cache, and I was given permission to place a cache in said hole..... Would that be a violation of the rules????

 

 

It will not be "Buried"

 

According to dictionary.com...

Dig (verb)

4. to form or excavate (a hole, tunnel, etc.) by removing material

 

Which is exactly what "coring" is. Just because the definition does not use the word "dig" does not mean the word is, by definition, "not digging".

 

To murder someone is to end their life. I didn't use the work "kill", so "kill" /= "murder". You logic is flawed.

Edited by Pork King
Link to comment

ive seen caches that were in the ground, ie, an underground sprinkler head, this kind of cache has to be "dug" to get the container in the ground, your not gonna stomp it into the ground. explain to Groundspeak, i believe Groundspeak is refering to finding a cache and a cacher has to dig it up to get it. my 2 cents worth.

 

I have found several disguised as sprinkler heads and most of them have little to no impact on their surroundings. I've accidently pulled up a 'real' sprinkler head before finding the fake one.

 

As least that's my observation...

Link to comment

ive seen caches that were in the ground, ie, an underground sprinkler head, this kind of cache has to be "dug" to get the container in the ground, your not gonna stomp it into the ground. explain to Groundspeak, i believe Groundspeak is refering to finding a cache and a cacher has to dig it up to get it. my 2 cents worth.

 

Your 2 cents is wrong.

 

From the guidelines.

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

Link to comment

If I core an apple am I digging the apple??

 

If I core Ice, am i digging the ice?

 

What ever its a moot point. I am seeking permission already. It won't matter interpretations of definitions or wording of rules.

 

If i get permission to place it, and the reviewer will publish it, I am gonna use a dadgum shovel, and a trowel,and a few other objects used to dig B)

Link to comment

I say hide it.

 

If it YOUR land, or land you are given the OK to dig on, then do it!

Those are cool cache hides, i have found 1 in a sprinker head (mixed in the yard with real ones) and once in a PCV pipe. Both were on privet land and the business owner gave the cache hider the OK.

 

Now if it is in a park, or public land, then no. Geocache rules say not to do that....

Link to comment

If I core an apple am I digging the apple??

 

Yes, you are digging into the apple.

 

If I core Ice, am i digging the ice?

 

Yes, you are digging into the ice.

 

Same goes for anything else you "core"... asphalt, sand, wood, bologna... Whatever.

Edited by Pork King
Link to comment

ive seen caches that were in the ground, ie, an underground sprinkler head, this kind of cache has to be "dug" to get the container in the ground, your not gonna stomp it into the ground. explain to Groundspeak, i believe Groundspeak is refering to finding a cache and a cacher has to dig it up to get it. my 2 cents worth.

 

Your 2 cents is wrong.

 

From the guidelines.

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

 

then we need to report all the sprinkler head caches and half buried pvc caches that are hidden and get them archived for "breaking" the rules. easy enough.

Link to comment

I tried to get the final stage of my cache (an ice chest) to be approved buried to the top door, therefore nobody would have to dig it up, just open it, it was sunk into the ground, well, it obviously got shot down, and now that i think about it, i like it better out in the complete open, because due to the other stuff scattered about where it is it looks nothing out of place there, i love it now. thanks reviewers for smiting me!

 

come to think of it you know what you could always do,

get a planter, an empty one, put your cache in that, put soil around it, and a fake plant on top of it, then its under dirt, but you didnt upset mother natures fragile crust to put your cache there. same concept, just not breaking the rules.

Edited by ashnikes
Link to comment

I think some folks here are more interested in busting your balls than the displacing of some earth, or the following of a percieved rule. Go and place your cache. You don't need to provide any more explaination to the reviewer than you feel is needed. If he/she has questions, let he/she bring it up.

 

Honestly, that is a cool cache that is going to get ALOT of positive comments from the folks who find it. Nobody who finds it is going to complain that they pulled it from a sleave inserted into the ground.

Link to comment
Go and place your cache. You don't need to provide any more explaination to the reviewer than you feel is needed. If he/she has questions, let he/she bring it up.

 

There are a couple of problems with it now though.

 

One is the fact that he's already shown it in the forums.

 

The other is the fact that reviewers hunt caches just like the rest of us do. It would be much better to tell the reviewer up front that it was placed with explicit permission rather than have the reviewer stumble upon it while out caching and then archive it.

 

Also, as a general rule, it is always better to bring things up that a reviewer may have questions about before s/he has to ask. That way the reviewer knows that you have read and understand the guideline involved. If you wait for them to ask questions, they may not be so confident that you know what you are doing and whether or not they should publish the cache.

Link to comment

ive seen caches that were in the ground, ie, an underground sprinkler head, this kind of cache has to be "dug" to get the container in the ground, your not gonna stomp it into the ground. explain to Groundspeak, i believe Groundspeak is refering to finding a cache and a cacher has to dig it up to get it. my 2 cents worth.

 

Your 2 cents is wrong.

 

From the guidelines.

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

 

then we need to report all the sprinkler head caches and half buried pvc caches that are hidden and get them archived for "breaking" the rules. easy enough.

 

Sounds good to me. But the standing argument and the accepted standard is that if it can be stepped into the ground it passes muster. A couple of days ago I could have stepped a middling sized cacher into my back yard. Man that was one hell of a storm.

Link to comment
then we need to report all the sprinkler head caches and half buried pvc caches that are hidden and get them archived for "breaking" the rules. easy enough.

 

That might be a good project. I'm not really sure how those pass the test. Even if you manage to stomp one into wet soil, there's still gonna be a nice hole when you decide to remove it. And considering the damage cachers often cause to surrounding sprinklers.... well, that's a whole separate discussion. B)

Link to comment

It's the diameter that makes a difference. Something an inch thick can easily be pushed into the ground. A 5 inch wide PVC pipe seems like an excavation of some sort took place. However, I found one like that which appeared to violate the guidelines, but when I was walking away from it, I managed to create an identical hide place as my foot went into the ground nearly up to my knee. I pulled it out and walked around a bit trying to duplicate the experience and did it again. That part of the forest had hollow earth spots which probably was from a past fire. If you look around enough you may stumble apon a ready made spot.

Link to comment

You already posted this under the "cool cache containers" thread and received several comments. Why are you posting it in a new separate thread? Trying to find the one cacher who will say "sure, no problem"? Not to mention the fact that there have been several threads dedicated to caches in the ground.

Lock time!

 

He's posting to a new thread by request so that we can keep all the discussion on the subject here instead of muddying up the CCC thread.

But, why is there a need to keep discussing this? In fact, I don't really understand why it's an issue. Let's just fess up to the fact that there are more than a few caches that have been placed where it is quite obvious that some type of earth displacement has taken place. If 99 out of 100 cachers say that it is against the "guidelines" to do so, is that going to completely stop this from happening? I don't think so. Maybe a few will be inclined not to place caches like this, but it's still going to happen.

Ah, it's just that I get very tired of seeing the same old things getting beaten to death. If anyone here happens to follow Cruise Critic and the subject of "can I bring beer/wine/liquor on board/" keeps coming up, you know what I mean.

Cheers!

Link to comment

You already posted this under the "cool cache containers" thread and received several comments. Why are you posting it in a new separate thread? Trying to find the one cacher who will say "sure, no problem"? Not to mention the fact that there have been several threads dedicated to caches in the ground.

Lock time!

 

He's posting to a new thread by request so that we can keep all the discussion on the subject here instead of muddying up the CCC thread.

But, why is there a need to keep discussing this? In fact, I don't really understand why it's an issue. Let's just fess up to the fact that there are more than a few caches that have been placed where it is quite obvious that some type of earth displacement has taken place. If 99 out of 100 cachers say that it is against the "guidelines" to do so, is that going to completely stop this from happening? I don't think so. Maybe a few will be inclined not to place caches like this, but it's still going to happen.

Ah, it's just that I get very tired of seeing the same old things getting beaten to death. If anyone here happens to follow Cruise Critic and the subject of "can I bring beer/wine/liquor on board/" keeps coming up, you know what I mean.

Cheers!

 

The hope is that we can prevent a couple of these caches from pissing off some ranger/park manager/landowner/whoever. But if you don't wish to participate then by all means, read a different thread.

Link to comment
But, why is there a need to keep discussing this? In fact, I don't really understand why it's an issue. Let's just fess up to the fact that there are more than a few caches that have been placed where it is quite obvious that some type of earth displacement has taken place. If 99 out of 100 cachers say that it is against the "guidelines" to do so, is that going to completely stop this from happening? I don't think so. Maybe a few will be inclined not to place caches like this, but it's still going to happen.

Ah, it's just that I get very tired of seeing the same old things getting beaten to death. If anyone here happens to follow Cruise Critic and the subject of "can I bring beer/wine/liquor on board/" keeps coming up, you know what I mean.

Cheers!

 

Well, normally I would have answered Ni! to this discussion because you are right, it does come up at least once a month.

 

However, since I requested the discussion be moved to a new thread, I felt the need to offer a proper answer. B)

Link to comment

You already posted this under the "cool cache containers" thread and received several comments. Why are you posting it in a new separate thread? Trying to find the one cacher who will say "sure, no problem"? Not to mention the fact that there have been several threads dedicated to caches in the ground.

Lock time!

 

He's posting to a new thread by request so that we can keep all the discussion on the subject here instead of muddying up the CCC thread.

But, why is there a need to keep discussing this? In fact, I don't really understand why it's an issue. Let's just fess up to the fact that there are more than a few caches that have been placed where it is quite obvious that some type of earth displacement has taken place. If 99 out of 100 cachers say that it is against the "guidelines" to do so, is that going to completely stop this from happening? I don't think so. Maybe a few will be inclined not to place caches like this, but it's still going to happen.

Ah, it's just that I get very tired of seeing the same old things getting beaten to death. If anyone here happens to follow Cruise Critic and the subject of "can I bring beer/wine/liquor on board/" keeps coming up, you know what I mean.

Cheers!

 

The hope is that we can prevent a couple of these caches from pissing off some ranger/park manager/landowner/whoever. But if you don't wish to participate then by all means, read a different thread.

"don't wish to participate"? What does that mean? Is it against the "guidelines" to offer an opinion? My point is that this topic comes up over and over and over, the responses are always the same, and if those who ask the question made a slight effort to research the issue, would be fairly well informed. As for this particular thread, am I wrong in thinking that the OP is convinced there is no violation of the "guidelines"?

Link to comment
But, why is there a need to keep discussing this? In fact, I don't really understand why it's an issue. Let's just fess up to the fact that there are more than a few caches that have been placed where it is quite obvious that some type of earth displacement has taken place. If 99 out of 100 cachers say that it is against the "guidelines" to do so, is that going to completely stop this from happening? I don't think so. Maybe a few will be inclined not to place caches like this, but it's still going to happen.

Ah, it's just that I get very tired of seeing the same old things getting beaten to death. If anyone here happens to follow Cruise Critic and the subject of "can I bring beer/wine/liquor on board/" keeps coming up, you know what I mean.

Cheers!

 

Well, normally I would have answered Ni! to this discussion because you are right, it does come up at least once a month.

 

However, since I requested the discussion be moved to a new thread, I felt the need to offer a proper answer. B)

thumbs%20up.jpg

Link to comment

Even though the coring tool may be blunt, it still removes earth and if you were to remove the cache, then it would be obvious something was missing.

 

Toz may say this is someone enforcing their own version of the guidelines. However, I believe the spirit of that particular guideline is to ensure that the ground is not removed.

 

 

No offence but this makes no sense to me. If the rule was supposed to be "No digging" then it should say "No digging" If it meant to be "Do not remove the earth", then it should say that.

 

The rule is:

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.

 

If this game was real life, and you took this to court, certainly they would rule that it would be ok to dig a hole with your bare hands. And the term "bury" to me means to completely cover with dirt, not to just surround the object with dirt. I think the rule was more meant to stop geocachers from digging holes all over the place looking for the cache. If the access to the cache opening were exposed and the rest of the container was in the ground, I would think that is ok.

First of all, GeoBain is wrong. I would not say that a cache that was archived because a corer was used to dig a hole was someone creating a new interpretation of the guidelines. I do think that pointy tool should just say tool so we don't have people trying to get around the guideline by asking, "Can I use dynamite to blow up a hole?"

 

I also believe that is is ok to use your hands to dig holes, but there is also the deface guideline. If you are altering the landscape of the park so that some significant defacement would remain after the cache is removed then you may be in violation of that rule. A small hole would probable fill itself shortly after a cache is removed. A larger hole would remain a longer time, perhaps requiring that someone repair the damage.

 

Second the interpretation of the guidelines has always been dig, despite the word bury being used. If we were not allowed to bury caches you could not bury it in a pile of rocks, or under sticks, or under dead leaves. My interpretation is that you can bury a cache under soil as well so long a shovel, trowel, or other pointy object (or other tool such as a sod corer) is not used.

 

The word bury is there for historic reasons. The National Parks banned geocaches because they imagined caches as buried treasure. They imagined the damage that could be done to their parks if geocachers arrived with shovels and other tools to dig holes in order to bury caches or to dig hole searching for buried caches. The issue was always digging holes in the ground, but the fear was because we were going to hide buried treasure. The guidelines use the word "bury" to dissuade geocachers from hiding buried treasure and to inform land managers that geocaching is not about buried treasure. However the true issue is digging holes. (Note that some land managers don't like it when geocachers collect rocks or sticks to bury caches, they prefer the indigenous materials be left in place at their parks, however this has not been made into a general rule because is doesn't sound as scary as people digging lots of holes.)

Link to comment

At the end of the day it doesn't make any difference at all what anybody in this thread thinks of the legality of this hide - the only person you have to convince is your reviewer.

I'm assuming, before you started all this, you emailed him (or her) to ask their opinion???

Link to comment

Both valid points.

 

This rule is definitely for stopping holes everywhere. I will be getting specific permission to place this. As well it will not be buried. Nor will any tool be used for retrieving it.

 

I am sure it will be allowed as long as I have specific permission to do so.

make sure its not a trip hazard or way one can turn an ankle as you put the land manager/owner liable if someone should get hurt when the cache is installed.

Link to comment

Anyone who thinks that removing soil by "coring" is within the guidelines is an idiot.

 

***This is not a personal attack. It's a generic comment. It is not meant to address any one person's opinion or thought.

 

If that was the case, a better choice of a word other then stupid would be much better.

 

By saying, "Anyone who thinks that removing soil by "coring" is within the guidelines is an idiot." you are insinuating that I am an idiot.

 

Perhaps something like this would be less of an attack,

 

"Anyone who thinks that removing soil by "coring" is within the guidelines should consult a reviewer.."

 

As your comment was, that would be called offensive.

How about STOP, place your cache and move along?

Link to comment

If I use a garden hose to clean a window screen and you are sitting on the other side are you any less wet than if I just turned the hose on you? Try to understand the why and stop splitting the hairs.

 

+1

 

It is becoming all to common for cache hiders to circumvent the guideline by coming up with a semantic interpretation of the language rather than following the spirit of the guideline. The point of the guideline is not to prevent you from using certain tools to hide a cache. Accurate or not, there is a perception by non-geocahers that geocaches are buried. Environmentally sensitive land managers don't want people creating holes in the ground on the property they own or manage. It doesn't matter if a hole in the ground was create by a shovel, someones hands, a power washer or a stick of dynamite. All they're going to see is a hole in the ground that didn't exist before a cache was placed there. A city park manager that discovers that geocachers have disturbed the environment in just one of the parks could easily prompt them to create a ban on geocaching in all of the city parks they manage.

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 0
×
×
  • Create New...