Would this be a violation of the rules?

[+bflentje]

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.

 

Your disclaimer doesn't release you of your duty to be a kind and compassionate citizen.

[+bflentje]

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

 

I don't know the real definition of digging by the powers that be but by this post, it sounds like you already know the answer you want. I wouldn't dare name call like other forum low lifes but it does beg the question, why would you ask publicly if you are trying to justify the answer you want? Generally speaking I don't knowingly violate the rules but if I wanted to do something questionable, that you know is questionable, either just hide it and move on or better yet, do the right thing and forget it.

[+briansnat]

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.

 

Well you aren't a reviewer and I can assure you that reviewers do not care about the legalese of the guideline. They understand the spirit of it and the reasoning behind it and would not knowingly publish such a cache.

[+Team Cotati]

And how would they 'know'?

[+joranda]

No rules broken here, core away. Just don't use a pointy shovel or trowel. People that <foul language removed> about this need to have better things to do. I mean, really.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Motorcycle_Mama

[+pmolan]

According to dictionary.com...

Dig (verb)

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

 

The rules do not state that you cannot dig.

 

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 rule here is clear. "DO NOT BRING ALCOHOL ON BOARD" There is no Bury, Dig, Pointy tool confusion. If the rulemakers intended for you not to dig, the rule should be "DO NOT DIG" There are much clearer ways to state that rule.

 

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.

 

Rules shouldnt be subject to interpretation. It is or it isnt. Just as there is no such thing as a "complete stop" at a stop sign. You stopped or you didn't. There should be no room for interpretation of "How slow is considered a slow enough to be considered a stop.

 

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.

 

There is no spirit mentioned, in fact there is no earth mentioned. If I wanted to hide a cache in a bucked of ice cream then it would be "against the guidelines" because I had to dig out the ice cream to make room.

 

I think it ultimately comes down to the rule makers. Make clearer rules without all of the loopholes and there will be no room for arguement.

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

And how would they 'know'?

 

Perhaps they find it while they are out caching or perhaps someone reports the violation.

 

No rules broken here, core away. Just don't use a pointy shovel or trowel. People that <foul language removed> about this need to have better things to do. I mean, really.

 

That is the attitude that leads to problems with landowners/managers. It can lead to caching being banned in more areas. It is sidewalk lawyers that split the hairs of the rules that make it difficult for the rest of us. Take a few minutes to contemplate why the rules were put in place. Be honest with yourself when considering the motives of the different sides of the conversation.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Motorcycle_Mama

[+Team Cotati]

No rules broken here, core away. Just don't use a pointy shovel or trowel. People that <foul language removed> about this need to have better things to do. I mean, really.

How about an auger? Would that be acceptable as well?

Edited June 26, 2010 by Motorcycle_Mama

[+Team Cotati]

A post hole digger?

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

According to dictionary.com...

Dig (verb)

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

 

The rules do not state that you cannot dig.

 

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 rule here is clear. "DO NOT BRING ALCOHOL ON BOARD" There is no Bury, Dig, Pointy tool confusion. If the rulemakers intended for you not to dig, the rule should be "DO NOT DIG" There are much clearer ways to state that rule.

 

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.

 

Rules shouldnt be subject to interpretation. It is or it isnt. Just as there is no such thing as a "complete stop" at a stop sign. You stopped or you didn't. There should be no room for interpretation of "How slow is considered a slow enough to be considered a stop.

 

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.

 

There is no spirit mentioned, in fact there is no earth mentioned. If I wanted to hide a cache in a bucked of ice cream then it would be "against the guidelines" because I had to dig out the ice cream to make room.

 

I think it ultimately comes down to the rule makers. Make clearer rules without all of the loopholes and there will be no room for arguement.

 

Perhaps GS should hire lawyers to write the rules. Do you think that would be better? The book would be thick as a phone book.

[+pmolan]

Perhaps GS should hire lawyers to write the rules. Do you think that would be better? The book would be thick as a phone book.

 

Im sure that there are enough cachers that are lawyers out there.

 

This is a game, just like Monopoly. If you get the "Go directly to Jail" card and they didnt write "Do not pass GO, do not collect $200" Just imagine the chaos that would have been created when people wanted to cash in on that card.

[+ventura_kids]

Oh cool.

Nice cache container.

Very clever.

We find those type of containers around here all the time....oops...I mean never.

[+roziecakes]

 

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.

 

I've seen caches like this in front of people's homes or in places where they had permission to put them; and I thought they were pretty clever. That's an alternative...

[+briansnat]

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.

 

Actually what we are interested in the long term prospects of this sport. The guidelines aren't there because someone decided we needed a few arbitrary rules, they were written in response to real issues that could (and in some cases have) jeopardized geocaching.

 

And don't bet on nobody complaining, illegal caches are reported to reviewers all the time. And remember, reviewers are geocachers too. There is a chance that a reviewer might be one of the people who finds it and the cache will be immediately archived.

 

Very bad advice on your part.

[+mchaos]

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.

 

Yes, forums are for flaming. It doesn't bother me. I will go through the proper channels.

 

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.

 

Its all good. I will have permission when I place it or I will not place it.

 

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!

 

You don't need to comment on the thread either but you do. Every time you post a reply, you are adding to the discussion. So ask your self your own question. No one told you that you had to click on this thread, and you are not obligated too.

[Clan Riffster]

But, why is there a need to keep discussing this?

Because, roughly once every 42 days, some cacher, who is utterly clueless regarding the guidelines, will be wandering through Home Depot, see something like a PVC drain cap and decide "That'll make one heck of a cache!". At some point in the process, they will realize that it might be a problem, so they come here, hoping to garner support. Often with the lame excuse of, "But I've seen it done before", or, "I found something that will make a hole, which is not very pointy". The spirit of the guideline becomes irrelevant in their desperate attempt to find a loophole.

[+mchaos]

But, why is there a need to keep discussing this?

Because, roughly once every 42 days, some cacher, who is utterly clueless regarding the guidelines, will be wandering through Home Depot, see something like a PVC drain cap and decide "That'll make one heck of a cache!". At some point in the process, they will realize that it might be a problem, so they come here, hoping to garner support. Often with the lame excuse of, "But I've seen it done before", or, "I found something that will make a hole, which is not very pointy". The spirit of the guideline becomes irrelevant in their desperate attempt to find a loophole.

 

Well i am well aware of the rules. Also I did not come here hoping to support my cause. I have already seen this type of hide out there, as well I have seen other hides that require some digging to place. It gets out there, so obviously it is allowed under certain conditions.

[+narcissa]

Well i am well aware of the rules. Also I did not come here hoping to support my cause. I have already seen this type of hide out there, as well I have seen other hides that require some digging to place. It gets out there, so obviously it is allowed under certain conditions.

 

It's not uncommon for cache owners to omit details that would raise red flags with a reviewer, and that's how most blatant guideline violations get published. Reviewers can't personally check each cache.

 

As far as knowing the rules is concerned, I think you fail. One of the first things it says in the guidelines is this:

 

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.

 

Even with permission of a property owner, some reviewers will decline to publish a cache like this because of the impact it has on public perception. Destructive cache hides - with or without permission - make the game look bad to outsiders.

[+bittsen]

It really boils down to a few things.

For lack of a better word, geocaching is a game. The game has rules.

If you don't want to play by the rules, or feel the need to cheat, then don't play the game. If you get caught breaking the rules, don't whine if you are penalized.

 

***DISCLAIMER: Yes, I know there is no score or winners of the game. Yes, I know that geocaching is an activity or hobby but the word "game" makes the point.

[Clan Riffster]

I have already seen this type of hide out there, as well I have seen other hides that require some digging to place. It gets out there, so obviously it is allowed under certain conditions.

Yup. That's the one. The lame, "but I've seen it before" excuse. I think I may have mentioned it earlier. It's a pretty common excuse from folks who violate the guidelines. Heck, I see it all the time from folks who violate state laws, (but officer, everybody does it), so I wouldn't expect this playground to be any different. There will always be a subset of any community that feels the rules, such as they may be, don't apply to them.

 

By creating the hide you propose, you are directly contributing to the problem which the guidelines are trying to avoid. Some other cacher is going to see your cache, figure "It must be OK since mchaos did it", and replicate your hide. Yours is the mentality that got caches banned for quite some time in our national parks.

[+thedeadpirate]

Rules shouldnt be subject to interpretation.

I guess that's why they're called guidelines.

[+bittsen]

Everyone else was speeding too...

[+joranda]

No rules broken here, core away. Just don't use a pointy shovel or trowel. People that <foul language removed> about this need to have better things to do. I mean, really.

 

I did not know that was foul language. Sorry. How about the word "gripe". It does mean the same.

[+tozainamboku]

 

Rules shouldnt be subject to interpretation. It is or it isnt. Just as there is no such thing as a "complete stop" at a stop sign. You stopped or you didn't. There should be no room for interpretation of "How slow is considered a slow enough to be considered a stop.

 

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.

 

There is no spirit mentioned, in fact there is no earth mentioned. If I wanted to hide a cache in a bucked of ice cream then it would be "against the guidelines" because I had to dig out the ice cream to make room.

 

I think it ultimately comes down to the rule makers. Make clearer rules without all of the loopholes and there will be no room for arguement.

The guidelines are not some arbitrary rules. Rather they are a list of things that should be taken into consideration when placing a cache. If cachers all used common sense we would have no need for guidelines. People would know not to dig in public parks without first getting permission. The issue isn't always just what damage the hider or finder might do but how these hides might be perceived by land managers, other cachers, and the general public. Cachers have been known to copy hides they have seen that were placed with permission or under some earlier version of the guidelines, and believe this gives them a green light to copy these hides. So even when you have permission to dig in order to hide a cache, the reviewer is likely going want you to at least point out that you have permission for this hide. Reviewers are given some leeway to apply guideline to the particular situation of a cache.

 

I agree that the guideline ought to say "No digging" rather than "No burying". After all if caches cannot be buried you had better get busy posting needs archived on all those caches buried under piles of rocks or sticks. The use of "bury" has some historical significance. Land managers worried about people descending on their parks with shovels to dig up "buried treasure". The guideline was written in part to emphasize to land managers that geocaching is not about buried treasure. However the real concern is the damage that is done by digging holes in the park. This applies both to hiding and finding caches.

 

I think those trying to pick apart the guidelines now are showing just how much they misunderstand the purpose of the guidelines. The guidelines have been modified when players found them unclear. In some instances that has made them unnecessarily more restrictive. If people start finding dull (not pointy) tools to dig with and argue that they are allowed the guideline, the guideline will be change to forbid any tool. If someone digs a big enough hole with just their hand and then argues that no tool was use, then any digging will be forbidden. You might claim that the guidelines could just give dimension for the largest old you can dig. People will start to claim that you dig a different shape that the dimensions don't apply, or that depending on the soil the largest hole that wouldn't cause damage would be different.

 

If you could write unambiguous guidelines and close all the loopholes that people would try to find, we would have a set of guidelines that would would be far to difficult and too long for people to read. Geocachers are expected to read the guidelines before hiding a cache. If they become too long or too legalistic, no one would read them. As it stands now if some part is unclear you can ask your reviewer or ask a question in the forum. In most cases, anyone with a little intelligence can understand the intent (what has been called the spirit) of the guidelines. If you really think the guidelines are meant to stop someone from digging in ice cream to hide a cache I have a lot of concern that you might not be able to understand any guideline.

[+joranda]

And how would they 'know'?

 

Perhaps they find it while they are out caching or perhaps someone reports the violation.

 

No rules broken here, core away. Just don't use a pointy shovel or trowel. People that <foul language removed> about this need to have better things to do. I mean, really.

 

That is the attitude that leads to problems with landowners/managers. It can lead to caching being banned in more areas. It is sidewalk lawyers that split the hairs of the rules that make it difficult for the rest of us. Take a few minutes to contemplate why the rules were put in place. Be honest with yourself when considering the motives of the different sides of the conversation.

 

So should I make it a personal cursade to run around and have all the caches that are placed in that manner archived because they are against the rules? I think that would split hairs with people here that geo cache. There are so many that are stuck in the ground and drilled into trees and other wooden items. Should they all be archived? They are against the rules that you talk about.

[+narcissa]

So should I make it a personal cursade to run around and have all the caches that are placed in that manner archived because they are against the rules? I think that would split hairs with people here that geo cache. There are so many that are stuck in the ground and drilled into trees and other wooden items. Should they all be archived? They are against the rules that you talk about.

 

Caches like that should be mentioned to the local reviewer. Photos help.

 

They don't necessarily need to be archived - sometimes they can be corrected and brought into compliance with the guidelines.

 

Some cachers operate with the sadly misguided idea that they are doing other cachers a favour by keeping these things a secret. Geocachers need to be self-policing - if we aren't, the game will become banned in more and more places.

[Clan Riffster]

There are so many that are stuck in the ground and drilled into trees and other wooden items. Should they all be archived?

Is this for real? Are you seriously asking that question? Tell ya' what. Since the whole concept of why we have guidelines seems to have escaped you, could you share your thoughts on the matter? You tell us. Should the guidelines be followed? If you believe they should be followed, can you tell us why you believe this? If cachers decide to ignore the guidelines, should there be consequences? If there should be consequences, what should they be? If a cacher comes here looking for advice on his cache, and it is clearly in violation, (or like in this case, simply looking for folks to agree that his violation should be ignored), should we, as a community promote the guidelines, or should we tell them to ignore them? If we are out caching and we find a cache that clearly violates the guidelines, should we just shrug and stick our heads in the sand, or should we take a certain amount of responsibility for the world around us by letting the reviewers know what we found?

 

You tell us.

[+bittsen]

There are so many that are stuck in the ground and drilled into trees and other wooden items. Should they all be archived?

Is this for real? Are you seriously asking that question? Tell ya' what. Since the whole concept of why we have guidelines seems to have escaped you, could you share your thoughts on the matter? You tell us. Should the guidelines be followed? If you believe they should be followed, can you tell us why you believe this? If cachers decide to ignore the guidelines, should there be consequences? If there should be consequences, what should they be? If a cacher comes here looking for advice on his cache, and it is clearly in violation, (or like in this case, simply looking for folks to agree that his violation should be ignored), should we, as a community promote the guidelines, or should we tell them to ignore them? If we are out caching and we find a cache that clearly violates the guidelines, should we just shrug and stick our heads in the sand, or should we take a certain amount of responsibility for the world around us by letting the reviewers know what we found?

 

You tell us.

 

Oh SNAP!

You are going all psychological!!

 

I went with the belief that this guy wasn't really looking for an answer. He was trying to stir the pot. He knows his cache is against the guidelines but just likes the attention it's getting.

 

But your psychological trap is really really kewl.

[Clan Riffster]

Geocachers need to be self-policing

Exactly right. If we don't police ourselves, other agencies will police us. The easiest way to police an activity is to ban it. No fuss, no muss, no pesky permits to worry about, no pesky rules to enforce. NPS picked that solution. Hopefully the folks that feel guidelines should be ignored when they are inconvenient won't cause other agencies to follow suit.

[Clan Riffster]

You are going all psychological!!

Psychology is hard. Narcissa and I are going shopping.

[+joranda]

There are so many that are stuck in the ground and drilled into trees and other wooden items. Should they all be archived?

Is this for real? Are you seriously asking that question? Tell ya' what. Since the whole concept of why we have guidelines seems to have escaped you, could you share your thoughts on the matter? You tell us. Should the guidelines be followed? If you believe they should be followed, can you tell us why you believe this? If cachers decide to ignore the guidelines, should there be consequences? If there should be consequences, what should they be? If a cacher comes here looking for advice on his cache, and it is clearly in violation, (or like in this case, simply looking for folks to agree that his violation should be ignored), should we, as a community promote the guidelines, or should we tell them to ignore them? If we are out caching and we find a cache that clearly violates the guidelines, should we just shrug and stick our heads in the sand, or should we take a certain amount of responsibility for the world around us by letting the reviewers know what we found?

 

You tell us.

 

Oh SNAP!

You are going all psychological!!

 

I went with the belief that this guy wasn't really looking for an answer. He was trying to stir the pot. He knows his cache is against the guidelines but just likes the attention it's getting.

 

But your psychological trap is really really kewl.

 

 

Whos cache is against the guidelines?

[+briansnat]

And how would they 'know'?

 

Perhaps they find it while they are out caching or perhaps someone reports the violation.

 

No rules broken here, core away. Just don't use a pointy shovel or trowel. People that <foul language removed> about this need to have better things to do. I mean, really.

 

That is the attitude that leads to problems with landowners/managers. It can lead to caching being banned in more areas. It is sidewalk lawyers that split the hairs of the rules that make it difficult for the rest of us. Take a few minutes to contemplate why the rules were put in place. Be honest with yourself when considering the motives of the different sides of the conversation.

 

So should I make it a personal cursade to run around and have all the caches that are placed in that manner archived because they are against the rules? I think that would split hairs with people here that geo cache. There are so many that are stuck in the ground and drilled into trees and other wooden items. Should they all be archived?

 

If they violate the guidelines, absolutely. If I see a violation I certainly report it. We all should. That is unless you want to see an increase in park system wide geocaching bans.

[+narcissa]

You are going all psychological!!

Psychology is hard. Narcissa and I are going shopping.

 

For ABS pipes.

[Clan Riffster]

Whos cache is against the guidelines?

I was hoping you could answer that. I read your earlier comment, worded to the effect of, "...so many <caches> drilled into trees...", I was of the assumption that you've actually encountered these yourself. I seem to recall something in the guidelines regarding defacing property. While you might think it is splitting hairs, I would argue that drilling a hole into something would qualify as defacement. I would be willing to bet that any reviewer who read your post would see it the same way.

 

Which begs the question, have you actually located caches that were "drillied into trees"?

 

In your mind, would that be against the guidelines?

 

Which brings to mind my other questions;

 

Should the guidelines be followed? If you believe they should be followed, can you tell us why you believe this? If cachers decide to ignore the guidelines, should there be consequences? If there should be consequences, what should they be? If a cacher comes here looking for advice on his cache, and it is clearly in violation, (or like in the case of the OP, simply looking for folks to agree that his violation should be ignored), should we, as a community promote the guidelines, or should we tell them to ignore them? If we are out caching and we find a cache that clearly violates the guidelines, should we just shrug and stick our heads in the sand, or should we take a certain amount of responsibility for the world around us by letting the reviewers know what we found?

[+pmolan]

If you really think the guidelines are meant to stop someone from digging in ice cream to hide a cache I have a lot of concern that you might not be able to understand any guideline.

 

Well since the "guidelines" do not mention any words remotely similiar to Dirt, Earth, Ground, Rocks, Leaves, then who's to say that it doenst apply to ice cream.

 

Look, Im still a newbie at this but a few of my buddies that got me into this have been doing this for years. I can tell you (without mentioning names) that in one direction from me governed by one reviewer will approve a whole lot more than another reviewer that governs in the other direction. Clearly, among reviewers there is confusion.

[+narcissa]

 

Well since the "guidelines" do not mention any words remotely similiar to Dirt, Earth, Ground, Rocks, Leaves, then who's to say that it doenst apply to ice cream.

 

Look, Im still a newbie at this but a few of my buddies that got me into this have been doing this for years. I can tell you (without mentioning names) that in one direction from me governed by one reviewer will approve a whole lot more than another reviewer that governs in the other direction. Clearly, among reviewers there is confusion.

 

Reviewers have lots of room to exercise their own discretion. This doesn't mean they're confused.

 

Also, reviewers can't act on information they don't have. Some reviewers will give cachers the benefit of the doubt more than others.

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

 

Well since the "guidelines" do not mention any words remotely similiar to Dirt, Earth, Ground, Rocks, Leaves, then who's to say that it doenst apply to ice cream.

 

Look, Im still a newbie at this but a few of my buddies that got me into this have been doing this for years. I can tell you (without mentioning names) that in one direction from me governed by one reviewer will approve a whole lot more than another reviewer that governs in the other direction. Clearly, among reviewers there is confusion.

 

Reviewers have lots of room to exercise their own discretion. This doesn't mean they're confused.

 

Also, reviewers can't act on information they don't have. Some reviewers will give cachers the benefit of the doubt more than others.

 

And reviewers will also give some cachers the benefit of the doubt more than others. If they catch you intentionally misleading them don't expect to get that benefit again.

[+joranda]

Whos cache is against the guidelines?

I was hoping you could answer that. I read your earlier comment, worded to the effect of, "...so many <caches> drilled into trees...", I was of the assumption that you've actually encountered these yourself. I seem to recall something in the guidelines regarding defacing property. While you might think it is splitting hairs, I would argue that drilling a hole into something would qualify as defacement. I would be willing to bet that any reviewer who read your post would see it the same way.

 

Which begs the question, have you actually located caches that were "drillied into trees"?

 

In your mind, would that be against the guidelines?

 

Which brings to mind my other questions;

 

Should the guidelines be followed? If you believe they should be followed, can you tell us why you believe this? If cachers decide to ignore the guidelines, should there be consequences? If there should be consequences, what should they be? If a cacher comes here looking for advice on his cache, and it is clearly in violation, (or like in the case of the OP, simply looking for folks to agree that his violation should be ignored), should we, as a community promote the guidelines, or should we tell them to ignore them? If we are out caching and we find a cache that clearly violates the guidelines, should we just shrug and stick our heads in the sand, or should we take a certain amount of responsibility for the world around us by letting the reviewers know what we found?

 

Have I seen caches drilled into trees and stop signs and support legs and........... Yes I have.

Is it against the guide lines? I think so.

Will I turn them in? I think not.

Edited June 27, 2010 by joranda

[+brslk]

Whos cache is against the guidelines?

I was hoping you could answer that. I read your earlier comment, worded to the effect of, "...so many <caches> drilled into trees...", I was of the assumption that you've actually encountered these yourself. I seem to recall something in the guidelines regarding defacing property. While you might think it is splitting hairs, I would argue that drilling a hole into something would qualify as defacement. I would be willing to bet that any reviewer who read your post would see it the same way.

 

Which begs the question, have you actually located caches that were "drillied into trees"?

 

In your mind, would that be against the guidelines?

 

Which brings to mind my other questions;

 

Should the guidelines be followed? If you believe they should be followed, can you tell us why you believe this? If cachers decide to ignore the guidelines, should there be consequences? If there should be consequences, what should they be? If a cacher comes here looking for advice on his cache, and it is clearly in violation, (or like in the case of the OP, simply looking for folks to agree that his violation should be ignored), should we, as a community promote the guidelines, or should we tell them to ignore them? If we are out caching and we find a cache that clearly violates the guidelines, should we just shrug and stick our heads in the sand, or should we take a certain amount of responsibility for the world around us by letting the reviewers know what we found?

 

Have I seen caches drilled into trees and stop signs and support legs and........... Yes I have.

Is it against the guide lines? I think so.

Will I turn them in? I think not.

 

I think it all comes down to common sense. Not everyone has it. Some people know when they see a hide that might not be quite kosher with the guidelines but can use common sense to see it will result in no harm to the game or anything else.

Kinda like how the reviewers make judgment calls.

Then there are some people who don't have common sense and have to stick to the guidelines almost religiously even when it doesn't concern them. (or they like to preach as such online)

 

If I see something that is detrimental to anything that could affect anything I or others do, I will take action. If not... no.

 

Silly to do otherwise.

[+gtq838]

well here is my take... I've seen tons of caches like this...

 

I admitedly haven't read every clause in the rules but I think the main point is that the cache cannot be buried. even though its in the ground it would not fall into that catagory. plus what would be the difference if you placed it in a drain that already existed on your own property we'll say? none, and you wouldn't be digging a hole then. It may border on technicallities but I doubt any fun loving cachers would complain.

 

I recently found a very cool cache that was a penny laying on the ground when you picked it up it pulled a bison tube out from a pvc tube in the ground. so by the logic of some here this cache would be illegal because he moved dirt. what geocaching.com was trying to avoid is geocachers hunting for caches with shovels and destroying property. this would not be the case here.

 

again just my opinion

 

also anoother thing is if it is questionable then place then ask the reviewer. they are your local authority and might have more insight than just random cachers. if you get the go ahead and have permission from property owner I would say any liability for guildline breakage would fall elsewhere as you have permission to do so. I recently had a question about a cache I wanted to do but its an ALR violation so I'm trying to work around it and give cachers an incentive to do the desired task vs require it. so you common sense and ask for advice and you can probably work this out.

[+briansnat]

I admitedly haven't read every clause in the rules but I think the main point is that the cache cannot be buried. even though its in the ground it would not fall into that catagory. plus what would be the difference if you placed it in a drain that already existed on your own property we'll say? none, and you wouldn't be digging a hole then. It may border on technicallities but I doubt any fun loving cachers would complain.

 

You've placed two caches, which means you've twice checked a box that said you read and understood the guidelines when you submitted your cache. It's unfortunate that you were not being honest. Had you read the guidelines completely you'd know that using an existing hole is fine. That doesn't mean you should get your friend, or a dog to dig the hole and call it an existing hole.

 

The entire point of the guidelines is to keep geocaching as a viable sport. It does the community no favors if you nitpick and use technicalities to get around the guidelines. "I didn't use a pointy object to dig the hole, I used a power washer".

 

Fun loving cachers will alert the reviewers of guideline violations. That is because they enjoy geocaching and want to be able to do so without numerous restrictions or bans being placed on it by the authorities. We are able to practice our sport only through their good graces. The guidelines are there largely to keep us in their good graces.

 

recently found a very cool cache that was a penny laying on the ground when you picked it up it pulled a bison tube out from a pvc tube in the ground. so by the logic of some here this cache would be illegal because he moved dirt. what geocaching.com was trying to avoid is geocachers hunting for caches with shovels and destroying property. this would not be the case here.

 

That is a misconception. This guideline is there because land managers don't want us digging up their parks. When discussing geocaching with land managers it is often one of the first subjects they bring up. Whether the digging occurs when hiding or finding the cache is irrelevant. Metal detectors are unwelcome in many park systems because of the digging involved. I doubt fun loving geocachers want to start seeing geocaching listed on parks "NO" signs between metal detectors and open fires.

 

If the prospect of geocaching bans don't bother you, then by all means look for technicalities to get around the guidelines and ignore guideline violations when you see them.

[+BulldogBlitz]

If the prospect of geocaching bans don't bother you, then by all means look for technicalities to get around the guidelines and ignore guideline violations when you see them.

 

if you are new(er) to the game than say someone who has been in the game since 02...and you run across a cache of theirs which is drilled into something (like a post, phone pole, or ground)....and that cache has been around for 7 years... seems a violation to me, and found by every sacred cow in the state plus people traveling through. the point gets raised of validity to the reviewer. the point gets ignored. should we assume the reviewer IS the CO or at least brother/friend? or are we suggesting that we are self-policing and because the first 50 people to find a cache haven't taken issue with it.... and it hasn't caused the police to confiscate that it must "within the guidelines".

 

come to this forum and ask, and the express letter of the law must be followed. in practice, it is not nearly that pure.

 

p.s. (not a response to briansnat) for those that don't like topics that come up again and again.... start your fresh and original topic or stop hanging around the forum. this stuff is going to happen, sorry.

[+pmolan]

I think it all comes down to common sense. Not everyone has it. Some people know when they see a hide that might not be quite kosher with the guidelines but can use common sense to see it will result in no harm to the game or anything else.

Are the people that wrote these guidelines still around? We're not trying to decode hieroglyphics here. The writer of that rule was very specific about the pointy tools being used. And youre right about common sense, thats why if the guideline simply meant "No Digging" then it should be clear and concise, "No digging of the earth, of any sort is allowed"

 

I read your earlier comment, worded to the effect of, "...so many <caches> drilled into trees...", I was of the assumption that you've actually encountered these yourself. I seem to recall something in the guidelines regarding defacing property. While you might think it is splitting hairs, I would argue that drilling a hole into something would qualify as defacement. I would be willing to bet that any reviewer who read your post would see it the same way.

 

How many fake bird houses are out there that are attached to a tree. They're not held on by rubberbands, yet some areas seem to have an abundance of them and some have none.

[+briansnat]

Are the people that wrote these guidelines still around? We're not trying to decode hieroglyphics here. The writer of that rule was very specific about the pointy tools being used. And youre right about common sense, thats why if the guideline simply meant "No Digging" then it should be clear and concise, "No digging of the earth, of any sort is allowed"

 

They are still around and the guideline has changed over time. I think the shovel/pointy tool reference was added to make allowances for places like beaches where digging in the sand is a common practice and not considered to be a potential issue with land managers.

 

I guess the guidelines can be expanded so they can cover every possible situation, but that would probably quadruple the length and make it even less likely that people will read them.

 

Rather than try and cover every possible situation, the guidelines were written with flexibility in mind. That's why you see a lot of "may not" rather than "shall not". When they were written the expectation was that geocachers will use common sense, rather than try pick them apart looking for loopholes.

 

Perhaps considering human nature and the general lack of common sense, that was a mistake. Eventually Groundspeak may see a need a need to tighten up the guidelines and remove the flexibility. Keep playing country lawyer and you might get your wish.

[+mchaos]

Okay okay,

 

This is getting out of hand. This whole thread was just to get peoples opinions, not to be kicking each others teeth in.

 

some people think my hide would be fine.

 

Some people say don't tell the reviewer and just hide it.

 

Some people say it is a violation.

 

Some people just call people idiots.

 

some people think it is okay as long as you get permission from a land owner.

 

some people just look for any reason to flame.....

 

There is no need to continually beat each other into the ground over this.

 

Not every one here will agree. The facts that remain are that these caches exist. Some with permission and passed legit. Some are out there with out permission and shady info to reviewer.

 

This is life, and the game, and this stuff will keep happening.

[Clan Riffster]

Have I seen caches drilled into trees and stop signs and support legs and........... Yes I have.

Is it against the guide lines? I think so.

Will I turn them in? I think not.

Kewl! Thanx for the response.

Your answer does beg further questions though;

Should the guidelines be followed? If you believe they should be followed, can you tell us why you believe this? If cachers decide to ignore the guidelines, should there be consequences? If there should be consequences, what should they be? If a cacher comes here looking for advice on his cache, and it is clearly in violation, (or like in the case of the OP, simply looking for folks to agree that his violation should be ignored), should we, as a community promote the guidelines, or should we tell them to ignore them?

 

If we are out caching and we find a cache that clearly violates the guidelines, should we just shrug and stick our heads in the sand, or should we take a certain amount of responsibility for the world around us by letting the reviewers know what we found?

 

Scratch that last question. You've already answered it.

[Difficult Run]

Okay okay,

 

This is getting out of hand. This whole thread was just to get peoples opinions, not to be kicking each others teeth in.

Sounds like you're feeling a sore in the gums. The overwhelming opinion here is that your container would be a violation.

 

Even though your idea was creative, it just isn't going to fly on GC.

 

I'd suggest closing this thread and save yourself additional angst.

 

~ Mitch ~

[+briansnat]

Okay okay, This is getting out of hand. This whole thread was just to get peoples opinions, not to be kicking each others teeth in.

 

The point of the so called "teeth kicking" is to correct the bad advice being dispensed by some and erroneous interpretations of the guidelines.

 

Yes these caches exist and they are largely guideline violations. A handful may have permission, but reviewers in general try to discourage them because of the monkey see, monkey do factor.

 

You may have been given permission to place a cache and dig a hole on your uncle's land. The people find that cache might think it's a grand idea and try to copy it in the nearby state park, not understanding the distinction that you had permission.

[+tozainamboku]

p.s. (not a response to briansnat) for those that don't like topics that come up again and again.... start your fresh and original topic or stop hanging around the forum. this stuff is going to happen, sorry.

Discussion of the guidelines is IMO never off topic. This thread is a good indication of why. The guidelines are not crystal clear. They are purposely left open to interpretation. People will often ask questions on why cache A was allowed but cache B was denied. And of course we will always get the country lawyers who parse each word and try to twist the guidelines to fit the cache they want to get approved (or rejected).

 

One thing that I feel is missing is a discussion of the rationale for the guidelines. The guidelines have been formed over 10 years and they continue to be modified. The reasons are usually because some cache caused some problem somewhere. The guidelines provide guidance to geocachers to avoid placing caches that cause problems. The rationale for some guidelines is difficult to discern if you don't know the history. The proximity guideline causes the most issues. It's really hard to explain to someone why an arbitrary distance of .1 miles was chosen.

 

The no bury guideline should be easier to understand. It was created to address the concerns of certain land managers who thought that geocaching was about searching for buried treasure and imagined people descending on their parks with shovels and digging up everything. The wording of the guideline reflects this. Because there is another guideline to never deface public or private property, the no bury is actually redundant. The key point is to not damage any property when hiding or searching for the cache. In each location there will be a different tolerance by land manager as to how much soil, rocks, sticks, or leaves can be moved around by geocachers before they take note of the damage. The "no bury" guideline is an attempt to stop any damage before it gets this far. The description of tools that can't be used was an attempt to indicate that you might be able to carry a few rocks to cover your cache, or brush some leaves and soil over your caches but you couldn't did a hole with some tool. The tools are a guideline and not meant to be a complete list of tools you can't use. Common sense might dictate that you couldn't dig a large hole even if you use only your hands as a park manager might not appreciate this. Some parks even have rules that you can't move rocks to cover your cache. The exact level of what you can do will vary and reviewers may be aware of parks that have additional guidance.

 

Of course one might ask why the no bury guideline doesn't mention just parks where there might be a concern with digging or why it doesn't give an exception to holes dug with permission. Again one must look towards the history of the guideline. Even to this day, the media will sometimes refer to geocaching as a GPS hunt for buried treasure. This perception causes difficulties when trying to get permission to hide geocaches in certain parks. The guideline gives geocachers something to point to to correct the misconception. Caches are not buried. Reviewers are reluctant to grant exceptions even for caches hidden on one's own property, because of the strength this gives to the argument to get permission in parks where digging is a concern.

[+bittsen]

well here is my take... I've seen tons of caches like this...

~snip~

 

No you haven't. You have found less than 200 caches and I am positive most of them adhere to the guidelines.