What is 'Buried'?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

You just do not get it, You can not drive a peice of PVC or anything else into the ground to hade a cache,, why would you even recomend the proper way to drive a peice of PVC into the ground. Once anything is driven into the ground it is buried in the eys of ground speak and ground speaks opinion is the only one that counts.

Really? Can you cite Groundspeak saying that?

[+JohnnyVegas]

You just do not get it, You can not drive a peice of PVC or anything else into the ground to hade a cache,, why would you even recomend the proper way to drive a peice of PVC into the ground. Once anything is driven into the ground it is buried in the eys of ground speak and ground speaks opinion is the only one that counts.

Really? Can you cite Groundspeak saying that?

have you ever read the guidlines, maybe it is time you did.

 

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.

 

The CO mention that he had cut 45 degree angels on the PVC, this alone makes them a pointy object and a violation of the guidleines

 

Now I heve been told one of the regulars posters in the forums was at one time a reviewer that had his reviewer privlages revoked many years ago.

Edited November 14, 2010 by JohnnyVegas

[+Student Camper]

Taken from Random House Websters College dictionary, edited for briefness.

 

BUR-Y. v.t., bur-ied, 1. to put in ground and cover with earth. 4. to conceal from sight.

 

A grave marker, pavingstone or fencepost is not buried unless it is hidden by or covered with something and cannot be seen.

 

No, I am not trying to use the definitions out of context,

the intent of burying is to place out of sight where it is protected.

Thus, by definition, almost all caches are "buried"

Edited November 14, 2010 by student camper

[+JohnnyVegas]

Taken from Random House Websters College dictionary, edited for briefness.

 

BUR-Y. v.t., bur-ied, 1. to put in ground and cover with earth. 4. to conceal from sight.

 

A grave marker, pavingstone or fencepost is not buried unless it is hidden by or covered with something and cannot be seen.

 

No, I am not trying to use the definitions out of context,

the intent of burying is to place out of sight where it is protected.

Thus, by definition, almost all caches are "buried"

What many people are not grasping is the fact the what a dictionary defines as burued has nothing to do with what groundspeaks sees as buried, and the only definition that counts is the Groundspeak definition of what a buried cache is.

[+dreamarcher]

There are many threads questioning or asking to verify the rules. And many opinions. Most are biased on selfish terms. Some are completely ignored with impunity. Others situations that are vague are enforced without clear evidence.

 

It seems to me that if every rule was enforced to the full extent almost no caches would be allowed.

[+tozainamboku]

What many people are not grasping is the fact the what a dictionary defines as burued has nothing to do with what groundspeaks sees as buried, and the only definition that counts is the Groundspeak definition of what a buried cache is.

Something I agree with JohnnyVegas on. Of course we have a differences as to what Groundspeak means by digging with a pointed tool and about when exceptions can be made even for that. But the point is the use of the word "bury" in the guideline was meant only to alleviate fears of land managers that Geocaching was about looking for buried treasure and comparing that to problems they may have seen in the past with metal detectors or in people digging up historic or archeological sites looking for artifacts. The simple response is that geocachers don't dig whether to find or to hide a geocache.

[+Ecylram]

There are many threads questioning or asking to verify the rules. And many opinions. Most are biased on selfish terms. Some are completely ignored with impunity. Others situations that are vague are enforced without clear evidence.

 

It seems to me that if every rule was enforced to the full extent almost no caches would be allowed.

Groundspeak has Guidelines, not rules. They weren't written by a lawyer or intended to be all-encompassing. Common sense, such as it is, is still allowed in the interpretation. I suspect that you are right... if the strictest interpretation of the guidelines was used, a large swath of caches would become unavailable. Many of which are the most interesting.

 

After reading all the passionate discussion, I'm leaning toward most caches that are mounted by driving something into the ground (but keeping the cache above ground) is appropriate. Assuming 'reasonableness' was used.

 

I'm also inclined to agree that most sprinkler head & the like probably don't fit with the spirit of the guidelines.

 

But...

 

If the cache is placed, it doesn't cause any problems, and many geocachers visit it without seeing any problems...isn't that the best guideline if a cache is appropriately placed? I know that's too much wiggle room for a society that likes things in black & white, but...

[+dreamarcher]

Barbossa: ... And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner .

[+Castle Mischief]

There are many threads questioning or asking to verify the rules. And many opinions. Most are biased on selfish terms. Some are completely ignored with impunity. Others situations that are vague are enforced without clear evidence.

 

The guidelines are selfish? Selfish of whom exactly?

[+John in Valley Forge]

There are many threads questioning or asking to verify the rules. And many opinions. Most are biased on selfish terms. Some are completely ignored with impunity. Others situations that are vague are enforced without clear evidence.

 

The guidelines are selfish? Selfish of whom exactly?

 

I think the Threads are biased on selfish terms, not the guidelines.

[+Castle Mischief]

There are many threads questioning or asking to verify the rules. And many opinions. Most are biased on selfish terms. Some are completely ignored with impunity. Others situations that are vague are enforced without clear evidence.

 

The guidelines are selfish? Selfish of whom exactly?

 

I think the Threads are biased on selfish terms, not the guidelines.

 

Except that doesn't make sense in context to the last two sentences. Either way, I'm confused as to where the selfishness factors in.

[+slukster]

I will mention this to the CO to see if I can dissuade him (It often does). If not then I (as Wimeseyguy mentioned in post 34) will ask him to include mention of the fact that the land owner has given him express permission to do it, which hopefully will discourage copy cat hides on public lands.

Brian,

The wording in your post implies that you are a cache reviewer. Is this true? Are you the infamous NYAdmin or O'Reviewer? Inquiring minds want to know!

[+dreamarcher]

There are many threads questioning or asking to verify the rules. And many opinions. Most are biased on selfish terms. Some are completely ignored with impunity. Others situations that are vague are enforced without clear evidence.

 

The guidelines are selfish? Selfish of whom exactly?

 

I think the Threads are biased on selfish terms, not the guidelines.

 

Except that doesn't make sense in context to the last two sentences. Either way, I'm confused as to where the selfishness factors in.

hahahaha. I can't even reply to this other than to say maybe the sky and clouds are selfish too. Oh wait, things can't be selfish.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I will mention this to the CO to see if I can dissuade him (It often does). If not then I (as Wimeseyguy mentioned in post 34) will ask him to include mention of the fact that the land owner has given him express permission to do it, which hopefully will discourage copy cat hides on public lands.

Brian,

The wording in your post implies that you are a cache reviewer. Is this true? Are you the infamous NYAdmin or O'Reviewer? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

I got the same impression from Brian's post. My vote would be for OReviewer. I did notice something I hadn't seen before (our local reviewer doesn't do it). Both NYAdmin and OReviewer have extensive image galleries in their profiles which show a variety of caches or areas which they have archived. Next time someone comes here asking if they can drill a hole in something to place a cache the gallery pages for these two reviewers would provide some examples of the kinds of caches that will be archived when the reviewer becomes aware of how it was hidden.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Wow, I found another illegal "buried" cache. So far in the past few monts I have found about 7 illegal caches. Maybe I should set up a gallery of all illegal caches I have found over the years.

[+Don_J]

Wow, I found another illegal "buried" cache. So far in the past few monts I have found about 7 illegal caches. Maybe I should set up a gallery of all illegal caches I have found over the years.

 

Just make sure you are wearing your badge when you find these caches.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Wow, I found another illegal "buried" cache. So far in the past few monts I have found about 7 illegal caches. Maybe I should set up a gallery of all illegal caches I have found over the years.

 

Just make sure you are wearing your badge when you find these caches.

wow you must have a problem with people that report caches that are placed by idiots that would be better off collecting stamps

Edited November 16, 2010 by JohnnyVegas

[+sbell111]

I wish the rules went further than they do. Here is an example of why: Locally we had two caches hidden in the ground. They were pipes completely below the ground with a container in it. One was out in the middle of a forest floor with a small rock on top of it. Multiple cachers (including me) asked for them to be shut down as violating the rules. But the contention was they were stuck in a previous hole and they were not shut down. Environmental damage was occurring. If I remember correctly, some one even used a leaf blower trying to find them. One cacher got so upset with the damage cachers were causing and the refusal to shut them down, they went out and removed the caches. Lots of people really got upset with the person who removed the buried caches. I was not among them.

 

As was said above, "Legal" doesn't mean it's always a good idea.

 

Many cachers nowadays do not think (and some I bet simply do not care) of the consequences of that particular spot. If caches cannot be buried, hopefully this knowledge will keep slop cachers from causing unacceptable damage to a site.

A couple thoughts:

1. Stealing someone else's cache should not be applauded.
   
2. What damage did a leaf blower do to the forest?
   

You cannot stick spinkler heads caches into the gound, that is a buried cache.

You post disagrees with the revious stated position of TPTB. Can you site a recent statemet by TPTB which shows that they now agree with you?

You just do not get it, You can not drive a peice of PVC or anything else into the ground to hade a cache,, why would you even recomend the proper way to drive a peice of PVC into the ground. Once anything is driven into the ground it is buried in the eys of ground speak and ground speaks opinion is the only one that counts.

Really? Can you cite Groundspeak saying that?

have you ever read the guidlines, maybe it is time you did.

 

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.

 

The CO mention that he had cut 45 degree angels on the PVC, this alone makes them a pointy object and a violation of the guidleines

 

Now I heve been told one of the regulars posters in the forums was at one time a reviewer that had his reviewer privlages revoked many years ago.

The guidelines apparently don't say what you think they do.

[+Ecylram]

The guidelines apparently don't say what you think they do.

Queue obligatory Princess Bride reference.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

You just do not get it, You can not drive a peice of PVC or anything else into the ground to hade a cache,, why would you even recomend the proper way to drive a peice of PVC into the ground. Once anything is driven into the ground it is buried in the eys of ground speak and ground speaks opinion is the only one that counts.

Really? Can you cite Groundspeak saying that?

have you ever read the guidlines, maybe it is time you did.

 

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.

 

The CO mention that he had cut 45 degree angels on the PVC, this alone makes them a pointy object and a violation of the guidleines

 

Now I heve been told one of the regulars posters in the forums was at one time a reviewer that had his reviewer privlages revoked many years ago.

You bet, but it was not because I don't understand the Guidelines!

 

Sprinkler heads and pipes pushed into the ground are not buried and require no digging.

 

I asked you to cite where Groundspeak has said differently.

 

You can't.

 

Aside from being wrong on the issue itself your uninformed potshot at me just makes you look silly.

Edited November 16, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Everyone is reminded to post in conformance with the Forum Guidelines.

 

3. Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad. General attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

Calling people "idiots" is not appropriate. Thanks for your cooperation.

 

If you feel like you are not able to post in compliance with the Forum Guidelines, please do not post.

 

Thanks again.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

You just do not get it, You can not drive a peice of PVC or anything else into the ground to hade a cache,, why would you even recomend the proper way to drive a peice of PVC into the ground. Once anything is driven into the ground it is buried in the eys of ground speak and ground speaks opinion is the only one that counts.

Really? Can you cite Groundspeak saying that?

have you ever read the guidlines, maybe it is time you did.

 

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.

 

The CO mention that he had cut 45 degree angels on the PVC, this alone makes them a pointy object and a violation of the guidleines

 

Now I heve been told one of the regulars posters in the forums was at one time a reviewer that had his reviewer privlages revoked many years ago.

You bet, but it was not because I don't understand the Guidelines!

 

Sprinkler heads and pipes pushed into the ground are not buried and require no digging.

 

Put yourself in the shoes of a city park manager for a minute. Let's say you're new on the job and are walking a multi-use trail in the park that you manage and out of the corner of your eye you notice something a few feet off the trail. Thinking it might be some trash someone threw there you go over to get it and discover about 1/2" of PVC pipe sticking out of the ground. Can you tell, just by looking at it, whether it was pushed into the ground or a hole was dug to put it in the ground? More importantly, do you care how it was placed in the ground? Since you're new on the job there's a pretty good chance that whoever managed the park before you wasn't aware of geocaching, and that person may not have been who granted permission (assuming permission was even requested) for the cache.

 

Do you call the police to report a potential pipe bomb? Let's say you don't and look at it closer and discover a stash note indicating that it's a geocache. Perhaps your only previous experience with geocaching is reading about another cache in the city that was blown up by the bomb squad. What's your next action?

 

Do you just leave it there as is?

Do you yank it out of the ground and throw it in the trash?

Do you yank it out of the ground and take it to the next city council meeting and demand that an ordinance be put in place to ban geocaching in city parks?

 

Now put yourself in the shoes of a city council member. This is the third time that a geocache has been brought to your attention, the first involving the bomb squad blowing up a film container in a strip mall, at a significant expense to the city and the taxpayers that voted for you. Do you decide, enough is enough, I'm going to propose an ordinance banning the placement of geocaches within the city limits?

 

I don't see any of this as far-fetched. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what your interpretation of the guidelines is; it doesn't matter what the reviewers or groundspeaks definition of a "pointy-object", "buried", or "dig" might be. All that matters is that someone responsible for land where a geocache might be placed, might after the discovery of a pipe in the ground, come away with the perception that geocaching is about burying objects in the ground.

[Clan Riffster]

Sprinkler heads and pipes pushed into the ground are not buried and require no digging.

Agreed. Personally, I don't believe that a cache, or a stick/pipe/etc affixed to a cache, which is pushed into soft soil, constitutes "digging", as I understand the term. As such, I would say that this type of hide is not specifically prohibited by the current text of the guidelines. However, as many have pointed out, these kinds of hides are still bad ideas.

[+Castle Mischief]

There are many threads questioning or asking to verify the rules. And many opinions. Most are biased on selfish terms. Some are completely ignored with impunity. Others situations that are vague are enforced without clear evidence.

 

The guidelines are selfish? Selfish of whom exactly?

 

I think the Threads are biased on selfish terms, not the guidelines.

 

Except that doesn't make sense in context to the last two sentences. Either way, I'm confused as to where the selfishness factors in.

hahahaha. I can't even reply to this other than to say maybe the sky and clouds are selfish too. Oh wait, things can't be selfish.

 

Um, okay. I'm still not any closer to understanding what it was you were trying to say. What is biased? What's selfish?

[+Student Camper]

 

Put yourself in the shoes of a city park manager for a minute. Let's say you're new on the job and are walking a multi-use trail in the park that you manage and out of the corner of your eye you notice something a few feet off the trail. Thinking it might be some trash someone threw there you go over to get it and discover about 1/2" of PVC pipe sticking out of the ground. Can you tell, just by looking at it, whether it was pushed into the ground or a hole was dug to put it in the ground? More importantly, do you care how it was placed in the ground? Since you're new on the job there's a pretty good chance that whoever managed the park before you wasn't aware of geocaching, and that person may not have been who granted permission (assuming permission was even requested) for the cache.

 

Do you call the police to report a potential pipe bomb? Let's say you don't and look at it closer and discover a stash note indicating that it's a geocache. Perhaps your only previous experience with geocaching is reading about another cache in the city that was blown up by the bomb squad. What's your next action?

 

Do you just leave it there as is?

Do you yank it out of the ground and throw it in the trash?

Do you yank it out of the ground and take it to the next city council meeting and demand that an ordinance be put in place to ban geocaching in city parks?

 

Now put yourself in the shoes of a city council member. This is the third time that a geocache has been brought to your attention, the first involving the bomb squad blowing up a film container in a strip mall, at a significant expense to the city and the taxpayers that voted for you. Do you decide, enough is enough, I'm going to propose an ordinance banning the placement of geocaches within the city limits?

 

I don't see any of this as far-fetched. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what your interpretation of the guidelines is; it doesn't matter what the reviewers or groundspeaks definition of a "pointy-object", "buried", or "dig" might be. All that matters is that someone responsible for land where a geocache might be placed, might after the discovery of a pipe in the ground, come away with the perception that geocaching is about burying objects in the ground.

 

 

If you get permission and work with the property manager, having them fully involved in your project if possible, I dont see that any of the above examples would become an issue.

 

In these times, no one in their right mind is going to allow anything to be placed on their property that could be construed to be a danger of any sort.

The key would be getting adequate permission, asking the kid pushing the lawnmower wont do it.

 

Sorry that this is off topic but I think the buried issue has been beat to death and should be buried.

[+MR57]

This subject came up in another thread. Setting it up here as an 'on topic' discussion...

 

Question: Is driving something into the ground that will hold a cache above ground still 'burying' and a violation of the guidelines?

 

Examples that come to mind:

 

1. CO's have created holders for roadside caches by driving a small, angled PVC pipe into the ground to hold the cache above ground.

 

2. A Nano that was glued to a nail and the nail was driven into the ground with the Nano above ground. Evil, but illegal?

 

3. Parking Meter mounted in the woods.

 

4. Signpost is installed by the CO with the intent of hiding a cache in the sign post.

 

5. Sprinkler Heads on a spike.

 

6. Fake popup sprinkler head containers.

 

7. Fake drain cache.

 

8. Fake PVC pipe cache

 

9. Fake electrical junction box coming out of the ground.

 

Discuss politely among yourselves!

 

**Edited to add examples.

I've done the signpost. Done sprinkler. I've even hid cache in a real plant. In my opinion you have to have access to cache with your hands. Like lifting or opening something. I have buried pvc pipe to hold something visible above ground. But you can't hide something that you have to dig up. Who is going to bring shovel and how would you replace it.

[+hzoi]

I've done the signpost. Done sprinkler. I've even hid cache in a real plant. In my opinion you have to have access to cache with your hands. Like lifting or opening something. I have buried pvc pipe to hold something visible above ground.

 

By a strict reading of the guideline/rule in question, at least the PVC pipe cache you mention is in violation:

 

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 you buried a PVC pipe to hold something above the ground, then the PVC pipe is part of the overall cache construction.

 

But you can't hide something that you have to dig up.

 

Not what the rule says. You can't dig in order to hide or to find the cache.

[+John in Valley Forge]

There are many threads questioning or asking to verify the rules. And many opinions. Most are biased on selfish terms. Some are completely ignored with impunity. Others situations that are vague are enforced without clear evidence.

 

The guidelines are selfish? Selfish of whom exactly?

 

I think the Threads are biased on selfish terms, not the guidelines.

 

Except that doesn't make sense in context to the last two sentences. Either way, I'm confused as to where the selfishness factors in.

hahahaha. I can't even reply to this other than to say maybe the sky and clouds are selfish too. Oh wait, things can't be selfish.

 

Um, okay. I'm still not any closer to understanding what it was you were trying to say. What is biased? What's selfish?

 

You know what?

Looking back, even I can't figure out what point I was trying to make here.

[knowschad]

If I remember correctly, some one even used a leaf blower trying to find them. One cacher got so upset with the damage cachers were causing and the refusal to shut them down, they went out and removed the caches. Lots of people really got upset with the person who removed the buried caches. I was not among them.

I have never used a leaf blower to find a cache, nor do I know anybody that has. But... what is wrong with it?!? The wind blows in the forest, you know. I rearranges the leaves. No big deal!!

 

Now, removing a cache... that's another story. Not their job to remove it, and if they do and others go looking for the now missing cache, how much more damage might those seekers do trying to find a cache that is no longer there?

[knowschad]

I would add that anyone thinking of driving a piece of PVC into the ground to hold a cache should be really, really careful that there is nothing already buried where you are placing it i.e. existing sprinkler lines, fiberoptic cables, telephone lines, pipes, etc. (I suspect fake sprinkler heads and nails with nanos attached - really? what kind of sinister person does that? - will not go far enough into the ground to be an issue, but that is only an opinion I'm no engineer.)

 

http://www.call811.com/

 

You just do not get it, You can not drive a peice of PVC or anything else into the ground to hade a cache,, why would you even recomend the proper way to drive a peice of PVC into the ground. Once anything is driven into the ground it is buried in the eys of ground speak and ground speaks opinion is the only one that counts.

Would you please stop posting your opinion as if it were commonly accepted knowledge? The fact is, that style of cache has time and again been acknowledged here as acceptable. The opinions do vary, but please admit that when you make such claims, OK?

[knowschad]

You just do not get it, You can not drive a peice of PVC or anything else into the ground to hade a cache,, why would you even recomend the proper way to drive a peice of PVC into the ground. Once anything is driven into the ground it is buried in the eys of ground speak and ground speaks opinion is the only one that counts.

Really? Can you cite Groundspeak saying that?

have you ever read the guidlines, maybe it is time you did.

 

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.

 

The CO mention that he had cut 45 degree angels on the PVC, this alone makes them a pointy object and a violation of the guidleines

 

Now I heve been told one of the regulars posters in the forums was at one time a reviewer that had his reviewer privlages revoked many years ago.

You bet, but it was not because I don't understand the Guidelines!

 

Sprinkler heads and pipes pushed into the ground are not buried and require no digging.

 

Put yourself in the shoes of a city park manager for a minute. Let's say you're new on the job and are walking a multi-use trail in the park that you manage and out of the corner of your eye you notice something a few feet off the trail. Thinking it might be some trash someone threw there you go over to get it and discover about 1/2" of PVC pipe sticking out of the ground. Can you tell, just by looking at it, whether it was pushed into the ground or a hole was dug to put it in the ground? More importantly, do you care how it was placed in the ground? Since you're new on the job there's a pretty good chance that whoever managed the park before you wasn't aware of geocaching, and that person may not have been who granted permission (assuming permission was even requested) for the cache.

 

Do you call the police to report a potential pipe bomb? Let's say you don't and look at it closer and discover a stash note indicating that it's a geocache. Perhaps your only previous experience with geocaching is reading about another cache in the city that was blown up by the bomb squad. What's your next action?

 

Do you just leave it there as is?

Do you yank it out of the ground and throw it in the trash?

Do you yank it out of the ground and take it to the next city council meeting and demand that an ordinance be put in place to ban geocaching in city parks?

 

Now put yourself in the shoes of a city council member. This is the third time that a geocache has been brought to your attention, the first involving the bomb squad blowing up a film container in a strip mall, at a significant expense to the city and the taxpayers that voted for you. Do you decide, enough is enough, I'm going to propose an ordinance banning the placement of geocaches within the city limits?

 

I don't see any of this as far-fetched. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what your interpretation of the guidelines is; it doesn't matter what the reviewers or groundspeaks definition of a "pointy-object", "buried", or "dig" might be. All that matters is that someone responsible for land where a geocache might be placed, might after the discovery of a pipe in the ground, come away with the perception that geocaching is about burying objects in the ground.

 

What you say, as I read it, has nothing to do with buried caches. It could hold just as true for an ammo can or a camo-taped gallon jug. For that matter, it would probably be less likely for a cache that was pushed into the soil to be reported as a potential bomb.

[4wheelin_fool]

Wow.

I thought this thread had been buried. Who dug it up?

 

Buried means disturbing the ground in an unnatural way. If you need a hammer to drive something in the ground then it is not appropriate. Something an inch or less in diameter seems to be fine.

 

I found a "buried" cache some time ago. It was a 4" wide PVC pipe. However, as I was leaving the area, I managed to create a large hole by just stepping onto the forest floor and sinking almost up to my knee. I purposely tried it again, and created a few others. There had been a hot forest fire in the past which had created the anomaly, so really it wasn't buried. I would say every situation is a little bit different than all the others, and every one should be evaluated individually. Otherwise, it is a good general rule.

Edited December 8, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[+WRASTRO]

There are many threads questioning or asking to verify the rules. And many opinions. Most are biased on selfish terms. Some are completely ignored with impunity. Others situations that are vague are enforced without clear evidence.

 

It seems to me that if every rule was enforced to the full extent almost no caches would be allowed.

Groundspeak has Guidelines, not rules. They weren't written by a lawyer or intended to be all-encompassing. Common sense, such as it is, is still allowed in the interpretation. I suspect that you are right... if the strictest interpretation of the guidelines was used, a large swath of caches would become unavailable. Many of which are the most interesting.

 

After reading all the passionate discussion, I'm leaning toward most caches that are mounted by driving something into the ground (but keeping the cache above ground) is appropriate. Assuming 'reasonableness' was used.

 

I'm also inclined to agree that most sprinkler head & the like probably don't fit with the spirit of the guidelines.

 

But...

 

If the cache is placed, it doesn't cause any problems, and many geocachers visit it without seeing any problems...isn't that the best guideline if a cache is appropriately placed? I know that's too much wiggle room for a society that likes things in black & white, but...

It would seem you have a very limited knowledge of the identities and occupations of the lackeys. GS does indeed have a lawyer among the lackeys.

[+briansnat]

There are many threads questioning or asking to verify the rules. And many opinions. Most are biased on selfish terms. Some are completely ignored with impunity. Others situations that are vague are enforced without clear evidence.

 

It seems to me that if every rule was enforced to the full extent almost no caches would be allowed.

Groundspeak has Guidelines, not rules. They weren't written by a lawyer or intended to be all-encompassing. Common sense, such as it is, is still allowed in the interpretation. I suspect that you are right... if the strictest interpretation of the guidelines was used, a large swath of caches would become unavailable. Many of which are the most interesting.

 

After reading all the passionate discussion, I'm leaning toward most caches that are mounted by driving something into the ground (but keeping the cache above ground) is appropriate. Assuming 'reasonableness' was used.

 

I'm also inclined to agree that most sprinkler head & the like probably don't fit with the spirit of the guidelines.

 

But...

 

If the cache is placed, it doesn't cause any problems, and many geocachers visit it without seeing any problems...isn't that the best guideline if a cache is appropriately placed? I know that's too much wiggle room for a society that likes things in black & white, but...

It would seem you have a very limited knowledge of the identities and occupations of the lackeys. GS does indeed have a lawyer among the lackeys.

 

...and lawyers among volunteers, one of whom wrote a significant portion of the guidelines.