Jump to content

What is 'Buried'?


Ecylram
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

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! :unsure:

 

**Edited to add examples.

Edited by Ecylram
Link to comment

I am fairly new at this but as far as I can observe from the rules you can part bury the cache so long as you do need to dig to retrieve it.

 

I have heard of pieces of trash glued to a container that is buried so all that remains above ground is the trash - legal as far as I know. :unsure:

 

Someone will dig out the rulebook no doubt, I think the wording is 'dig or require sharp tools'. :D

 

So to answer your question - no. :(

Link to comment

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! :unsure:

 

**Edited to add examples.

Based on the qualifiers that have been discussed repeatedly in the past, most of these would clearly not be in violation. Some could be in violation if digging was required to plant the container.

 

Here's the easy takeaway:

  1. Something hidden in the ground using an existing hole and not requiring digging to find does not violate the guideline.
  2. Something by being pushed into the ground and not requiring digging to find does not violate the guideline.
  3. Something that requires digging to hide or find does violate the guideline.
  4. Any cache in violation of the guidelines can still be listed on GC.com with prior permission from TPTB.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

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.

 

Discuss politely among yourselves! :unsure:

 

I think a lot of people miss the point when it comes to the buried cache guideline.

 

The guideline isn't in place to prevent people from using point object to hide or seek geocaches. The guideline is in place to dissuade land managers from getting the already pervasive perception that geocaching is about "buried treasure".

 

If the manager of city parks finds a few man-made holes in the ground, they're not going to care if it was made with a shovel, a point stick, or a bowling ball dropped from an airplane. They're just going to see a hole in the ground that didn't exist prior to a bunch of people playing a game called geocaching in one of the parks they manage. It's not much of a stretch at all to consider the possibility that a city park manager might consider banning *all* geocaches in the parks they manage, because someone tried to find a loophole in the language of the guidelines rather than considering the purpose of the guideline.

 

Despite the fact that there is language in the guidelines which states that there is no precedent for placing cache, let's face it; there a lot of geocacher copycats. If a geocache is hidden using a cut off piece of PVC tubing, others finding are going to think it's a good idea and hide another one like it. Unfortunately, the buried cache guideline is one that reviewers have no idea if a specific cache is following it unless another geocacher reports it. Given the stigma around N/A logs it probably doesn't happen as often as it should and as a result there are a lot of geocaches out there which violate the guidelines and have the potential of give geocaching a black eye in the view of land managers.

Link to comment

Here is the guideline wording from the hiding caches guideline. This refers to caches which are "off limit."

 

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

 

I can't really add anymore than that. It seems pretty straight forward to me.

Link to comment

We can sling copies of Websters and Dictionary .com at each other until we are blue in the face, citing various definitions of "Buried", but since Groundspeak already defined what the term means to them, I think that is unnecessary. As applied to our guidelines, 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". In your examples, I would have to say most would not meet Groundspeak's definition of "buried", in that the pointy object, (for example, the angled PVC), was not used to "dig". Digging is one of those words that doesn't require a finely crafted definition. If I pound a piece of pipe into the ground, I haven't removed any dirt from the ground, so no digging has been done.

 

Of your examples, the only one I would definitely call buried is the fake drain, in that those are usually done by driving a piece of PVC into the ground, then removing the soil contained within the PVC to make room for the cache itself.

 

However, mine is not an expert opinion. In the end, it's the Reviewer who has to make the call.

 

That being said, pipe pounding is still a bad idea, for reasons pointed out by NYPaddleCacher

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

Is Searching4Trouble your alternate name? :unsure:

Perhaps. In this case the subject was already brought up and exploding in the other thread.

 

I do have a personal interest in the subject as I do have a planned cache that uses one of the above examples and it's one I know a reviewer placed at least twice.

Link to comment

Is Searching4Trouble your alternate name? :unsure:

Perhaps. In this case the subject was already brought up and exploding in the other thread.

 

I do have a personal interest in the subject as I do have a planned cache that uses one of the above examples and it's one I know a reviewer placed at least twice.

Please see #4 in the list that I posted above.

Link to comment

Is Searching4Trouble your alternate name? :unsure:

Perhaps. In this case the subject was already brought up and exploding in the other thread.

 

I do have a personal interest in the subject as I do have a planned cache that uses one of the above examples and it's one I know a reviewer placed at least twice.

Please see #4 in the list that I posted above.

I prefer your definitions, but there were several disagreements for #2 in your list. Some believe that something that is pushed into the ground is still 'buried' and therefore not allowed (with cache still above ground).

Link to comment

Is Searching4Trouble your alternate name? :unsure:

Perhaps. In this case the subject was already brought up and exploding in the other thread.

 

I do have a personal interest in the subject as I do have a planned cache that uses one of the above examples and it's one I know a reviewer placed at least twice.

Please see #4 in the list that I posted above.

I prefer your definitions, but there were several disagreements for #2 in your list. Some believe that something that is pushed into the ground is still 'buried' and therefore not allowed (with cache still above ground).

This issue has been commented on previously by TPTB. If they have changed their position, I am not aware of it.

Link to comment

I prefer your definitions, but there were several disagreements for #2 in your list. Some believe that something that is pushed into the ground is still 'buried' and therefore not allowed (with cache still above ground).

 

I can't believe I'm about to say this... you're not reading sbell1's post. Something that is "not allowed" can be allowed with permission from TPTB.

 

Regardless of your definition of what is "buried" if you have received permission for your specific hide then it can be published.

 

There is no guarantee they will give you permission in the first place.

Link to comment

The guidelines are vague, in part because of a desire to keep them simple. Depending on where you stand, one of the following may be better.

 

1) No cache, portion of cache, or mechanism placed by a geocacher to hold or conceal the cache may penetrate the ground without the express consent of the land owner or manager.

 

2) Caches, portions of caches, or mechanisms placed by a geocacher to hold or conceal the cache many not involve removing or displacing dirt or other material in so far as the displaced or removed material could be perceived as damage by the land manager/property owner.

 

Option 2 seems to be closer to what most people feel the rule is. However it has a few problems. Cachers have to know what a land owner/manager might perceive as damage. And this may be different depending on the location and the nature of the ground. For example, burying a cache on a sandy beach may be permitted since the sand would soon refill the hole if the cache is removed. Pushing a PVC pipe in to a landscaped lawn would probably be perceived as damage. It also raises the issue that some bring up of copycat hides. Someone may place PVC pipe in the ground where the soil is fairly sandy and would not leave a hole when the cache is removed. Someone else might see this and in the very same park push pipes into a lawn or even a meadow where there will be holes left after the pipes are removed. I personally would rather trust cachers to follow the guidelines than to make them unnecessarily restrictive because of the copycat argument.

Link to comment

I prefer your definitions, but there were several disagreements for #2 in your list. Some believe that something that is pushed into the ground is still 'buried' and therefore not allowed (with cache still above ground).

 

I can't believe I'm about to say this... you're not reading sbell1's post. Something that is "not allowed" can be allowed with permission from TPTB.

 

Regardless of your definition of what is "buried" if you have received permission for your specific hide then it can be published.

 

There is no guarantee they will give you permission in the first place.

I read it. Got it. It's forever tatooed on my brain. Knew it already (International Space Station). Sorry I gave you the impression otherwise.

 

I was commenting on #2 on his list and his list in general.

Link to comment

Seems appropriate to add at this point...

 

In the next few months we're placing a very large cache on family property (next to a road). There is an existing trench that was created for utility work. We considered the soon-to-be-filled-in trench for placement of the cache (opening would be above ground, no digging required), but decided that water issues would make it difficult to keep the cache maintained.

 

By my understanding, the placement of the cache would have been legal but we've found that water is real problem with in-ground caches such a the fake drain caches and fake water line cap caches. This location is next to an artesian spring and the water table is very high as well.

 

"Legal" doesn't mean it's always a good idea. :unsure:

Link to comment

 

"Legal" doesn't mean it's always a good idea. :unsure:

 

+1

 

That is why I suggest trying to understand the purpose of the guideline rather than trying to think of examples of how something can fit within the language of the guidelines.

 

The issue also remains that caches are primarily reviewed based on where they are hidden, but not how they are hidden, and many cache owners have no incentive to volunteer information that might cause their cache not to be published. If a CO omits the fact they shoved a pvc pipe, sign post, or even dug a hole with a power washer the reviewer isn't going to find out about it unless someone else mentions it. Permission from a land manager to bury a cache won't come into play unless a CO tells the reviewer that it's buried with the permission of a land owner.

Link to comment

I do have a personal interest in the subject as I do have a planned cache that uses one of the above examples and it's one I know a reviewer placed at least twice.

What a reviewer publishes is irrelevant. Unless the hider posts a reviewer note stating the hiding style, someone reports the cache, or they find it while geocaching, the reviewer isn't likely to have a clue how the cache was hidden.
Link to comment

I do have a personal interest in the subject as I do have a planned cache that uses one of the above examples and it's one I know a reviewer placed at least twice.

What a reviewer publishes is irrelevant. Unless the hider posts a reviewer note stating the hiding style, someone reports the cache, or they find it while geocaching, the reviewer isn't likely to have a clue how the cache was hidden.

 

It sounds to me like his implication is that the Reviewer is the Hider.

Link to comment

 

"Legal" doesn't mean it's always a good idea. :unsure:

 

+1

 

That is why I suggest trying to understand the purpose of the guideline rather than trying to think of examples of how something can fit within the language of the guidelines.

 

The issue also remains that caches are primarily reviewed based on where they are hidden, but not how they are hidden, and many cache owners have no incentive to volunteer information that might cause their cache not to be published. If a CO omits the fact they shoved a pvc pipe, sign post, or even dug a hole with a power washer the reviewer isn't going to find out about it unless someone else mentions it. Permission from a land manager to bury a cache won't come into play unless a CO tells the reviewer that it's buried with the permission of a land owner.

 

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. :D

 

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.

Link to comment

Here's the easy takeaway:

  1. Something hidden in the ground using an existing hole and not requiring digging to find does not violate the guideline.
  2. Something by being pushed into the ground and not requiring digging to find does not violate the guideline.
  3. Something that requires digging to hide or find does violate the guideline.
  4. Any cache in violation of the guidelines can still be listed on GC.com with prior permission from TPTB.

For no. 2: If that would be the case you could ram anything into the ground >> pushing something into the ground isn't allowed as well since whatever you push is a pointy object (although it's kind of accepted by many cachers)

Link to comment

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! :unsure:

 

**Edited to add examples.

 

This topic keeps comming back over the years. I find it interesting that some cacher are to lazy th read the guilines or are just to stupid to understand them. I am pasting them here.

 

Off-Limit (Physical) Caches

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived. We also assume that your cache placement complies with all applicable laws. If an obvious legal issue is present, or is brought to our attention, your listing may be immediately archived.

 

Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not exhaustive):

 

Caches on land managed by an agency that prohibits geocaches, such as the U.S. National Park Service or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (National Wildlife Refuges).

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.

Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method.

Caches placed in areas which are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans (examples may include archaeological or historic sites or cemeteries).

Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In the United States we generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply.

Caches near or on military installations.

Caches near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These may include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

Link to comment

 

"Legal" doesn't mean it's always a good idea. :unsure:

 

+1

 

That is why I suggest trying to understand the purpose of the guideline rather than trying to think of examples of how something can fit within the language of the guidelines.

 

The issue also remains that caches are primarily reviewed based on where they are hidden, but not how they are hidden, and many cache owners have no incentive to volunteer information that might cause their cache not to be published. If a CO omits the fact they shoved a pvc pipe, sign post, or even dug a hole with a power washer the reviewer isn't going to find out about it unless someone else mentions it. Permission from a land manager to bury a cache won't come into play unless a CO tells the reviewer that it's buried with the permission of a land owner.

 

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. :D

 

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.

[/quote}

 

I have seen this claim made in the past stuck in a previous hole What a pile of carp. Lets think about this. Some cacher is walking along an just happen to see a hole that just happens to be the size of a pipe they just happen to have with them, same heigth and diameter. What a bunch of BS. Maybe ground speak should close this loophole.

Link to comment
I have seen this claim made in the past stuck in a previous hole What a pile of carp. Lets think about this. Some cacher is walking along an just happen to see a hole that just happens to be the size of a pipe they just happen to have with them, same heigth and diameter. What a bunch of BS. Maybe ground speak should close this loophole.

 

I had a cache that was in a naturally made hole in the ground at the base of a down tree. Over the years dirt washed into the hole around the ammo box creating a perfectly square hole for the ammo box. The casual observer may well have thought that the hole was dug for the ammo box, but that wasn't the case.

 

So it's not impossible. I made it a point to mention on the cache page that the hole was naturally occurring so nobody got the wrong idea.

 

I think NYPaddlecacher said it best in post 5. You need to understand the reason for the guideline in order to correctly interpret it. The guideline specifically says "Shovel, trowel or pointy object", but if you excavate the hole with a power washer, or dig deep into soft duff with your hands, you are still digging and violating the intent of the guideline if not the letter.

 

The guidelines are there for a reason , which is for the most part to discourage practices that land managers and other authorities may find objectionable. To pick them apart looking for loopholes is not beneficial for our sport.

Link to comment

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/

Link to comment
I have seen this claim made in the past stuck in a previous hole What a pile of carp. Lets think about this. Some cacher is walking along an just happen to see a hole that just happens to be the size of a pipe they just happen to have with them, same heigth and diameter. What a bunch of BS. Maybe ground speak should close this loophole.

 

I had a cache that was in a naturally made hole in the ground at the base of a down tree. Over the years dirt washed into the hole around the ammo box creating a perfectly square hole for the ammo box. The casual observer may well have thought that the hole was dug for the ammo box, but that wasn't the case.

 

So it's not impossible. I made it a point to mention on the cache page that the hole was naturally occurring so nobody got the wrong idea.

 

I think NYPaddlecacher said it best in post 5. You need to understand the reason for the guideline in order to correctly interpret it. The guideline specifically says "Shovel, trowel or pointy object", but if you excavate the hole with a power washer, or dig deep into soft duff with your hands, you are still digging and violating the intent of the guideline if not the letter.

 

The guidelines are there for a reason , which is for the most part to discourage practices that land managers and other authorities may find objectionable. To pick them apart looking for loopholes is not beneficial for our sport.

 

So C4 is out of the question? :unsure:

 

Just kidding but seriously its not rocket science.

 

Its just common sense you don't go rooting up the county side to hide a cache.

In any manner great or small.

 

And out of common courtesy to the land owner you don't go rooting up the county side.

In any manner great or small.

 

This topic shows its all to easy to sit back and play arm chair lawyer

and argue every doted i and crossed t. Witch has more to do with gamesmanship than anything else.

 

Just use the two commons and the intent takes care of its self nicely

 

Yes I know that if common sense and common courtesy were truly common then everyone would have them.

But that's another topic. :D

Link to comment

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/

 

Though I'd love to see one of those fake nails with a nano get hit by a lawn mower.

 

Aside from what's buried undernethe I'd look around at the area too. Are you putting a sprinkler head where there are others that can/will be broken by geocachers looking for a cache? Questions like that.

 

There are many creative ways to hide caches that don't require burying.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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/

 

Though I'd love to see one of those fake nails with a nano get hit by a lawn mower.

 

Aside from what's buried undernethe I'd look around at the area too. Are you putting a sprinkler head where there are others that can/will be broken by geocachers looking for a cache? Questions like that.

 

There are many creative ways to hide caches that don't require burying.

 

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

Link to comment

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! :unsure:

 

**Edited to add examples.

 

Seems appropriate to add at this point...

 

In the next few months we're placing a very large cache on family property (next to a road). There is an existing trench that was created for utility work. We considered the soon-to-be-filled-in trench for placement of the cache (opening would be above ground, no digging required), but decided that water issues would make it difficult to keep the cache maintained.

 

By my understanding, the placement of the cache would have been legal but we've found that water is real problem with in-ground caches such a the fake drain caches and fake water line cap caches. This location is next to an artesian spring and the water table is very high as well.

 

"Legal" doesn't mean it's always a good idea. :D

 

Maybe I have missed something in my quick read of this thread and these two posts? But it seems that the OP wasn't the real question at all? Didn't you simply want to ask, "is it OK to have a buried cache on my own property?"

 

The short answer is yes. You as the land manager can grant permission to yourself and the reviewer is likely to give an exception on the guidelines. Most will probably ask you to include something about permission on the cache page to alleviate any concerns and to help discourage copy cat hides.

Link to comment

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.

 

Seems appropriate to add at this point...

 

In the next few months we're placing a very large cache on family property (next to a road). There is an existing trench that was created for utility work. We considered the soon-to-be-filled-in trench for placement of the cache (opening would be above ground, no digging required), but decided that water issues would make it difficult to keep the cache maintained.

 

By my understanding, the placement of the cache would have been legal but we've found that water is real problem with in-ground caches such a the fake drain caches and fake water line cap caches. This location is next to an artesian spring and the water table is very high as well.

 

"Legal" doesn't mean it's always a good idea. :o

 

Maybe I have missed something in my quick read of this thread and these two posts? But it seems that the OP wasn't the real question at all? Didn't you simply want to ask, "is it OK to have a buried cache on my own property?"

 

The short answer is yes. You as the land manager can grant permission to yourself and the reviewer is likely to give an exception on the guidelines. Most will probably ask you to include something about permission on the cache page to alleviate any concerns and to help discourage copy cat hides.

 

I would not put any kind of cache on my propert. :unsure: People might want to knock on my front door for a visit, I am just anti social for that kind of carp. :D

Link to comment

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/

 

Though I'd love to see one of those fake nails with a nano get hit by a lawn mower.

 

Aside from what's buried undernethe I'd look around at the area too. Are you putting a sprinkler head where there are others that can/will be broken by geocachers looking for a cache? Questions like that.

 

There are many creative ways to hide caches that don't require burying.

 

Am I the only one who has seen real sprinkler heads damaged by cachers looking for a cache? There are slob cachers out there that don't care about anything other than getting another find as quickly as possible. Look at how many cachers will ignore no tresspassing signs for another find. COs have a responsibility to consider what kinds of damage slob cachers could cuase to an area. If there are exceptions allowed, the rules are bent, reviewers and cachers look hte other way, then cachers know a cache could be burried and as a result they could damage the site.

Link to comment

Hypothetical - Someone is walking along a public beach where there are mounds of sand everywhere. They are looking for a good place to place their cache. After walking for 20 or 30 minutes they turn around and look behind them. They see where they had just walked and in some spots the footprints are several inches deep. Their cache container is 5 inches tall. They decide to scoop out a little more sand (with their hands) from one of their footprints so they can put their cache in the footprint. It needed to be a little wider and just a bit deeper for the container to fit. They then push sand back around the container to help keep it in place. Knowing they were going to hide the cache somewhere at the beach they had glued sand all over the outside of the container to help it blend in.

 

Does enlarging the footprint qualify as buried or is this one of those that needs to be decided on a case by case basis?

 

John

Link to comment

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/

 

Though I'd love to see one of those fake nails with a nano get hit by a lawn mower.

 

Aside from what's buried undernethe I'd look around at the area too. Are you putting a sprinkler head where there are others that can/will be broken by geocachers looking for a cache? Questions like that.

 

There are many creative ways to hide caches that don't require burying.

 

Am I the only one who has seen real sprinkler heads damaged by cachers looking for a cache? There are slob cachers out there that don't care about anything other than getting another find as quickly as possible. Look at how many cachers will ignore no tresspassing signs for another find. COs have a responsibility to consider what kinds of damage slob cachers could cuase to an area. If there are exceptions allowed, the rules are bent, reviewers and cachers look hte other way, then cachers know a cache could be burried and as a result they could damage the site.

 

not at all, not to long ago I went searching for a cache in which several sprinkler heads had been removed and not put back. The cache page even said the cache was hanging in a tree, but some idiot just had to take apart the sprinker heads.

Link to comment

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/

 

Though I'd love to see one of those fake nails with a nano get hit by a lawn mower.

 

Aside from what's buried undernethe I'd look around at the area too. Are you putting a sprinkler head where there are others that can/will be broken by geocachers looking for a cache? Questions like that.

 

There are many creative ways to hide caches that don't require burying.

 

Am I the only one who has seen real sprinkler heads damaged by cachers looking for a cache? There are slob cachers out there that don't care about anything other than getting another find as quickly as possible. Look at how many cachers will ignore no tresspassing signs for another find. COs have a responsibility to consider what kinds of damage slob cachers could cuase to an area. If there are exceptions allowed, the rules are bent, reviewers and cachers look hte other way, then cachers know a cache could be burried and as a result they could damage the site.

 

not at all, not to long ago I went searching for a cache in which several sprinkler heads had been removed and not put back. The cache page even said the cache was hanging in a tree, but some idiot just had to take apart the sprinker heads.

 

I've seen sprinklers and various other features of landscaping dismantled from cachers who search without care to the damage they are doing. Yeah the creative hide is super, but what kind of damage will the area sustain from those that don't care? It's something that always should be considered.

Link to comment

If I placed an ammo box cache in the ground so that it was flush with the surface, and having permission of the property owner to excavate and place the box as described, would this be deemed illegal and thus denied by the reviewer?

no digging of any kind would be neccessary to find the cache although it might be covered by some small rocks or a board or whatever.

This is an idea that Iv'e been working on, some details changed to protect the innocent.

Edited by student camper
Link to comment

If I placed an ammo box cache in the ground so that it was flush with the surface, and having permission of the property owner to excavate and place the box as described, would this be deemed illegal and thus denied by the reviewer?

no digging of any kind would be neccessary to find the cache although it might be covered by some small rocks or a board or whatever.

This is an idea that Iv'e been working on, some details changed to protect the innocent.

 

See post #34

Link to comment

would this be deemed illegal and thus denied by the reviewer?

 

See post #34

 

I will take that as a no, but there seems to be more than a few that would disagree.

I have permission of the property owner/caretaker and there is no digging involved on the part of any seeking geocachers.

You just do not get it do you, It does not matter if the property owner gives you permission, You can not dig a hole to hide a cache. There is nothing in the guidleines that say you can dig a hole woth permission. The reason is because some other cacher will see the way you hid the cache and copy your hide.

As judge Judy would say "Are you thick"

Link to comment

would this be deemed illegal and thus denied by the reviewer?

 

See post #34

 

I will take that as a no, but there seems to be more than a few that would disagree.

I have permission of the property owner/caretaker and there is no digging involved on the part of any seeking geocachers.

You just do not get it do you, It does not matter if the property owner gives you permission, You can not dig a hole to hide a cache. There is nothing in the guidleines that say you can dig a hole woth permission. The reason is because some other cacher will see the way you hid the cache and copy your hide.

As judge Judy would say "Are you thick"

Funny, I read #34 as saying that you could dig with permission but that the reviewer might ask you to indicate this on the cache page so that a finder would know why the exception was given and not copy the hide without getting similar permission

 

The guidelines expressly state that there may be some exceptions.

There may be some exceptions. If your cache fits within one of the above areas, please explain this in a note to the reviewer. If you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of both the reviewer and people seeking out the cache.

 

Note that exceptions are just that - exceptions. There is nothing in the guidelines that guarantees an exception will be given. You will need to convince your reviewer why a exception is warranted; just having permission may not be enough.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

 

would this be deemed illegal and thus denied by the reviewer?

 

See post #34

 

I will take that as a no, but there seems to be more than a few that would disagree.

I have permission of the property owner/caretaker and there is no digging involved on the part of any seeking geocachers.

You just do not get it do you, It does not matter if the property owner gives you permission, You can not dig a hole to hide a cache. There is nothing in the guidleines that say you can dig a hole woth permission. The reason is because some other cacher will see the way you hid the cache and copy your hide.

As judge Judy would say "Are you thick"

 

He's not thick. Exceptions can and have been made for caches that have express permission from the land owner or manager to be buried. Most reviewers will try to talk the person out of it. Some will strictly apply the guideline, and not allow it regardless, but exceptions have been made.

 

Personally, I don't like the idea, even if on someone's own property. Many cachers will find it, think it's a grand idea and not get the distinction that it is on the owner's property, then try the method in the nearby state park.

 

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.

Link to comment

One of my most memorable finds was a cache inside a PVC tube in the ground. It was on the owners property.

 

Assuming the big concern here is a copycat burying a cache without permission, I suppose the cache and the cache log could contain a note warning others not to copy such an idea without the landowners permission.

 

Personally, I believe that caches where you could get electrocuted are a bigger problem. This includes all LPCs, yet there are hundreds of LPCs that are approved. Sooner or later, someone is going to die.

Link to comment

One of my most memorable finds was a cache inside a PVC tube in the ground. It was on the owners property.

 

Assuming the big concern here is a copycat burying a cache without permission, I suppose the cache and the cache log could contain a note warning others not to copy such an idea without the landowners permission.

 

Personally, I believe that caches where you could get electrocuted are a bigger problem. This includes all LPCs, yet there are hundreds of LPCs that are approved. Sooner or later, someone is going to die.

I have found many lamp post skirt caches over the years and I have not seen one in which the wire were exposed so these are not a great concern. But I did find one in which the cache owner unsrcrewed to access plat so the the cache could be hiddin inside next to the wires. This cache was archived in a matter of days. I think it was I that posted a SMA on the cache, or it could have been that I sent a photo of it to a local reviewer. But of course several experienced cachers log it as found without bothering to post a SBA log.

Ya they just got's keep the numbers going.

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 1
×
×
  • Create New...