Why are caches in the ground not allowed?

[4wheelin_fool]

I can understand why you would not allow a cache that has to be dug up with a shovel to be published. But if a cache owner digs a hole, puts the cache in the hole and people can get to the cache without ever needing to dig again what's the problem? People aren't digging random holes so it causes no issues really. This frustrated me because my local reviewer archives a lot of local caches for this reason. I just don't understand.

 

The guidelines get stretched enough already. Since they are already frowned upon, the ones that do slip through usually are harmless. If they were allowed, the guidelines would eventually be stretched even further.

 

The actual reason is that they are very frustrating to find until you step on them.

[+John in Valley Forge]

I can understand why you would not allow a cache that has to be dug up with a shovel to be published. But if a cache owner digs a hole, puts the cache in the hole and people can get to the cache without ever needing to dig again what's the problem? People aren't digging random holes so it causes no issues really. This frustrated me because my local reviewer archives a lot of local caches for this reason. I just don't understand.

 

I didn't realize that there were that many caches being archived because they were buried. I wonder how they got published in the first place. I thought "O" was pretty thorough in his reviews.

Perhaps you could list some. Maybe I just have not noticed them.

 

I might also suggest you read through the forums to the several times that buried caches been discussed already.

 

Still waiting for the OP to show us all of these archived buried caches. Without the list, one wonders if this thread falls under the category of trolling.

Edited December 4, 2010 by John in Valley Forge

[+FireRef]

Slippery slope arguments are really not legitimate because they only happen some of the time. We can't do it because of what "might" happen?

 

I think the biggest problem with these rule/guidelines/whatever were calling this list of things is that they are inconsistently enforced. If every sprinklerhead cache is not allowed because it is partially buried, then why are the reviewers and gs.com not archiving every one of them immediately? If permission is such a big deal, why is every cache for which written permission is not presented not archived immediately?

 

And why, if these guidelines are so important to follow, are exceptions made?

 

You can't have a guideline if it is blurry.

 

My favorite example of this is the NBA and the rules of basketball. The refs don't follow the rules - you almost never see a travel called, even though it isn't allowed in basketball at any level (and no, the rule for this isn't different in the NBA - ive checked). It isn't called because it doesn't make a good game for the people who are paying to see it. So the game is played and reffed outside the rules because people want it that way.

 

But if you want to see real basketball, at least according to the rules and the way the game was intended by those writing them, watch college basketball.

 

This site allows people to play only by their rules. Whether we agree or not, we're expected to follow them. Right or wrong (in each of our own opinions), we're expected to follow them. And going somewhere else isn't an option right now, because this site has the largest database.

 

I just think they should do two things:

 

1) Not be as worried about what "might" happen. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but I'm not staying in my house 24/7 because I might get killed outside.

2) Be more consistent in the enforcement of the cache placement guidelines. Agree or disagree, the worst rules are the ones that are inconsistently enforced. Have a rule, enforce it, or get rid of it. This policy of enforcing the ones they want to only when they want to leaves too much room for bias.

Edited December 4, 2010 by FireRef

[knowschad]

It really seems silly to me for someone to say "Here's this really big area of public land...but you can't go there. You can't do anything with it. You can't even walk through it if you want."

 

Our PA Gamelands are a prime example. We can't go in them for a month unless we are hunting. I do feel it would be stupid to wander around in there with a bunch of people looking for something to shoot, but to legislate that we can't, that just doesn't make sense to me.

Isn't it true that PA's gamelands are paid for 100% by hunting & fishing license fees? I can't state that as fact, but somebody recently made that claim in another thread. If that is true, then consider yourself fortunate that the land is sometimes open for other uses.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Slippery slope arguments are really not legitimate because they only happen some of the time. We can't do it because of what "might" happen?

 

I think the biggest problem with these rule/guidelines/whatever were calling this list of things is that they are inconsistently enforced. If every sprinklerhead cache is not allowed because it is partially buried, then why are the reviewers and gs.com not archiving every one of them immediately? If permission is such a big deal, why is every cache for which written permission is not presented not archived immediately?

 

And why, if these guidelines are so important to follow, are exceptions made?

 

You can't have a guideline if it is blurry.

 

My favorite example of this is the NBA and the rules of basketball. The refs don't follow the rules - you almost never see a travel called, even though it isn't allowed in basketball at any level (and no, the rule for this isn't different in the NBA - ive checked). It isn't called because it doesn't make a good game for the people who are paying to see it. So the game is played and reffed outside the rules because people want it that way.

 

But if you want to see real basketball, at least according to the rules and the way the game was intended by those writing them, watch college basketball.

 

This site allows people to play only by their rules. Whether we agree or not, we're expected to follow them. Right or wrong (in each of our own opinions), we're expected to follow them. And going somewhere else isn't an option right now, because this site has the largest database.

 

I just think they should do two things:

 

1) Not be as worried about what "might" happen. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but I'm not staying in my house 24/7 because I might get killed outside.

2) Be more consistent in the enforcement of the cache placement guidelines. Agree or disagree, the worst rules are the ones that are inconsistently enforced. Have a rule, enforce it, or get rid of it. This policy of enforcing the ones they want to only when they want to leaves too much room for bias.

 

It is not that something might happen-it does happen. Cacher one hides a cache by digging a hole, cacher two finds cache placed by cacher one and copies it. cacher three finds cache place by cacher two and copies his buried cache. We shouldn keep in mind that all these cache when reported as new caches do not include in the note to the reviewer "I dug a hole to hide the cache" "Or I stuck the sprinkler head in the ground"

Edited December 4, 2010 by JohnnyVegas

[+John in Valley Forge]

It really seems silly to me for someone to say "Here's this really big area of public land...but you can't go there. You can't do anything with it. You can't even walk through it if you want."

 

Our PA Gamelands are a prime example. We can't go in them for a month unless we are hunting. I do feel it would be stupid to wander around in there with a bunch of people looking for something to shoot, but to legislate that we can't, that just doesn't make sense to me.

Isn't it true that PA's gamelands are paid for 100% by hunting & fishing license fees? I can't state that as fact, but somebody recently made that claim in another thread. If that is true, then consider yourself fortunate that the land is sometimes open for other uses.

 

I do not believe it is true. While it may be that 100% of hunting/fishing license fees go towards the budgets of the fish and game commissions they don't cover the operating budgets of those entities.

 

I've never heard that it is unlawful to enter SGL as a non-hunter during hunting seasons. Given the number of different types of game and the various hunt seasons, there is something in season almost every day.

[+Michaelcycle]

I too am interested to see this extensive list of caches archived by "O" because they were buried. I wonder exactly how many caches are "a lot".

 

My observation is that the OP tends to exaggerate. I am, however, aware of one cache recently archived by our local reviewer when he came across it while geocaching. GC1NXP8 was the first cache placed by a local reasonably experienced cacher. Note the picture that shows method of placement. After it was archived, the CO placed it nearby in an acceptable manner and re-listed it.

 

As has been stated over and over the reviewer had no way of knowing how this was placed unless it were reported or, as in this case, he came across it himself. No slippery slope about it. For much of this game, the ultimate enforcers of the rules are us. The reviewers will make things right when they know about infractions but the first assumption of TPTB is that we are, and will act like, responsible individuals.

[+FireRef]

I too am interested to see this extensive list of caches archived by "O" because they were buried. I wonder exactly how many caches are "a lot".

 

My observation is that the OP tends to exaggerate. I am, however, aware of one cache recently archived by our local reviewer when he came across it while geocaching. GC1NXP8 was the first cache placed by a local reasonably experienced cacher. Note the picture that shows method of placement. After it was archived, the CO placed it nearby in an acceptable manner and re-listed it.

 

As has been stated over and over the reviewer had no way of knowing how this was placed unless it were reported or, as in this case, he came across it himself. No slippery slope about it. For much of this game, the ultimate enforcers of the rules are us. The reviewers will make things right when they know about infractions but the first assumption of TPTB is that we are, and will act like, responsible individuals.

 

And the sad thing is that this is actually a very nice hide. Rules aside.

 

Creative, well disguised, well protected.

 

And exactly how much damage was done to the environment by placing it?

 

This is a good example why this guideline is not a good thing for geocaching.

[Pup Patrol]

I know y'all like to talk about geocaching like it only happens in the U. S. of A., but ahem....

 

Having the mistaken impression that geocaching involves the possibility of folks digging holes in the ground is bad for the sport in all sorts of applications/locations.

 

Cemetaries, for example. We already had one flurry of bad press because somehow someone got the impression that geocachers go around digging holes when they are looking for caches. It hit the local papers, people got incenced, etc, etc, etc. It was pretty amazing because the cache in question was a virtual....and from what I could find out, there were no holes being dug at that location any way.

 

Having read forum threads about how geocachers tear apart rock walls, trample gardens, etc, because they can't find the cache, it boggles the mind to wonder how crazy people would get if they thought they had to dig in an area to find a cache.

 

Think about it....the coords aren't "spot on" and they now start widening the search area....digging here, digging there.....geez Louise.

 

The "monkey see, monkey do" theory is sadly very true. Is that not also the probable reason for so many micro hides? And the probable reason for so many less than stellar "found it" logs?

 

I suppose one go could through cache by cache and say that "this particular cache is buried and is not harming anything" but that is not productive. Reviewers can't sit and wade through all the caches in their area and decide "this is ok, this isn't". Hence...the guidelines.

 

Reviewers can't go out and physically verify each and every cache. They also rely on the hiders to be honest in their original cache descriptions. Cache pages that get edited after being published to reveal items that violate the guidelines is playing dirty pool.

 

When hiders don't disclose all the relevant facts, then it's up to the finders to be the ones to report any guideline violations.

[+Sol seaker]

I too am interested to see this extensive list of caches archived by "O" because they were buried. I wonder exactly how many caches are "a lot".

 

My observation is that the OP tends to exaggerate. I am, however, aware of one cache recently archived by our local reviewer when he came across it while geocaching. GC1NXP8 was the first cache placed by a local reasonably experienced cacher. Note the picture that shows method of placement. After it was archived, the CO placed it nearby in an acceptable manner and re-listed it.

 

As has been stated over and over the reviewer had no way of knowing how this was placed unless it were reported or, as in this case, he came across it himself. No slippery slope about it. For much of this game, the ultimate enforcers of the rules are us. The reviewers will make things right when they know about infractions but the first assumption of TPTB is that we are, and will act like, responsible individuals.

 

And the sad thing is that this is actually a very nice hide. Rules aside.

 

Creative, well disguised, well protected.

 

And exactly how much damage was done to the environment by placing it?

 

This is a good example why this guideline is not a good thing for geocaching.

 

Wow. You are just totally missing the point here.

 

We allow holes to be dug because of one nice cache, then that means we aren't allowed in parks anymore.

Come on. Can't you make one nice cache that is not a hole? You want to sacrafice the sport for ONE nice cache???

 

You must have not read early on in these posts.

 

The FIRST question land managers ask, is, "do you bury the caches?"

 

We've been kicked out of National parks because of an instance of ONE buried cache.

If local and regional parks got wind of us starting to bury caches, then we'd be kicked out of those too.

 

Is that really worth ONE nice cache???

 

Tell me you've got enough imagination to make ONE nice cache that isn't buried.

[+FireRef]

Wow. You are just totally missing the point here.

 

We allow holes to be dug because of one nice cache, then that means we aren't allowed in parks anymore.

Come on. Can't you make one nice cache that is not a hole? You want to sacrafice the sport for ONE nice cache???

 

You must have not read early on in these posts.

 

The FIRST question land managers ask, is, "do you bury the caches?"

 

We've been kicked out of National parks because of an instance of ONE buried cache.

If local and regional parks got wind of us starting to bury caches, then we'd be kicked out of those too.

 

Is that really worth ONE nice cache???

 

Tell me you've got enough imagination to make ONE nice cache that isn't buried.

 

I do - I can come up with many...

 

That's not the point.

 

No one person...no one problem... no one issue should make a rule that affects everyone.

 

In NFHS (National Federation of High Schools) Basketball rules, you are permitted to use instant replay to determine the outcome of a basket in a game. Oh wait... it can only be in the state championship game, and only to determine if a made basket shot at the buzzer left the shooters hands before the clock hit zero and the buzzer sounded... oh, and only if it determines the outcome of the game.

 

Can you imagine what it would be like if we had rules every time someone didn't like the outcome of a basketball game? The rule book would be bigger than the Library of Congress. And you could expand this to any sport, or any game for that matter. You don't make a rule because of one mistake.

 

One mistake - well, honestly, can we say it was a mistake? Do we know what this cache looked like? What damage it did to the environment? No. Nothing was posted about this... I welcome any information on this. Simply saying the damage it caused was because the land managers decided they didn't like the game isn't enough for me - misunderstandings can be corrected. And not by kowtowing to every demand of a person or group.

 

Often times, they overreact. Look at the places we aren't even allowed to walk off trail... try to keep the wild animals on the trails and see what happens. I know we aren't wild animals, but if they feel they need to restrict FOOT traffic through an area, they need to be worried about bigger things.

 

And just because they are in charge of "our" land, doesn't mean they make the right decisions. It just means they have the power... power is a dangerous thing.

 

This is a good game. This is a good way to interact with the environment. I think that if we wait a little while, we will have more people actually realizing this, rather than being afraid of it. In education, the internet was a horrible thing, until the people in charge got used to it. Now, it's used all the time. Same with cell phones - at first, schools prohibited them for kids because they were so terrible for kids to have in school. Now, some are starting to realize that they are part of life, and the kids need to be educated in good uses of them, as well as being able to use them under certain circumstances.

 

I'm sorry - I don't feel I'm missing the point. I think the rule is the thing missing the point. My point is: deal with the problems - don't make rules which impair progress in the game because of single issues.

[+cerberus1]

It really seems silly to me for someone to say "Here's this really big area of public land...but you can't go there. You can't do anything with it. You can't even walk through it if you want."

 

Our PA Gamelands are a prime example. We can't go in them for a month unless we are hunting. I do feel it would be stupid to wander around in there with a bunch of people looking for something to shoot, but to legislate that we can't, that just doesn't make sense to me.

Isn't it true that PA's gamelands are paid for 100% by hunting & fishing license fees? I can't state that as fact, but somebody recently made that claim in another thread. If that is true, then consider yourself fortunate that the land is sometimes open for other uses.

 

I do not believe it is true. While it may be that 100% of hunting/fishing license fees go towards the budgets of the fish and game commissions they don't cover the operating budgets of those entities.

 

I've never heard that it is unlawful to enter SGL as a non-hunter during hunting seasons. Given the number of different types of game and the various hunt seasons, there is something in season almost every day.

 

From the Pennsylvania Game commissions web site (pgc,state.pa.us) under "About Us":

Funded primarily by hunting and furtaker license sales; State Game Lands timber, mineral and oil/gas revenues; and a federal excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition; the Commission is almost entirely supported by hunters and trappers, or assets that have been procured with license dollars. The Commission does not receive state General Fund appropriations. More than half its annual revenue comes from license sales, a relatively fixed income source. License fees cannot be increased without approval of the General Assembly, and fee increases have historically come only about every 10 years.

 

So yeah it is a good thing that we're allowed to play on their properties over eleven months of the year.

There is no legislation stating you can't enter game lands at all, but safety (and some common sense) suggests it may be a good idea. Few hunters out for coyote/crows on sunday, leaving even those very few weeks free.

Hunters, we often cache while hunting.

[+JL_HSTRE]

NPS doesn't want buried caches. Period. If you don't like that, it is an issue to take up with the NPS moreso than Groundspeak.

 

Land managers are put in charge of managing land. You may not agree with how they manage the land and by all means you should provide feedback to them in that regard. But they are doing their job, which includes limiting/prohibiting access & activities that they feel are detrimental to the land because for the most part they know more about managing land than we do (and if they don't they should be replaced by someone who does).

[knowschad]

I too am interested to see this extensive list of caches archived by "O" because they were buried. I wonder exactly how many caches are "a lot".

 

My observation is that the OP tends to exaggerate. I am, however, aware of one cache recently archived by our local reviewer when he came across it while geocaching. GC1NXP8 was the first cache placed by a local reasonably experienced cacher. Note the picture that shows method of placement. After it was archived, the CO placed it nearby in an acceptable manner and re-listed it.

 

As has been stated over and over the reviewer had no way of knowing how this was placed unless it were reported or, as in this case, he came across it himself. No slippery slope about it. For much of this game, the ultimate enforcers of the rules are us. The reviewers will make things right when they know about infractions but the first assumption of TPTB is that we are, and will act like, responsible individuals.

 

And the sad thing is that this is actually a very nice hide. Rules aside.

 

Creative, well disguised, well protected.

 

And exactly how much damage was done to the environment by placing it?

 

This is a good example why this guideline is not a good thing for geocaching.

When are you going to realize that that is not the point?! The point is LAND MANAGER PERCEPTION AND OPINION! Read the underlined, bolded, italicized caps, please.

 

And it is not Groundspeak's guess of the land manager's perception, either. That guideline is based upon real situations. Likewise with nails in trees. We had a city here ban caches because the park manager found a geocache that was nailed to a tree. Most of us realize that a nail won't kill a tree (there have been numerous threads on this in the past) but in at least one instance, it got caching banned completely.

[+Sioneva]

The fact is that we as humans are the dominant species on this earth

 

I thought most reviewers were dogs.

Just some. We did have a reviewer that was a doorknob.

 

Buried or unburied doorknob?

[+briansnat]

I too am interested to see this extensive list of caches archived by "O" because they were buried. I wonder exactly how many caches are "a lot".

 

My observation is that the OP tends to exaggerate. I am, however, aware of one cache recently archived by our local reviewer when he came across it while geocaching. GC1NXP8 was the first cache placed by a local reasonably experienced cacher. Note the picture that shows method of placement. After it was archived, the CO placed it nearby in an acceptable manner and re-listed it.

 

As has been stated over and over the reviewer had no way of knowing how this was placed unless it were reported or, as in this case, he came across it himself. No slippery slope about it. For much of this game, the ultimate enforcers of the rules are us. The reviewers will make things right when they know about infractions but the first assumption of TPTB is that we are, and will act like, responsible individuals.

 

And the sad thing is that this is actually a very nice hide. Rules aside.

 

Creative, well disguised, well protected.

 

And exactly how much damage was done to the environment by placing it?

 

This is a good example why this guideline is not a good thing for geocaching.

 

It's a perfect example of why it's a good guideline. You like it. Other people probably do too. That means others are likely to copy it, quite probably in public parks where the management frowns on that kind of stuff. Management finds it and soon geocaching is banned.

 

It took one buried cache to put millions of acres of NPS lands off limits for us. It took one pocket knife in a cache to end geocaching in an entire county park system. It took a handful of questionable logs to nearly cause geocaching to be regulated by law in NC.

 

I think your quarrel should be with the authorities who over react to a 10 inch long hole or a pocket knife. Our guidelines are in place because land managers can (and have) over react to these kinds of things. Start digging up the parks and you'll soon find geocaching unwelcome in a lot of places.

 

And actually burying a cache shows no creativity whatsoever. Anybody can dig a hole and hide a cache. Hiding one well without digging. Now THAT takes creativity.

Edited December 5, 2010 by briansnat

[+Coldgears]

I feel as though nothing more could be said about this topic. I got myanswer as to why there not allowed, all that is happening now is an argument...

[+FireRef]

 

There is no legislation stating you can't enter game lands at all, but safety (and some common sense) suggests it may be a good idea. Few hunters out for coyote/crows on sunday, leaving even those very few weeks free.

Hunters, we often cache while hunting.

 

Actually, unless you are hunting or trapping, you are prohibited from entering the gamelands between Nov 15 and Dec 15. I'm not sure of the dates, but it is definitely in the rules - it was discussed in another thread.

[+FireRef]

NPS doesn't want buried caches. Period. If you don't like that, it is an issue to take up with the NPS moreso than Groundspeak.

 

Land managers are put in charge of managing land. You may not agree with how they manage the land and by all means you should provide feedback to them in that regard. But they are doing their job, which includes limiting/prohibiting access & activities that they feel are detrimental to the land because for the most part they know more about managing land than we do (and if they don't they should be replaced by someone who does).

 

Hmmm - assuming that someone who has a job knows what they are doing? You really need to look further into this. How many people are appointed to jobs that have no other qualifications than knowing someone. That's it. And it happens all the time.

 

As for the NPS, they didn't make the rule for Groundspeak. Groundspeak made the rule for the game, in deference to NPS. Every location has rules for their area... why can't places that prohibit buried caches be the same as places that require permits. You follow the rules for that area. Don't make a general rule for everywhere, if it only applies to some places. Gamelands in PA require you to wear blaze orange when entering them. So why don't we have a rule that anytime we go cache hunting in the woods - no, wait... why not have a rule that says ANYTIME you go hunting a cache, you must wear blaze orange?

 

If I wanted to place a cache in my front yard, and I wanted to bury it, there should be no rule prohibiting it. I know I gave myself permission to do so, therefore why should it be violating any general rule.

[+Markwell]

If I wanted to place a cache in my front yard, and I wanted to bury it, there should be no rule prohibiting it. I know I gave myself permission to do so, therefore why should it be violating any general rule.

 

Note: I am not a moderator in the Geocaching Topics forum, only the Getting Started Forum.

I actually laughed out loud when I read that this was in your post. If you dug a whole to hide a cache in your own yard (or maybe if you phrased it that there was a whole that was dug some time ago in your yard and you used that hole to hide the cache), I would think that might be taken under consideration - maybe not by the first pass of a reviewer, but maybe after appeals.

 

 

You know why I think they might make an exception?

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

-----> BECAUSE THEY'RE GUIDELINES AND NOT RULES. Not everything in the world is black and white, nor should it be.

 

There are times when going past the speed limit is OK. I will not balk when a cop pulls me over for doing it. If I was wrong, I suck it up and pay the fine (or go to traffic court). If the reason were good enough (medical emergency), the office might indeed issue a warning - because he can indeed use personal judgment.

 

Laws state that a person cannot murder - especially pre-meditated murder. Yet war, which includes planning for and implementing the taking the lives of other individuals is sanctioned and performed by our government. In most cases I would disagree with the need for war, but I also know that there are times in the far past that individuals acting on behalf of the government have protected my rights by taking the lives of others.

 

Geocaching is a game. Groundspeak has laid out some guidelines that they believe will be in the best interests of the game so that people aren't placing caches in stupid ways that look bad for Groundspeak or that endanger the environment or our ability to play this game we all love. If you want to use the site and then bend or break one of these, have a good reason, explain yourself thoughtfully and clearly, giving solid reasons why an exception should be made. If you are still unsatisfied with the answer, explain your situation to the appeals process. If you STILL don't get exactly what you want - move on. Is it really worth the effort to fight about a game?

Edited December 5, 2010 by Markwell

[+Ike 13]

Fire Ref GS made the 'rule' about not burying caches in response to the NPS ban in hopes that other land managers would not follow suit. And guess what it's worked overall.

 

There was a time (before I got here) around 5 years ago where more land managers, politicians, etc were against Geocaching because they thought that we go around digging holes, tearing up graveyards, and just vandalizing everything in sight. SC was going to ban the use of ANY GPS device in ANY historical and enviromental area because a few muggle kids destroyed a historic graveyard and in the wreckage was a Geocache. They assumed Geocachers had done all the damage. After a long fight they dropped the bill. Now we're working positively trying to get some great things worked out, but it takes years to overcome one little misunderstanding.

 

You have to think of the issues as someone who has never heard of Geocaching. They hear treasure hunt, and think of pirates and buried treasure. Groundspeak has to do it's best job creating and enforcing guidelines so that our hobby can survive another 10, 15, 20, 30 years. This relies on cache finders because reviewers will ikely never find 10% of the caches they publish (and you cannot rely on CO's being truthful). I have seen so many sprinkler heads torn up due to these hides. A buried cache causes more damage to the surrounding areas as cachers stomp about a 50 foot radius trying to find the cache.

[+mtn-man]

I've got a great idea. With GW in your area next year FireRef and Coldgears, please post your addresses in this topic. A few hundred geocachers would probably stop by your house and start digging holes in your yard so you as a land manager for that location can see what it is like to have someone do this to you. I mean, after all, if you are going to really go to the wall on this, please set an example for us and show us that this really isn't a big issue to a land owner.

 

So, are you going to step up to the plate and put your money where your mouth is?

[+John in Valley Forge]

I can understand why you would not allow a cache that has to be dug up with a shovel to be published. But if a cache owner digs a hole, puts the cache in the hole and people can get to the cache without ever needing to dig again what's the problem? People aren't digging random holes so it causes no issues really. This frustrated me because my local reviewer archives a lot of local caches for this reason. I just don't understand.

 

I didn't realize that there were that many caches being archived because they were buried. I wonder how they got published in the first place. I thought "O" was pretty thorough in his reviews.

Perhaps you could list some. Maybe I just have not noticed them.

 

I might also suggest you read through the forums to the several times that buried caches been discussed already.

 

Still waiting for the OP to show us all of these archived buried caches. Without the list, one wonders if this thread falls under the category of trolling.

 

Will the OP ever back up his original statement?

[+baloo&bd]

My observation is that the OP tends to exaggerate. I am, however, aware of one cache recently archived by our local reviewer when he came across it while geocaching. GC1NXP8 was the first cache placed by a local reasonably experienced cacher. Note the picture that shows method of placement. After it was archived, the CO placed it nearby in an acceptable manner and re-listed it.

 

As has been stated over and over the reviewer had no way of knowing how this was placed unless it were reported or, as in this case, he came across it himself. No slippery slope about it. For much of this game, the ultimate enforcers of the rules are us. The reviewers will make things right when they know about infractions but the first assumption of TPTB is that we are, and will act like, responsible individuals.

 

As I read through the thread, this cache seems like a good example of why these are not allowed. It is very well camo'd.

 

As cacher come upon a hide such as this, aside from copying it, start to think that it is more common place. When a cache becomes difficult for them to find, they start assuming it is buried and the obvious starts to happen.

 

As to inconsistencies in the guidelines, that is called latitude. It exists in all facets of our lives. Law, housing, all sports, work, everything. It is necessary to logical flows. Those that maintain otherwise will go through life very frustrated getting very little done.

[+John in Valley Forge]

I feel as though nothing more could be said about this topic. I got myanswer as to why there not allowed, all that is happening now is an argument...

 

Wasn't that your intent in starting the thread?

[+cerberus1]

 

There is no legislation stating you can't enter game lands at all, but safety (and some common sense) suggests it may be a good idea. Few hunters out for coyote/crows on sunday, leaving even those very few weeks free.

Hunters, we often cache while hunting.

 

Actually, unless you are hunting or trapping, you are prohibited from entering the gamelands between Nov 15 and Dec 15. I'm not sure of the dates, but it is definitely in the rules - it was discussed in another thread.

 

Actually you're incorrect. The "rule" you refer to is Title 58 PA code, Chapter 135.41, Article 21 which reads:

Except with the written permission of the Director, it is unlawful to:

(21) Except on Sundays, be present on State game lands from November 15 through December 15 inclusive when not engaged in lawful hunting or trapping and fail to wear a minimum of 250 square inches of daylight fluorescent orange-colored material on the head, chest and back combined or, in lieu thereof, a hat of the same colored material. The material shall be worn so it is visible in a 360° arc. Persons using shooting ranges are exempted from this requirement.

 

I thought the wording seemed iffy and emailed the Game Commission "just in case."

The response from GM, Comments was:

"You are reading it incorrectly; the rule requires those who are on SGLs between those times to wear orange. "

[+mpilchfamily]

 

There is no legislation stating you can't enter game lands at all, but safety (and some common sense) suggests it may be a good idea. Few hunters out for coyote/crows on sunday, leaving even those very few weeks free.

Hunters, we often cache while hunting.

 

Actually, unless you are hunting or trapping, you are prohibited from entering the gamelands between Nov 15 and Dec 15. I'm not sure of the dates, but it is definitely in the rules - it was discussed in another thread.

 

And for good reason. Most hunters wear the appropriate bright colored vest so they won't get shot by another hunter. Many people won't think about that and could end up getting shot. This sort of thing has happened quite a bit in the past so the lands are closed to all others during major hunting seasons.

 

Fact is rules are often changed or created due to a single person/ indecent or even a small number of people. You don't see Lawn Darts sold anymore. They are illegal, all because a couple of ignorant people tried to play catch with them and where impaled. Very often things that wouldn't be a problem with just a little common since are effected because some people have no common since. As mentioned before... common since isn't common since. Just look at the ridicules number of lawsuits out there because people don't have any common since and have to have everything spelled out for them. Look at the whole McDonald coffee incident years ago. Not sure if its still this way now but for a long while after that you couldn't buy a coffee in a drive through. All because one person spilled coffee in there lap.

[+John in Valley Forge]

You don't see Lawn Darts sold anymore. They are illegal, all because a couple of ignorant people tried to play catch with them and where impaled.

 

I still have a set of them in the garage.

 

Sorry, that statement has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, which is why caches cannot be buried.

 

Again, still awaiting clarification from the OP on the list of "a lot" of area caches being archived due to being buried.

[+Coldgears]

You don't see Lawn Darts sold anymore. They are illegal, all because a couple of ignorant people tried to play catch with them and where impaled.

 

I still have a set of them in the garage.

 

Sorry, that statement has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, which is why caches cannot be buried.

 

Again, still awaiting clarification from the OP on the list of "a lot" of area caches being archived due to being buried.

Why do you doubt me? I don't feel I need to prove myself... However.

1

2

3

 

I suppose this isn't "a lot" for say. But within a period of about 2 weeks it's quite much to see all these good caches archived so quickly.

 

EDIT: The log for number 2 was archived because he fixed the problem...

 

Re-enabled after changing container.

 

Thank you OReviewer for ensuring this cache is within the guidelines of Geocaching.com, allowing the coexistence of geocaches in public parks and other locations.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Coldgears

[+John in Valley Forge]

Thank you for finally responding. When you make a claim in an internet forum, you really should anticipate people to ask for evidence. And if people don't ask, I will.

 

Is archiving 3 caches in a month a lot? It does seem a lot to me. Sad to see how clueless people can be about hiding caches in violation of the guidelines.

[+J the Goat]

Thank you for finally responding. When you make a claim in an internet forum, you really should anticipate people to ask for evidence. And if people don't ask, I will.

 

Is archiving 3 caches in a month a lot? It does seem a lot to me. Sad to see how clueless people can be about hiding caches in violation of the guidelines.

 

I didn't click on the links because I didn't really feel like it. 3 caches in a month may or may not be a lot, depending on the cache saturation of any given area, and the circumstances leading to archival. Maybe an out of town cacher came through and found all three, causing him/her to send an email to a reviewer about said caches. Maybe a reviewer went caching in the area. Maybe a local cacher who wasn't aware of the guideline before, became aware and notified the reviewer.

 

Either way, the caches were against the guidelines. They should not have been placed the way they were, it's not the reviewers fault that the CO placed caches against the guidelines.

 

Archive away Oreviewer, archive away.

[+Sol seaker]

You don't see Lawn Darts sold anymore. They are illegal, all because a couple of ignorant people tried to play catch with them and where impaled.

 

I still have a set of them in the garage.

 

Sorry, that statement has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, which is why caches cannot be buried.

 

Again, still awaiting clarification from the OP on the list of "a lot" of area caches being archived due to being buried.

Why do you doubt me? I don't feel I need to prove myself... However.

1

2

3

 

I suppose this isn't "a lot" for say. But within a period of about 2 weeks it's quite much to see all these good caches archived so quickly.

 

EDIT: The log for number 2 was archived because he fixed the problem...

 

Re-enabled after changing container.

 

Thank you OReviewer for ensuring this cache is within the guidelines of Geocaching.com, allowing the coexistence of geocaches in public parks and other locations.

 

 

I DID click on the links.

Only one of those has been archived for the problems.

So this whole thread for ONE cache??

 

Even if you came up with ten examples of caches that were archived due to being buried it still makes no point. These are the guidelines for good reasons.

 

If you came up with 100 caches that were archived, the only thing it proves is that they need to be more careful in approving caches.

 

 

You wrote in to say you had gotten your answer, so there was no more need for discussion, yet you left the thread open.

I'm beginning to believe those who say you just started this thread to start an argument.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

You don't see Lawn Darts sold anymore. They are illegal, all because a couple of ignorant people tried to play catch with them and where impaled.

 

I still have a set of them in the garage.

 

Sorry, that statement has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, which is why caches cannot be buried.

 

Again, still awaiting clarification from the OP on the list of "a lot" of area caches being archived due to being buried.

Why do you doubt me? I don't feel I need to prove myself... However.

1

2

3

 

I suppose this isn't "a lot" for say. But within a period of about 2 weeks it's quite much to see all these good caches archived so quickly.

 

EDIT: The log for number 2 was archived because he fixed the problem...

 

Re-enabled after changing container.

 

Thank you OReviewer for ensuring this cache is within the guidelines of Geocaching.com, allowing the coexistence of geocaches in public parks and other locations.

 

 

I DID click on the links.

Only one of those has been archived for the problems.

So this whole thread for ONE cache??

 

Even if you came up with ten examples of caches that were archived due to being buried it still makes no point. These are the guidelines for good reasons.

 

If you came up with 100 caches that were archived, the only thing it proves is that they need to be more careful in approving caches.

 

I assume by "they", you mean the reviewers. Can can only review information that is provided to them and couldn't possibly go out an examine every hide before they publish it. If the cache owner omits the fact that it's buried, the reviewer isn't going to know about it until someone from the community either contacts the reviewer directly or a NA log is posted.

 

You wrote in to say you had gotten your answer, so there was no more need for discussion, yet you left the thread open.

I'm beginning to believe those who say you just started this thread to start an argument.

 

Regular users don't have the ability to close a thread. If the OP wrote that they'd received their answer and a moderator hasn't closed the thread, it's not the fault of the OP if it remains open.

[+LukeTrocity]

You can come up with many interesting, original and fun caches WITHOUT needing to bury any. That's why!

[+Ike 13]

3 caches in a month may or may not be a lot, depending on the cache saturation of any given area, and the circumstances leading to archival. Maybe an out of town cacher came through and found all three, causing him/her to send an email to a reviewer about said caches. Maybe a reviewer went caching in the area. Maybe a local cacher who wasn't aware of the guideline before, became aware and notified the reviewer.

 

Either way, the caches were against the guidelines. They should not have been placed the way they were, it's not the reviewers fault that the CO placed caches against the guidelines.

 

Archive away Oreviewer, archive away.

 

Checked OReviewer's profile he attended the 10-10-10 event nearby, and due to the pic on #3 went caching afterwards and discovered these caches. I agree if they violate the guidelines they need to go. 2 of the 3 owners are working on a new hide so nothing to worry about

Edited December 9, 2010 by IkeHurley13

[+Coldgears]

Deleting post. Starting to change my attitude.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Coldgears

[knowschad]

Thank you, apperently the "Cool" thing on these forums is to hate on Coldgears. Everyone from moderators to newbies to oldtimers.

 

As I posted in a thread in off topic.

<snip>

Apparently you are starting to see the effects of taking your queues from another, now banned, cacher that was problematic for many here (as you also stated in that off-topic thread you are referring to). Perhaps you should rethink who you want to use as a role model.

[+Sol seaker]

 

Regular users don't have the ability to close a thread. If the OP wrote that they'd received their answer and a moderator hasn't closed the thread, it's not the fault of the OP if it remains open.

 

All you have to do is email the moderator and request your thread be closed.

 

At that point it is up to the moderator.

[+Sol seaker]

Thank you, apperently the "Cool" thing on these forums is to hate on Coldgears. Everyone from moderators to newbies to oldtimers.

 

As I posted in a thread in off topic.

<snip>

Apparently you are starting to see the effects of taking your queues from another, now banned, cacher that was problematic for many here (as you also stated in that off-topic thread you are referring to). Perhaps you should rethink who you want to use as a role model.

 

Coldgears

You haven't done anything to personally offend me. I do not hate you.

I can dislike your thread or even what you say and not hate you.

[knowschad]

Thank you, apperently the "Cool" thing on these forums is to hate on Coldgears. Everyone from moderators to newbies to oldtimers.

 

As I posted in a thread in off topic.

<snip>

Apparently you are starting to see the effects of taking your queues from another, now banned, cacher that was problematic for many here (as you also stated in that off-topic thread you are referring to). Perhaps you should rethink who you want to use as a role model.

 

Coldgears

You haven't done anything to personally offend me. I do not hate you.

I can dislike your thread or even what you say and not hate you.

 

Well, that's sure not what you told me in your PM!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just kidding, folks!!

[+John in Valley Forge]

 

Regular users don't have the ability to close a thread. If the OP wrote that they'd received their answer and a moderator hasn't closed the thread, it's not the fault of the OP if it remains open.

 

All you have to do is email the moderator and request your thread be closed.

 

At that point it is up to the moderator.

 

I think I remember reading a Mod suggest that the best method is to click the "report this post" on the first post of the thread and ask them in the note to close it. Individual reviewers may not get their email right away, but there is usually at least one Mod reading here somewhere.

[+John in Valley Forge]

Thank you, apperently the "Cool" thing on these forums is to hate on Coldgears. Everyone from moderators to newbies to oldtimers.

 

As I posted in a thread in off topic.

<snip>

Apparently you are starting to see the effects of taking your queues from another, now banned, cacher that was problematic for many here (as you also stated in that off-topic thread you are referring to). Perhaps you should rethink who you want to use as a role model.

 

+1

[Clan Riffster]

Hmmm - assuming that someone who has a job knows what they are doing?

For the purpose of this debate, it really doesn't matter if they know what they are doing or not. The hypothetical land manager in question could be the Stephen Hawking of pine trees, or dumber than a bag of hammers. It matters not. For the purpose of this debate the only thing that matters is their level of authority. If they have the authority to ban a particular activity from the property they manage, we should do everything in our power to keep them on our side. Allowing the perception that some caches might be buried on the property they manage will not put them on our side.

[+BuckeyeClan]

Thank you, apperently the "Cool" thing on these forums is to hate on Coldgears. Everyone from moderators to newbies to oldtimers.

 

As I posted in a thread in off topic.

<snip>

Apparently you are starting to see the effects of taking your queues from another, now banned, cacher that was problematic for many here (as you also stated in that off-topic thread you are referring to). Perhaps you should rethink who you want to use as a role model.

 

FWIW Coldgears, I didn't see anything wrong with your opening post. And you got back quite a few really good, detailed, thoughtful answers. (I quite appreciated the little history lesson, myself. ) But your reply in post #46 sure gave the impression that you were just spoiling for an argument, rather than looking for an honest answer. Maybe if you had said something like "thanks for the background, I didn't know all that!", people would have understood your motives better.

[+kissguy&frannyfru]

One of the best caches ive found was buried. It was on private property with permission and was done in a way that you did not have to do any digging to retrieve it. You just had to open a hinged lid. i didnt see a thing wrong with the way this was done. Just my opinion if you use common sense they can be fine.

 

Sure. Now you are going to tell all the land managers that the only holes that are dug are those using common sense?

 

So people are already trying to stretch the limits now, using "existing" holes. Then people will stretch the limits of common sense. "Oh yeah, this one makes sense to ME." And then we're not only kicked out of state and national parks, but out of local parks as well.

 

Notice i said PRIVATE PROPERTY,Didnt say anything about national parks. Thats where common sense comes in,not digging holes in national parks.

[Clan Riffster]

Thats where common sense comes in,not digging holes in national parks.

Actually, common sense would tell someone not to dig a hole anywhere, public or private.

It's been shown that folks copy bad cache placements, regardless of location.

Some mook, finding a buried cache on private property, might elect to replicate the hide on public property.

Then we get banned from yet another patch of public land.

 

This is a case of, "Just because you can do a thing, (burying a cache on private property), doesn't mean you should do a thing."

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

I found one the other day that;s under ground without having had a hole dug. Amazing how sod removed from a fresh grave makes the perfect cover for a cache.

[+John in Valley Forge]

I found one the other day that;s under ground without having had a hole dug. Amazing how sod removed from a fresh grave makes the perfect cover for a cache.

 

I had not thought of that. Can I copy it and hide a few dozen around here like it? I suspect that is how LPC virus spread so fast

[+J the Goat]

I found one the other day that;s under ground without having had a hole dug. Amazing how sod removed from a fresh grave makes the perfect cover for a cache.

 

Not cool. I'm hoping you shot an NA at that one before you could spell NA.

[+Sol seaker]

I found one the other day that;s under ground without having had a hole dug. Amazing how sod removed from a fresh grave makes the perfect cover for a cache.

 

I had not thought of that. Can I copy it and hide a few dozen around here like it? I suspect that is how LPC virus spread so fast

 

Actually you took the words out of my mouth.

 

I found the final of a multi at a beautiful little pond/ lake not far from here.

It was a really nice clever multi in a beautiful place.

 

Then I got to the final.

 

The cache owner said they had copied something really unique and clever they had just seen.

 

 

 

 

 

It was an LPC.

 

 

 

People copy ANYTHING.

 

(or is this more an argument to not let newbies cache?)