Burried Treasure

[+MacGyverUK]

Now before anyone as a go and tells me to read the guidlines, I have.

I fully understand that if placing/finding a cache requires an object such as a shovel to break the soil it is deemed unacceptable. I want to make it clear I do not intend to dig holes to bury a cache.

 

I had planned to create a series of caches that would be difficult to find that blended with their surrounding by placing them underground. A tube/hole underground with a wooden lid that was flush with the terrain and camouflaged with a small marker, thus nothing looks out of place and the cache is shielded from the elements/muggles.

 

Digging a hole aside would it be acceptable to use an existing hole? A places where core samples where taken or an old fence post had been removed for example, or where natural forces had created a space. Then filling in around it with loose rocks/soil.

 

On the other hand, if permission was gained from the land owner (private/council/forestry) to dig a suitable hole for the cache would this be acceptable as long as there is no foreseeable knock on effects to the local environment.

 

I'm new to Geocaching and have yet to place any caches but I would like to make them as interesting as possible. Although this would be a preferred method to stash several of my intended caches, they are not the only option and I wanted to be clear on these aspects before disgruntling fellow Geocachers and/or breaking any rules.

 

Any clarification or advice is greatly appreciate.

 

Thanks

 

MacGyverUK

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

No. Bad plan. Surely you can find another creative hide method. I suspect that you kno this is a bad idea or you wouldn't have brought it here.

[+addisonbr]

Digging a hole aside would it be acceptable to use an existing hole? A places where core samples where taken or an old fence post had been removed for example, or where natural forces had created a space. Then filling in around it with loose rocks/soil.

 

On the other hand, if permission was gained from the land owner (private/council/forestry) to dig a suitable hole for the cache would this be acceptable as long as there is no foreseeable knock on effects to the local environment.

Hi MacGyverUK! Welcome to the game. I think you're doing the right thing bringing this question here.

 

There are some reasons why using an existing hole aren't a great idea, nor would it make things okay by getting permission from a friendly landowner. It's very important to *all* of us, that *all* geocachers and land managers know that geocaches are never buried no matter what. Regardless of permission, or if the hole was dug for a different purpose originally, etc. We don't want newer (or veteran, for that matter) searchers having trouble with a difficult hide (or one that may be missing) and thinking, well, sometimes they are buried, so maybe I'll dig up a few of these likely spots just in case.

 

We can't expect cachers to stay on top of who has what permission for where - it's hard enough to rely on cachers to read the listing pages in full in the first place. That's fine when it comes to things that will inconvenience only them, but if it's going to lead to behavior that might get geocaching restricted or banned in my neck of the woods, it's a lot less fine. So rather than rely on geocachers to somehow know when a hole was pre-existing, or if a land manager gave an exception, it's much better for us as a community to make sure that everyone always knows, under every circumstance, that geocaches are never buried. And that digging will never produce results.

 

Incidentally this policy also helps us get geocaching approved in places that aren't or weren't open to geocaching at the beginning. Many land mangers are under the mistaken impression that geocaching is a buried treasure game, and are reasonably concerned about people playing it on their property. But when we can say with authority, geocaches are never buried it softens them up considerably.

 

It's possible that with enough searching you'll find a stray exception to this - a cache that slipped through the publication process, or a reviewer who makes a mistake. But these are very rare and shouldn't be seen as anything other than glitches.

 

Good luck with your first hide, I think your goal of making your caches as interesting as possible is laudable, and I appreciate you asking the question here. Come back if you have more questions, most people will be happy to help.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

It's good you read the guidelines. Now, you need to understand the why behind them.

What you propose, is truly bad because it gives the wrong impression to others, cachers and non-cachers alike. You read the guidelines, but did they? These types of caches are easily construed by many as an "OK" way to do it, because they have seen it.

 

I call it the "lemming effect".

They see what they believe to be a buried cache, so it's a buried cache, whether you think it is or not! Therefore, it is OK for them to do the same (as they see it).

 

Sorry, it's a bad idea.

 

EDIT: Aside from that... place those types of caches on property other than your own, and see what type of reception you receive when the owner/land manager sees what you/others have done!

Edited July 26, 2011 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+MacGyverUK]

Thanks for the quick replies.

 

The plan initialy had been to fix something to the lid that would make it easy to find and identify for those looking for it and inconspicous enough that those who weren't would simply pass it by. But I do understand this issues this would raise.

 

Consider the idea well and truly scrapped. I have plenty more creative ideas for placing my larger caches that dont enfringe on this or any of the other rules and guidelines.

I've enjoyed the short time I've been geocaching and the last thing I want to do is spoil it for myself and others.

 

Thanks again for your help and advice.

[+tozainamboku]

I'm going to disagree with some of the replies above. Generally using an existing hole is OK and in many instances getting permission from a land owner to dig is also OK. However, your local reviewer may still not publish such a cache or may require you to state on the cache page that you used an existing hole or got explicit permission to dig.

 

As stated above, in many area land owner/managers have refused permission to hide caches because they assume that geocaching has something to do with buried treasure. They imagine geocachers descending on their land en masse with shovels and tearing the place up. Even if the digging is just to hide a cache, they don't want people digging in certain places. Geocaching.com has found the best way to dissuade land owner/managers from this impression it to say geocaches are never buried. They have done such a fine job at this that you get responses like you did here. Many reviewers and geocachers are concerned when a cache is hidden in the ground that others will see this and copy the hide by digging in places where you shouldn't be digging. So they will try to dissuade you from doing these kinds of hides. However, you may be able to work with your reviewer to find a way to do such a hide that will lessen the chance of someone copying it inappropriately. I suggest contact one of the UK reviewers with details of your idea and seeing what they say.

[+The Flying Ks]

There is a cache in our area that is a fake faucet. Part of the cache is somewhat buried (the bottom 1/3 of the pvc)... is that not acceptable, too?

 

HH

[knowschad]

There is a cache in our area that is a fake faucet. Part of the cache is somewhat buried (the bottom 1/3 of the pvc)... is that not acceptable, too?

 

HH

 

Pushing something into the ground is not considered burying it.

[+johnny4wt]

interesting discussion...so what if one finds a glitch?

 

I found a geocache that was in a depression in the ground covered by a piece of plywood.

 

I had to remove some earth the put the cache back since the ground was sandy and the sides caved in when it was extracted.

[+A & J Tooling]

I've found a few (30) caches that are similar to what you are talking about. I think as long as you don't dig with a tool, it should be allowed. But that is just my opinion.

[+Panther&Pine]

interesting discussion...so what if one finds a glitch?

 

I found a geocache that was in a depression in the ground covered by a piece of plywood.

 

I had to remove some earth the put the cache back since the ground was sandy and the sides caved in when it was extracted.

I'd consider that usage of a pre-existing hole. Granted I currently live in a place with a fair bit of sand.

[4wheelin_fool]

There is a cache in our area that is a fake faucet. Part of the cache is somewhat buried (the bottom 1/3 of the pvc)... is that not acceptable, too?

 

HH

I would say that was fine, depending on how narrow the pipe was.

 

I am aware of cachers in some places pulling up fake sprinkler heads, signing in, and leaving them laying there in an misguided effort to police the no burying rule, which is ridiculous. There is no need to go to an extreme, just use common sense, and be aware that many land owners are geocachers also and may discover whatever you do.

[+Castle Mischief]

Good grief. Now here is the real answer, because this happens every time burying comes up on the forums: some number of people start throwing out "but I found a cache yadda yadda and wasn't that buried?"

 

Here are a few of the possibilities for "buried" (or actually buried) caches that are brought into the discussion:

 

* Cache is not really buried. Cache is covered by leaves or similar.

* Cache is not really buried. Cache is in an existing hole and the reviewer (for any number of reasons) was okay with that or was not told about the hole at all.

* Cache is buried. Reviewer wasn't told at time of listing.

* Cache is buried. Reviewer allowed the cache based on previous iteration of the guidelines, an interpretation of the guidelines, some other circumstance, or an exception was made (guidelines not rules) at the time of the listing.

* Cache is buried. Not the original hide method. A finder decided to "hide it better".

 

Does this mean that your buried/existing hole hide would be listed if you were completely honest? Probably not. Also, there's a line in the guidelines (last I checked) about caches and precedent. Just because it is/was done, doesn't mean it will pass muster today.

 

Couple of other things- hands are pointy tools. If you use your hands, it's still digging. Fake sprinkler/spigot hides have been given the okay in the past and have been called "not digging" in the past but that's no assurance that they will be listed today.

 

Short version: If you have doubts check with your reviewer.

[+Geodalf]

To add to uncommon sense arguments, if I remember correctly (which often I don't) the rule states you can't use a pointed shovel or a sharp instrument to dig a hole. So following the rule precisely I can use a unpointed dull shovel. While most of my tools are to dull enough to cut butter anyway I don't intend to go digging holes.I do intend to use some common sense in interpreting and applying rules at the risk of being hunted down by the geocache police. I don't believe the rule as written excludes all holes, but maybe the wording needs some looking at by the geocaching muckity mucks and potentates so it is a bit clearer.

[+briansnat]

To add to uncommon sense arguments, if I remember correctly (which often I don't) the rule states you can't use a pointed shovel or a sharp instrument to dig a hole. So following the rule precisely I can use a unpointed dull shovel. While most of my tools are to dull enough to cut butter anyway I don't intend to go digging holes.I do intend to use some common sense in interpreting and applying rules at the risk of being hunted down by the geocache police. I don't believe the rule as written excludes all holes, but maybe the wording needs some looking at by the geocaching muckity mucks and potentates so it is a bit clearer.

Well said. Someone who uses a power washer or their dog to excavate a hole would be not be technically violating the guideline but are violating the spirit of it. In the duff of a soft forest floor I can also dig a good sized hole with my hands. Again not a technical violation but it misses the point of the guideline. It should read "no digging", period.

[+MacGyverUK]

Well it seem I've touched on a rather opinionated topic. I'll shelve these caches for now and consult a reviewer at a later date.

[+JL_HSTRE]

If you were to hide a pipe-like container in a narrow but deep hole (ex: where a fence post had been) I would highly recommend contacting your reviewer in advance, explicitely stating in a Reviewer Note how the cache was hidden and that you got permission from [Reviewer Name], getting explicit permission from the landowner, and probably adding to the cache page a note about the cache being placed with special permission (something vague to not immediately tip off cachers, but something that once found makes it clear this is not something they should do without permission).

 

That all said, it's probably not a good idea. A depression in the ground is more common and usually looks natural (due to erosion), thus cachers who find it may not even stop to wonder if it was man-made. One of my early finds was a Lock-n-Lock/Rubbermaid in a small depression by a tree covered by bark and sticks. I don't think it was man-made; just clever use of an existing low spot.

[sp1tf1re]

I have seen a few that were placed inside a utility box on the ground. One of them was created specifically for the cache. Though I didn't believe it to be the hide location as I knew they shouldn't be in the ground. This specific place also had some labels indicating that certain boxes were not the cache.

[+theosus]

I have seen a few that were placed inside a utility box on the ground. One of them was created specifically for the cache. Though I didn't believe it to be the hide location as I knew they shouldn't be in the ground. This specific place also had some labels indicating that certain boxes were not the cache.

 

I've seen one or two inside water meter boxes. One was in an existing box, with a water pipe through it. The other was specially dug and planted, I.e. Real box, but no pipes.

Looking at the requirements, are both those caches verboten? Orissa one okay and the other not?

 

I loved the fake water meter box. I looked and looked, and finally had to phone a friend.