Why are our caches not being approved

[Land Shark!]

Hey, I have a question for you. I see a lot of caches on youtube videos have caches hidden in sticks or branches, and also ones that involve being placed in the ground. For example there was one in a fence post that was in the ground.

 

In the last week we have had two caches rejected. One was a cache that was inside a fake drain you take the cover off the drain and there is a cache inside. It was buried three inches in the ground with about two inches sticking out of the ground.

 

The other one was a log that we drilled a hole in and glued a small cache in with the cap of the cache sticking out of the log.

 

The first one was rejected for "being buried" the second one was rejected because we "modified nature" to make it...

 

I don't understand because I see videos of great caches all the time that seem to be doing the same general things. Can you help me figure out what we are doing wrong? We want to be good at this and make exciting creative caches in our area. So as much help as possible would be helpful. We want to make caches like these awesome ones we see on youtube. Any ideas?

[+briansnat]

The caches you submitted violated the guidelines. You can't dig to hide a cache. It doesn't matter that the top is exposed. You can't "modify" the environment. Drilling holes is considered vandalism.

 

You need to read and understand the guidelines. When you submitted these caches you checked a box that said you had read and understood the guidelines. I suggest you re-read them.

 

Some of the great caches you see in videos are guideline violations period. The reviewer might not have been aware of them when he published them. The caches are published simply because the reviewer was not aware of the hiding method. These are sometimes flagged by other geocachers, or the reviewer being a geocacher himself, may encounter them and archive the cache because of the violation.

 

Some of the other great caches you see are objects that the cache owner crafted at home from his own materiel and introduced to the environment. That is OK. I recall one multi cache where the cache owner took rocks from his backyard and carved coordinates into them and placed them in the environment. That would be Ok.

 

It's a fine line, but an important one. We Geocachers can't be seen as vandals. Graffiti, drilling holes in trees and even stumps can give that impression.

 

If you have a question about the appropriateness of a hide run it by your reviewer before spending the time to create it. And above all, know the guidelines. The 10-20 minutes it takes to read them can save you hours of fruitless work down the road.

[+6NoisyHikers]

Briansnat, could you please clarify the bit about "modifying nature"? We understand that GS doesn't want us to go out into the forest, hack off a branch and hide a cache in it. But if you had a branch - say one that you pruned from a tree in your yard - could you drill a hole in it, tuck in a bison tube and then take that branch and hide it in the forest?

Edited September 15, 2011 by 6NoisyHikers

[+popokiiti]

You cannot nail or glue a birdhouse to a tree for example, but you could hang one. If you have a branch that you pruned from your tree, you can modify it. Digging to place a cache is a no-no, but a cache can sit in a depression that is naturally occurring. To the OP, you don't have any recorded finds yet...it would be a good idea to log your finds, and if you haven't been hunting yet, it would be better if you did. That way, you can find out what works and what doesn't, and you will have an better idea of what you need to do to get your hides approved.

Read the guidelines on hiding a cache more than once, and check them for every subsequent hide as things do change.

[Land Shark!]

The one that we had rejected was a log from my back yard burn pile that we drilled a hole in and put a cache inside. This seems like it should be fine based on what I am reading here. So why would it be rejected?

 

The cache was called "swamp logger" and we mentioned it was a log. Not a branch on the tree, or part of the tree trunk, or in a stump, but a log. I would assume that would give away that it wasn't modifying nature. We brought a log to the area.

 

Is there a way we should have worded this description for the reviewer differently?

 

I can accept that the fake drain one could be an issue. The cache isn't buried but it is inside of a drain that is buried. I was under the impression that it was only unacceptable if the cache itself was buried?

 

Also, I don't log my caches only because I cache with a friend who logs his. I didn't have an account at all but was curious about things of that nature. The caches we have hidden are under his username as well. I'm not worried about how many I find or which ones so I don't bother logging them If there are problems with caches or anything like that he makes comments so I figure I don't need to say the same things.

 

The fact that I do cache makes it even more frustrated that ours aren't approved because ones like "swamp logger" are made because I like finding ones like that (have found several) and wanted one like that in our area so people around here can enjoy that style too. But, ours get rejected and it stinks because we put a lot of work into them and make styles that are not around this area. It is really disheartening to make a cache similar to my favorites and be excited to share it with the community only to be rejected for reasons that seem unfair, or at the very least allowed for some people but not others.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Land Shark!

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

One important thing to note in the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, updated February 11, 2011:

 

Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache.

 

Just because something (cache) already exists, doesn't necessarily mean another similar one will "automatically" qualify.

 

That said, I wish you well. As with any new endeavor, there are stumbling blocks that one must trip over to learn the ropes.

 

To simply take a hard stand about it is not always the best method to achievement. Work with your reviewer, they prefer to post/approve caches rather than reject them. I am fairly sure that if you ask him/her for help or suggestions, they would help.

The "problem" may be as simple as wording.

 

Edit to add: Drilling a hole in your own piece of wood, seems to be OK on the face of the issue. However, there are many who notice such a hide and take it to mean it is OK to drill anything they want to, not being aware that it was your own property that you altered. That may be the sticking point.

Impressions are important!

Edited September 15, 2011 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+briansnat]

The one that we had rejected was a log from my back yard burn pile that we drilled a hole in and put a cache inside. This seems like it should be fine based on what I am reading here. So why would it be rejected?

 

The cache was called "swamp logger" and we mentioned it was a log. Not a branch on the tree, or part of the tree trunk, or in a stump, but a log. I would assume that would give away that it wasn't modifying nature. We brought a log to the area.

 

 

On the surface that sounds like it's fine. Did you tell your reviewer that you made it from a log from your own woodpile? If so I'm not sure why it was turned down if you're telling the whole story. Appeals@geocaching.com is always an option if you feel your cache was declined without justification. Explain your situation. Supply any supporting evidence such as photos.

 

 

I can accept that the fake drain one could be an issue. The cache isn't buried but it is inside of a drain that is buried. I was under the impression that it was only unacceptable if the cache itself was buried?

 

If any digging is done to hide the cache then it is not allowed. If you had to dig a hole to install the fake drain then it would be a violation.

[+niraD]

If any digging is done to hide the cache then it is not allowed. If you had to dig a hole to install the fake drain then it would be a violation.

Yep. The summary of the guidelines is "Geocaches are never buried." However, the detailed guideline would be better summarized as a "no digging" guideline than a "never buried" guideline:

Geocaches are never buried. If a shovel, trowel or other pointy object is used to dig or break ground, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not permitted.

[+tozainamboku]

First of all, it seems like you are giving more information on the cache page than you have to. When you submit a cache you've checked a box saying you read and understood the guideline. Therefore the reviewer will assume you are following the guidelines and will approve the cache. You don't need to tell them its buried or that you defaced property to provide a hiding method for the cache. You are probably seeing lots of caches like this because that is what people did. They didn't say how the caches were hidden on the cache page so their cache was approved.

 

Now of course this is dishonest. You've checked the box so your caches really should be hidden in compliance with the guidelines. And if someone later reports that your cache needs to be archived because it was buried or it defaced some property, the reviewers will remember that you were dishonest the next time you submit a hide. However, in many cases the people who find these caches won't be caches cops and won't report the apparent violation so you're likely to get away with it.

 

There have been suggestions to require that a photograph of the hide be included as a reviewer note as a way for reviewer to check that guidelines are being followed. So far these suggestion have been declined as the problems from hides like you had aren't as big of a deal as some people in the forums would suggest. If large numbers of caches were buried or defaced propery, particularly in certain parks, there would be a problem because this could result in all geocaches being banned in these areas, and other land managers may also restrict geocaching if it becomes associated with these sort of hides. So there is a rationale for the guidelines.

 

Finally, these caches might be allowed. For the drain cache, permission from the property owner to hide a cache like this might enable it be published. In this case, however, a reviewer might still be reluctant to publish as there is a fear of someone copying the hide without getting permission. The reviewer might insist on the cache page indicating that permission was given. Similarly, the log would likely be allowed, since the log came from your woodpile and was not public or someone else's private property. You would have to indicate this to reviewer. Again a reviewer might see a copycat issue and want you to place an indication on the cache page that cammouflage was not indigenous, though I've never seen this required for this type of cache.

[+Touchstone]

Perhaps the caches you mentioned on that video site were on the cache owner's property? You can be as creative as you like on property that YOU own.

 

We have a couple of "creative" hides of this nature near me, that are located in the cache owner's front yard. Of course, that means putting up with *visitors* at just about any hour, night or day

[Land Shark!]

So, the general consensus is that the "swamp logger" cache I mentioned is acceptable correct? I just want to be 100% sure that a cache of this nature is good to go. We have another similar idea and just want to be sure.

[+Keelmann And Cici]

Best bet is to open a conversation with your reviewer, tell him/her what you'd like to do, and make sure it's ok. As was pointed out, previous caches do NOT guarantee acceptance of a new cache.

 

And I definitely don't suggest simply omitting info. It can hurt your reputation with Groundspeak and with other cachers. There's good reasons for the guidelines.

[+Touchstone]

So, the general consensus is that the "swamp logger" cache I mentioned is acceptable correct? I just want to be 100% sure that a cache of this nature is good to go. We have another similar idea and just want to be sure.

 

Probably best to have that conversation with the Local Reviewer, and find out what exactly the issue is. It may be that you didn't make it clear in your Note to the Reviewer that this was constructed at home with materials that you gathered in your backyard, etc. If you merely stated that you drilled out some piece of wood, without mentioning that it was not Park Property, I could certainly understand the Reviewer raising a "red flag" on such an issue.

[+luvvinbird]

Best bet is to open a conversation with your reviewer, tell him/her what you'd like to do, and make sure it's ok. As was pointed out, previous caches do NOT guarantee acceptance of a new cache.

 

And I definitely don't suggest simply omitting info. It can hurt your reputation with Groundspeak and with other cachers. There's good reasons for the guidelines.

I totally agree. It's okay, the reviewer won't bite. I've communicated with my local reviewer on a pressing issue and I received a prompt, helpful, and courteous reply which resolved my concern.

[+Team Taran]

I think it may also need permission of the land manager to bring logs or other items into a park or reserve. I know you are requested not to bring firewood with you when you camp in some areas. I think these kind of caches require permission from landowners or managers.

[+popokiiti]

Reviewers are the ones who help us place our caches in accordance with the guidelines - they are open to questions, and will give the correct answers. I am not a reviewer, so don't go by anything I say! We had a cache turned down as it was against the guidelines - we hadn't realised what the "grandfathering" of those caches deemed to be commercial was, but mtn-man was very pleasant in his explanation and refusal. That cache with the same name was placed elsewhere.

Good luck, and have fun finding caches too.

[MeffyEllis]

I think it may also need permission of the land manager to bring logs or other items into a park or reserve. I know you are requested not to bring firewood with you when you camp in some areas.

I hadn't thought about this, since I don't think our local parks have such a rule, but I can see at least one good reason for such a restriction: to prevent one method for the spread of tree-killing insects like the pine bark beetle, the emerald ash borer (which doesn't just attack ash trees), and so forth. Makes sense.

[GOF and Bacall]

The best thing you can do is to have this conversation with your reviewer.