Rules on hidding, under ground

[+Sammy and Jamie]

I know Caches cant be buried underground, so the finder doesnt go digging up everywhere, but can a tunnel or a pipe or a big box be buried under ground, with a cache fastened or placed inside, no digging needed to find it, but its under ground. Is that alowd, I was thinking of ideas, but dont know what i can do.

 

Any advice on what to do, or what people have done.

[knowschad]

I know Caches cant be buried underground, so the finder doesnt go digging up everywhere, but can a tunnel or a pipe or a big box be buried under ground, with a cache fastened or placed inside, no digging needed to find it, but its under ground. Is that alowd, I was thinking of ideas, but dont know what i can do.

 

Any advice on what to do, or what people have done.

 

Is digging needed to hide it?

[+t4e]

I know Caches cant be buried underground, so the finder doesnt go digging up everywhere, but can a tunnel or a pipe or a big box be buried under ground, with a cache fastened or placed inside, no digging needed to find it, but its under ground. Is that alowd, I was thinking of ideas, but dont know what i can do.

 

Any advice on what to do, or what people have done.

 

neither the finder nor the CO should dig

[+CanadianRockies]

...can a tunnel or a pipe or a big box be buried under ground, with a cache fastened or placed inside, no digging needed to find it, but its under ground.

Generally, yes, as long as you aren't the one who installed the tunnel, pipe, or box.

[+Sammy and Jamie]

Thats it, there is a tube buryed, that iv seen, but i dont know if i can use it, but i was thinking of altering it to suit a little, but i guess i cant. I wont bother with that idea.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

...can a tunnel or a pipe or a big box be buried under ground, with a cache fastened or placed inside, no digging needed to find it, but its under ground.

Generally, yes, as long as you aren't the one who installed the tunnel, pipe, or box.

From my interpretation (highlighted portion) of what OP stated... the answer is NO. It may be his/her typing (or texting), but one would normally refer to something already in place as buried, not "be buried".

 

Now if the reference is to a culvert or the like (tunnel?), then the answer is YES. Semantics probably, but the terminology would be "below ground", not "buried".

 

EDIT TO ADD: the last previous OP post -- you cannot alter something that is not yours!

Well.... you could, but it would be a violation of the guidelines.

 

There are plenty of culvert and drain gratings with caches in them that are out there.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+Sammy and Jamie]

Yer I get you, I was just thinking of making it a bit safer for people to put there arms in, as in it is a pipe, just make it not sharp, but also make it a bit less vissibale, but it dont matter with that, I will stick with my caches hidden in trees, the bottom of fences and signs and stuff like.

 

No worrys.

[+lamoracke]

if neither the CO nor the hider can dig...sounds like there is a market for 3rd party diggers (preferably the property owner!)

Edited September 22, 2011 by lamoracke

[+niraD]

if neither the CO nor the hider can dig...sounds like there is a market for 3rd party diggers (preferably the property owner!)

I've found a number of below-ground caches. Some were in holes/tunnels/boxes/whatever installed by the property owner (or by contractors working for the property owner). But the CO didn't need to dig to hide the cache, and seekers didn't need to dig to find the cache.

 

The "never buried" rule might be more understandable if it were described as a "no digging" rule, because that's what the guidelines really prohibit: using "a shovel, trowel or other pointy object [...] to dig or break ground, whether in order to hide or to find the cache".

[+A & J Tooling]

But, now if a cache seeker see's one under ground he/she might just start looking for underground ones at his/her next search. I thought that was the reason behind the rulez?

[+Semper Questio]

I recently had this discussion with our reviewer and the point of the rule is not that something not be buried or in some way underground. The point is that no one do any digging while hiding or finding a cache. If there is a hole, depression, etc that already exists that can be used and then hidden by covering with a rock or something, that's fine. But if you have to create the spot by digging, then that's a no-no.

[knowschad]

The point, as I understand it, is to avoid any appearance of buried caches. Whole areas have been banned from caching in the past because land managers thought that we buried our caches. Perhaps in some cases, they had actually discovered buried caches... I don't know. But the main thing is that we do not want to give the impression that we bury caches.

 

Can you technically use an existing hole? I suppose so, and apparently at least one reviewer feels that way, too. But is it a good idea? Not if you consider that a land manager will probably not realize that the hole was already there (in most cases) or that another cacher wanting to copy your cache elsewhere may not realize it.

[+Ike 13]

Like this? http://blog.geocaching.com/2011/09/geocaching-com-presents-caching-underground-finding-styx/

 

Then yes I have seen plenty like that.

[+rawkhopper]

Believe it or not I am being serious, can a person with permission have a hole dug and box/tube installed, then another individual come and hide a cache in said hole? The person placing or finding the cache did not have to dig a hole.

[knowschad]

Believe it or not I am being serious, can a person with permission have a hole dug and box/tube installed, then another individual come and hide a cache in said hole? The person placing or finding the cache did not have to dig a hole.

 

Please see my post above and let me know what you think after reading that.

[+Keelmann And Cici]

Believe it or not I am being serious, can a person with permission have a hole dug and box/tube installed, then another individual come and hide a cache in said hole? The person placing or finding the cache did not have to dig a hole.

 

If the hole was dug by anyone with the purpose of hiding the cache, no. If the hole was dug to put in a new drainage pipe, and as soon as it's in, you hide a cache there, I'd assume that's ok.

[knowschad]

Like this? http://blog.geocachi...d-finding-styx/

 

Then yes I have seen plenty like that.

 

Culvert and drainage tunnel caches, yes, although very possibly not legal with the municipality that owns them, would likely be published by Groundspeak. But if you look at the OP's post #7, I think it is pretty clear that is not the sort of hide he is considering.

[+angevine]

No digging is permitted at all. Cache finders can't dig to find a cache, and cache hiders can't dig to place a cache.

There are many other wonderful places to hide a cache, there's no reason to cause any damage to the environment!

 

Jeannette

I wrote the book: Open Your Heart with Geocaching

http://tinyurl.com/3ffzsuc

[+Ike 13]

Like this? http://blog.geocachi...d-finding-styx/

 

Then yes I have seen plenty like that.

 

Culvert and drainage tunnel caches, yes, although very possibly not legal with the municipality that owns them, would likely be published by Groundspeak. But if you look at the OP's post #7, I think it is pretty clear that is not the sort of hide he is considering.

I know. I was providing an example of an okay route.

 

Unless you own the property a hole should not be created in any way by anyone for the purpose of a cache.

[+CanadianRockies]

Culvert and drainage tunnel caches, yes, although very possibly not legal with the municipality that owns them, would likely be published by Groundspeak. But if you look at the OP's post #7, I think it is pretty clear that is not the sort of hide he is considering.

If you look at posts #4, #5, and #7, I think a pre-existing pipe might be the sort of hide they were considering. But I suppose different people can interpret these posts differently.

Edited September 23, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+GeoBain]

The point, as I understand it, is to avoid any appearance of buried caches. Whole areas have been banned from caching in the past because land managers thought that we buried our caches. Perhaps in some cases, they had actually discovered buried caches... I don't know. But the main thing is that we do not want to give the impression that we bury caches.

 

Can you technically use an existing hole? I suppose so, and apparently at least one reviewer feels that way, too. But is it a good idea? Not if you consider that a land manager will probably not realize that the hole was already there (in most cases) or that another cacher wanting to copy your cache elsewhere may not realize it.

 

I had a cache hidden in an old rotted out tree stump where the entire thing was below ground and way bigger than the cache. It was very obvious no hole was dug once you found it. Didn't have any problem getting it published. I don't think anyone started carrying around shovels after finding it.

 

I had an ammo can hidden in a natural depression that people literally walked on top of while looking for it. The hole was considerably bigger than the ammo can. I used pine straw packed in tightly to fill the void so you wouldn't trip. It was very obvious the hole was not dug. I don't think anyone started carrying shovels after finding it.

 

However, if I found a bucket in the ground with just an inch showing above ground and the hole fit suspiciously the exact dimensions of the bucket? I might suspect it was dug and buried and I can see how that would lead others to feel it was ok.

 

The guideline has always been interpreted (in my opinion and from what I have seen posted by reviewers in the past) such to discourage digging. However, the new guidelines specifically say "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." So maybe there was a change in thinking recently. But it still specifically mentions digging or breaking ground so I would think existing holes are still OK.

[+GeoBain]

The local college's computer club was granted permission to hide a 50 gallon barrel on the college campus. The school actually requested it be partially buried so that only a few inches showed.

 

We ran this by our reviewer to see what he thought. Since the request came from the property owner, we were given pre-approval but STRONGLY encouraged to find a different solution. In the end, we agreed with the reviewer since we didn't want to encourage others to do the same. We ended up with a much smaller cache. Again, this was several years ago and things may have changed. But I've always thought that property owner permission/requests went a long way towards exceptions being granted.

[+Sammy and Jamie]

Well I have seen a tunnel under ground, but I arent going to use it, I didnt want to give anything any so I said a few things a pipe a box, but I had seen a tunnel, but it might be a bit sharp, and not so nice for poeple to go in, so I was thinking of making it a bit safer for cacher to find, but im not going to bother, its a bit far out the way anyway.

[+Thrak]

This one is pretty much "buried" - it's certainly underground!

[+popokiiti]

We saw a box in a depression with a well camouflaged lid. It almost appeared buried, but wasn't. The cache was inside the box. Similar to your idea? No digging is allowed to find or place a cache...

[Jester1970]

I have an underground cache, it uses an existing hole. No digging required, so no problems.

[+TeamAH3]

As always, when deciding whether to follow the rules or break them, you need to consider what the actual purpose of the rule is. In the case of the no-digging rule it is to prevent damage from many cache hunters digging extensively around the cache location whilst searching. As a cache hider you will only be digging once and tidying up any damage afterwards. And you got permission to hide it anyway, right?

 

I'd say, if you want to hide one in a tube and you make clear on the cache page that no digging is required to find it there is no problem digging to place the tube in the first place.

[+Bear and Ragged]

How far underground do you want?

Wye Valley Ghost Train http://coord.info/GCX4QV (Now archived )

 

Also in the UK check outa few of the more 'extreme' caches 4*/4* and over, there's a few of them 'underground' -check out the over/under series. Many are used as major milestone caches.

[+ValleyCartel]

so heres a quick question. Theres a cache that I have found that I would like some advice on. The cache is a sample tube. Where it has been hidden is below a sod of grass that has grown over a rock in the ground. To retrieve the cache you have to pull on the fish wire tha thas been attache to the cache. The cache is totally concealed below the earth. But you can see its how the grass has grown ove rthe rock. Would this be classed as buried. You dont need to dig it to hide or retrieve but when you replace the cache you need pull up the section of turf.

[+Sammy and Jamie]

This tube is already in place, and it has been for years, its under a road, but its counsel owned I guess, but Iv given up with the idea, for now anyway.

[+GeoBain]

This tube is already in place, and it has been for years, its under a road, but its counsel owned I guess, but Iv given up with the idea, for now anyway.

 

We realize you've changed your mind about the hide. You now have 2 options. Allow the conversation to continue on since we love to see how many pages we can get out of a thread.

 

Or, if you want the discussion to end (kind of getting that vibe), you can hit the report button and request a mod close the thread.

[+BaylorGrad]

Interesting that this thread popped up today. I'd like to describe 2 caches I found today, and see if they pass the buried / not buried test:

 

1) The first cache was a 50-cal ammo can on private property in a small-town suburb-like neighborhood. The top of the ammo can was even with the ground, and large pieces of bark covered the top of it. The hole had clearly been created for the ammo can, because the hole was perfectly rectangular and had reinforced sides.

 

2) The second cache was a brick with a small pills bottle shoved in a hole in the bottom of the brick. The brick was placed (medicine bottle upside down) in a small pipe in the ground. The brick stuck out of the pipe above ground about 2 inches, but the cache itself was at the bottom of the brick, and therefore underground. I suspect that the pipe was already in place.

[AZcachemeister]

On private property, with property owner permission you can dig as big a hole as you like to bury your cache.

[knowschad]

On private property, with property owner permission you can dig as big a hole as you like to bury your cache.

Still a very bad idea, though, because of the message it sends to other potential hiders. The guideline now says, "NEVER buried".

[AZcachemeister]

On private property, with property owner permission you can dig as big a hole as you like to bury your cache.

Still a very bad idea, though, because of the message it sends to other potential hiders. The guideline now says, "NEVER buried".

 

True, but from what I have seen (and from what I have been told by an AZ CO) there are situations where 'buried' is perfectly acceptable.

 

Just to add fuel to the fire, the 'guidelines' don't mean squat. It's the knowledge books that now hold sway over acceptable caching practices.

[+Sammy and Jamie]

I dont think its a good idea, diggind a hole, like you lot say it may influence people.

Now someone said that there was a hole to suit the container that went in place, If I had decide to put something in a hole, I would find a suitable container to fit the hole, so it would look like the hole was made to fit the container, but I feel you would set out to do the oposite.

 

Iv got my ideas on a different cache now, team work one, so quite high above ground, maybe a bit less complicated, but still will have torts on an under ground one.

[knowschad]

On private property, with property owner permission you can dig as big a hole as you like to bury your cache.

Still a very bad idea, though, because of the message it sends to other potential hiders. The guideline now says, "NEVER buried".

 

True, but from what I have seen (and from what I have been told by an AZ CO) there are situations where 'buried' is perfectly acceptable.

 

Just to add fuel to the fire, the 'guidelines' don't mean squat. It's the knowledge books that now hold sway over acceptable caching practices.

 

A rose by any other name...

 

The 'guidelines' were moved into the knowledge books, and the knowledge books state:

 

1. 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.

[+GeoBlank]

So it sounds like you can use your hands to create recessed container (e.g. a coffee can) but you just can't use any sort of tool.

The reviewer should check and see if you had to use your fingernails..... as they could be considered a pointy object.

[+JoLTeam]

Half the regular sized caches over here (Flanders, Belgium) are buried underground in a pvc tube or wooden "cellar", covered with a piece of wood. Of course there is no digging involved for the seekers, but the hiders did dig a hole. Should these caches all be archived then ?

[GOF and Bacall]

Half the regular sized caches over here (Flanders, Belgium) are buried underground in a pvc tube or wooden "cellar", covered with a piece of wood. Of course there is no digging involved for the seekers, but the hiders did dig a hole. Should these caches all be archived then ?

 

Yes. They never should have been published in the first place. But I suspect that the COs failed to mention the guidelines violation when they submitted their listings.

[+Merry & Pippin]

Half the regular sized caches over here (Flanders, Belgium) are buried underground in a pvc tube or wooden "cellar", covered with a piece of wood. Of course there is no digging involved for the seekers, but the hiders did dig a hole. Should these caches all be archived then ?

 

Same here in Denmark. I can think of four caches I recently found that were buried in this way, in holes clearly dug for that purpose. Three were in public forests, one I'm not sure might have been on the owner's own property.

I don't mean to criticize people who put in a lot of effort to place caches for others to enjoy, so I've been wondering what to do. All caches have very positive logs also from experienced cachers, no one has mentioned anything about the cache being buried. I assume it has become normal practice around here.

[Narcosynthesis]

If it is an old cache hidden before the relevant rules were put in place then I believe it is allowed to still exist as a grandfathered cache in the same way as virtual caches do - existing ones stay, but new ones may not be placed.

 

If it is a new hide, then I believe it should be archived - theoretically it should never have been approved, but that obviously depends on whether the reviewer actually knew the location in advance - all the reviewer sees is what is listed on the page, and what the owner tells them. If it is a new hide though, I believe it should be archived as it was placed in contravention of the rules.