Burying cache on private property

October 12, 2011

Ok, I know this has been discussed in many different threads but when I searched there were too many results to possibly read them all so I am asking the question on a new thread. I have read and understand the guidelines but want some clarification here. I would like to place a cache on private property and know the property owner (my husband works with him) and this is their personal residence on 15 acres. They have done some caching themselves so know what it is. I have talked with them about my idea and they love the idea and are 100% on board and part of it was their idea. What we want to do is dig a hole, place a large piece of PVC in the hole which will house the actual cache container and then cap it at the top. It will be 12" underground and 12" above ground. I just want to know if this is ok to do since I have permission from the property owners. Thanks in advance for the advice.

SmallsKC

October 12, 2011

No, you may not dig to hide a cache, no exceptions to that rule based on permission, private property, or any other factor to my knowledge. Sorry.

19k · October 12, 2011

From what I know, if you have permission for something like that, you are good to go. But if you do, I may have to withdraw my vote. :lol:

Seriously... the problem with a cache like that, even with explicit permission, is the message that it sends to other cachers, particularly the new ones.

October 12, 2011

No, you may not dig to hide a cache...

Dig the hole for the purpose of laying the pipe (giggity). Then stand back and say "Hey, that would be a neat place to hide a cache!"

Problem solved!

October 12, 2011

From what I know, if you have permission for something like that, you are good to go. But if you do, I may have to withdraw my vote.

Seriously... the problem with a cache like that, even with explicit permission, is the message that it sends to other cachers, particularly the new ones.

LOL. You are funny. I see you beat my hubby to it. Stink!!! He said he was going to do that to try to win that coin.

I understand your point. That makes sense. There is a water valve in PVC that is already in place and I was going to put another one close by so it isn't completely obvious that it is the cache. It would blend in too. It would be great but don't want to do anything that would send the wrong message to other cachers or do anything that would imply that I have no regard for the rules/guidelines. I'm just trying to CYA!

Edited October 12, 2011 by SmallsKC

October 12, 2011

No, you may not dig to hide a cache...

Dig the hole for the purpose of laying the pipe (giggity). Then stand back and say "Hey, that would be a neat place to hide a cache!"

Problem solved!

Alright Quagmire...... :lol:

8.6k · October 12, 2011

Aside from a digging action being against the guidelines...

It gives those cachers who don't bother to read the guidelines a wrong impression. i.e. they saw it, therefore it must be OK to do so!

Perhaps not the start of a pandemic, but certainly opens the door for many to come to the forums looking for ways around the guidelines.

You know, ask the question three times (or more) and finally you get the answer that you WANT to hear.

October 12, 2011

What if it was a hollowed out fence post? Those are partially buried and I see those used as holders of caches. What's the difference there?

October 12, 2011

With 15 acres, why do you have to bury it? How about a fake tree stump?

October 12, 2011

With 15 acres, why do you have to bury it? How about a fake tree stump?

I wish I had one of those.

I can't explain exactly why we wanted to use our idea. It would give away too much for anyone in our area. There is a reason why the idea we came up with is perfect for this particular cache. That is all I can really say. Also, it wouldn't really be buried but a hole would have to be made to place the "holder" for the cache container. It would actually be sticking 1' out of the ground. Yes, I do know what the guidelines say about making a hole in the ground. That is why I wanted to make sure before we did this. I have come up with plan B. I will be checking with my reviewer as well.

Thanks for all the help. I am still new to this and don't want to give anyone the impression I am intentionally being defiant.

SmallsKC

8k · October 12, 2011

No, you may not dig to hide a cache, no exceptions to that rule based on permission, private property, or any other factor to my knowledge. Sorry.

There is always the possibility of exceptions, especially if you have permission. Some reviewers may still be reluctant because of the possibility of copycat hiders. People see a cache hidden this way and think it is ok to do this in a public park. So they dig a hole, hid the cache, and don't reveal to the reviewer that they used this method. Then the park finds out someone dug in the park and whoosh! caching is banned in that park. If you hid a cache like this you will probably be required to state on the cache page that the cache was placed with the property owner permission and should not be copied without explicit permission. Reviewers will still want to know why you had to hide a cache with this method when there are plenty of other clever hides you can come up with that don't stretch the guidelines so.

October 12, 2011

I would just do it. If the reviewer has a problem with it, cross that bridge when you get to it. You don't HAVE to say that you dug a hole. Say that there's a piece of pipe underground, with above-ground access, in which you'd like to hide a cache. That's it. As nice as it is to get advice from the forum members, they're not the ones who are going to make the final decision. Don't let the bible-thumpers get you down

If I want to go out and dig a hole for a big cache container on my own property, I'm going to do it. No one can POSSIBLY stop me from digging a hole! I'm not going to get fined, no one's going to ban caching because of it. It's my land, I'll do with it whatever I wish. I'm not responsible for what other people do, and I'm pretty sure most people have enough common sense to know not dig a hole in a public park... Or maybe I'm just giving the geocaching community too much credit...

Storm drains are dug into the ground, and I've see caches hidden in those. Tell me, is there a certain amount of time that must pass between the dig and the hide that makes the two actions "unrelated?"

I don't think this is what the guidelines are talking about when they say "no digging." I think they're talking about someone going into the woods and burying an ammo can in the dirt. Then you have cachers coming out all willy-nilly digging holes everywhere. Obviously, GS doesn't want people tearing up the land looking for a cache. The repeated digging-to-find and re-burying of the cache is, IMHO, what they're trying to avoid.

That doesn't apply here. The cache doesn't need to be dug up to be found. People aren't going to be swarming in with shovels, pickaxes, and backhoes destroying the land.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Mitragorz

9.1k · October 12, 2011

Mitragorz raises an interesting point - is the rule focused on avoiding cache hiders digging holes to place caches? Or focused on the act of geocachers repeatedly digging around coordinates to find geocaches? The latter seems like it would happen more often (multiple times per cache instance, as opposed to once per cache instance).

Nonetheless, the 'spirit' of the rule would apply all around, and it makes sense. Generally, don't give the impression that caches can be in a location that requires digging to find and/or place.

I'd think hiding those sorts of caches (buried under the surface, specifically, as opposed to located there such as in caves or tunnels) would be up for possible exceptions if a solid case is provided to a reviewer; but i doubt it would be approved at all if it encouraged geocachers to dig until they found it.

I'd guess that (presuming adequate property permission is granted if necessary):

* In a tube for which a hole was dug, but accessible without digging and without implying digging would be needed? Possible exception.

* Hidden under a tuft of dirt and grass that blends in with its surroundings? Good luck...

Edited October 12, 2011 by thebruce0

2.6k · October 12, 2011

I would just do it. If the reviewer has a problem with it, cross that bridge when you get to it. You don't HAVE to say that you dug a hole. Say that there's a piece of pipe underground, with above-ground access, in which you'd like to hide a cache. That's it. As nice as it is to get advice from the forum members, they're not the ones who are going to make the final decision. Don't let the bible-thumpers get you down

If I want to go out and dig a hole for a big cache container on my own property, I'm going to do it. No one can POSSIBLY stop me from digging a hole! I'm not going to get fined, no one's going to ban caching because of it. It's my land, I'll do with it whatever I wish. I'm not responsible for what other people do, and I'm pretty sure most people have enough common sense to know not dig a hole in a public park... Or maybe I'm just giving the geocaching community too much credit...

Storm drains are dug into the ground, and I've see caches hidden in those. Tell me, is there a certain amount of time that must pass between the dig and the hide that makes the two actions "unrelated?"

I don't think this is what the guidelines are talking about when they say "no digging." I think they're talking about someone going into the woods and burying an ammo can in the dirt. Then you have cachers coming out all willy-nilly digging holes everywhere. Obviously, GS doesn't want people tearing up the land looking for a cache. The repeated digging-to-find and re-burying of the cache is, IMHO, what they're trying to avoid.

That doesn't apply here. The cache doesn't need to be dug up to be found. People aren't going to be swarming in with shovels, pickaxes, and backhoes destroying the land.

There is so much wrong here I hardly know where to start. Let's just stick with these...

Yes, there are a lot of cachers who don't read the guidelines before hiding a cache and just assume because something they've seen, regardless of circumstances, is OK to do elsewhere.

Yes, there are those who will dig a hole in a public park in a city. I know of a cacher here that has done 3 just as the OP has described and other cachers here and elsewhere that have done at least 1. Dug a hole, put a chunk of PVC in it, put the cache in that, then capped the PVC. This is not a new idea and it is still just as against the guidelines as it ever was.

No, the applicable guidelines are not about "burying". It is about "digging", regardless of how much of the cache is above ground, as well as altering and defacing property, public or private.

Yes, you can dig whatever holes you wish on your property for whatever caches you want to place there. But that doesn't mean the reviewer has to approve your cache or that someone else can't report it as being in violation of the guidelines and get it archived.

9.1k · October 12, 2011

as an addendum, as per the above comment, the context for my previous comment was on 'exceptions' - not about whether buried/dug caches are valid In some cases, a cache may get an exception, but that doesn't mean it's not against the guidelines. So, what Semper Questio said

1.1k · October 12, 2011

How about, cut your pipe in half, attach the one foot section to a flange and stake it in place (no digging), add your cache and cap as needed and enjoy.

You also end up with a second pipe to replace the first one when a tractor or whatever runs over the first one. :laughing:

October 12, 2011

So are you saying that caches placed in storm drains should be banned because the storm drains were, at one point, dug?

Say you have an underground bunker. Say it was used for munitions storage in WWII. Now it's empty and the governing body wants to put a cache inside it. Are you expecting a reviewer to deny it based on the fact that it's underground, in a bunker that required digging to create?

October 12, 2011

I actually went and looked up the rule.

"1.1 Fundamental Placement Guidelines

(3) 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 a cache, then it is not permitted."

The ground isn't being broken in order to bury the cache. The cache isn't buried. The hole is being dug so that this piece of PVC can be placed. The PVC is buried. The PVC is not the cache, just like a storm drain isn't a cache. Then the cache placed inside the pipe.

The only action required to place this cache is the action of placing it into a piece of pre-existing, buried pipe. And my definition of "pre-existing" is a piece of pipe that is buried there before placement of the cache.

This wouldn't be causing an uproar if she chose to use the other pipe that is already buried there (had it been suitable), would it? This is no different.

Like I said before, these forum members aren't the police. They don't make the decision of what you can and can't do. I say bury the pipe and make your cache. See what a reviewer has to say about it. Worst case, they say no. But then, a year from now, you can apply for a cache placed in a piece of pipe that has been buried in the ground for a year. Nothing wrong with doing that. I mean, if people can use old, buried fenceposts to hide caches, surely you can use your old piece of pipe!

Edited October 12, 2011 by Mitragorz

9.1k · October 12, 2011

If you were to be sneaky like that, then you'd need to keep those two actions (burying the pipe, and placing the cache) entirely separate actions, the former of which wouldn't need to be mentioned in the publishing of the cache. A finder may come along and presume the pipe was hidden to contain the cache, complain, and attempt to have the cache archived, but you could easily say that the pipe wasn't buried in placing the cache.

There are ways around it, but ultimately it's up to the reviewer to decide whether they believe or trust you if a complaint arises. They choose based on their knowledge, judgement, and feelings. Be honest when you publish a cache; being selective can still be honest, as long as you're not purposely lying or misrepresenting the cache. In this case, who is to say, except you, whether the action of placing the cache required digging?

Be respectful, be honest, be wise.

October 12, 2011

If there is a pre-existing hole. Let's say the landowner dug a hole and nows not need that hole for anything. He may want you to put a PVC pipe in it to save him from having to fill it in himself.

:huh:

3.5k · October 12, 2011

If there is a pre-existing hole. Let's say the landowner dug a hole and nows not need that hole for anything. He may want you to put a PVC pipe in it to save him from having to fill it in himself.

Hah! that's just what I was going to say--get your friend the property owner to dig the hole; and there you have it--a pre-existing hole.

8.6k · October 12, 2011

Ugh... I have (over many years) filled in enough unused wells, I am now starting to feel bad. Perhaps they would've been good cache placements, eh? Not!

At any rate, based upon some of the comments, I do have a backhoe for rent. It's sitting idle and I could use the money.

Make a hole today, for tomorrow you can call it an "already existing" hole. Facetious? Yes, but that is what I read from some of the responses.

As far as hiding something from the reviewer, well... just remember the night has a thousand eyes.

October 13, 2011

Is this one against the rules then? I am kind of doubting they found a hole that big. :huh: Neat idea though. I was actually thinking of making something similar. Now I just need to find a big enough hole.

Odd Plant Geocache

Edited October 13, 2011 by WI CavalryScout

October 13, 2011

All SmallsKC has to do is say to the reviewer "There's a buried PVC pipe in a yard, and I have the owner's permission to place a cache in it. Here's my idea..."

That's it. It's that easy. She's not lying, she's not using trickery, sorcery, or black magic... Does it really matter when the PVC pipe was buried? Does it make a difference if it was 5 days, 5 months, or 5 years ago? I don't think so. The worst that can happen is that the reviewer says "no." Then what? Nothing! It's not like she's going to be banned from Geocaching forever if she tries to make this cache! Some of you make it seem like if she tries to create this cache that the world is going to end. Relax, people. It's just a cache. Caches get denied all the time. It's really not a big deal!

If the reviewer allows it, then it sounds like we're going to have a pretty interesting cache on our hands. If he doesn't... Then oh well, at least she tried! This cache will never be published if she doesn't try, so she might as well make an attempt.

My "Give It A Shot" vote still stands. Really, what have you got to lose?

Edited October 13, 2011 by Mitragorz

October 13, 2011

Ok... I think this is kinda what you want to do. I really want to make one like this as well. Seems like this one was approved. It is a very cool cache and hope to do it.

AmishHacker

October 13, 2011

Ok... I think this is kinda what you want to do. I really want to make one like this as well. Seems like this one was approved. It is a very cool cache and hope to do it.

AmishHacker

Maybe the rules would considered that buried, but I consider it just stuck in the ground. To me burying means dirt is thrown on top so there is a difference. This is probably going to spark some debate. :drama:

3.6k · October 13, 2011

What if it was a hollowed out fence post? Those are partially buried and I see those used as holders of caches. What's the difference there?

I think the rule is meant you don't ever dig a hole to place a cache. If the hole already exists then you didn't dig the hole. But I always see others make exceptions like sprinkler head caches or electical boxes with pipe in the ground.

I brought this up before and still can't believe this cacher got away with it. A newbie cacher dug a hole in a city park. Put a large bulk jar in the hole and covered everything but the lid. The lid is a wide mouth and so they put a smaller container inside for the cache. The cache was archived for awhile and then unarchived because they claimed permission by the park. A lackey at GC said they doubt the CO got permission due to liablity. But the cache is still there. Most experienced cachers posted comments like "bold move" "can't believe it" but strange a bunch of newbies who never heard of before, with a few finds and only last a week or a month and never log on again posted "clever" and "great idea" Those if they are real I would be worried about. One cacher said they tripped over it.

October 13, 2011

I actually went and looked up the rule.

"1.1 Fundamental Placement Guidelines

(3) 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 a cache, then it is not permitted."

The ground isn't being broken in order to bury the cache. The cache isn't buried. The hole is being dug so that this piece of PVC can be placed. The PVC is buried. The PVC is not the cache, just like a storm drain isn't a cache. Then the cache placed inside the pipe.

The only action required to place this cache is the action of placing it into a piece of pre-existing, buried pipe. And my definition of "pre-existing" is a piece of pipe that is buried there before placement of the cache.

This wouldn't be causing an uproar if she chose to use the other pipe that is already buried there (had it been suitable), would it? This is no different.

Like I said before, these forum members aren't the police. They don't make the decision of what you can and can't do. I say bury the pipe and make your cache. See what a reviewer has to say about it. Worst case, they say no. But then, a year from now, you can apply for a cache placed in a piece of pipe that has been buried in the ground for a year. Nothing wrong with doing that. I mean, if people can use old, buried fenceposts to hide caches, surely you can use your old piece of pipe!

Storm drains are not likely to be created by the cache hider, and are not created for the express purpose of hiding a Geocache. The PVC pipe in this example would be buried for the express purpose of creating a hiding spot for a cache. Which, to me at least, means that is is against the guidelines since it would be part of the process of hiding a Geocache. Whether or not an exception of that guideline would be granted, if it is on private property with explicit permission, is something the potential cache hider would have to talk with their local reviewer about.

The example it provides is an entirely different issue. To quote an old saying "Monkey see, monkey do." If someone were to see a cache hidden in a PVC pipe that was obviously buried there specifically for the Geocache, then they may try and do it regardless of the guidelines. And if they were to do it somewhere without permission, say a local park or, worse yet, a state park, then there is the potential for a backlash against Geocaching in those areas. When hiding a cache you should try to provide a good example, not a bad one. I also agree with an idea I've seen elsewhere that basically states that if you think you have to hide something from the reviewer in order to get a cache approved, then it should not be placed at all. If you cannot be upfront and honest about how the cache is hidden, then it's not a good hide. And in some cases, the potential ramifications can expand far beyond one single cache listing. (As I've heard Virginia Geocachers found out a while ago. If you want to know more about that, search the forums for VDOT rather then ask here.)

October 13, 2011

Wasn't the original stash buried with just the lid exposed? :drama:

3.6k · October 13, 2011

yes and it is grandfather before the revised guidelines. Same with Mingo. That's why the guidelines should be read frequently by all cachers. The guidelines change as it progresses into new territories. Like the ALRs. Many COs have yet to remove their ALRs. GS believes it will only intervene when it is brought up to them that an ALR is still in place.

9.1k · October 13, 2011

Yep, and who dares report a cache for breaking revised guidelines, and risk being demonized as a rat with a vengeance against the game?

GS wouldn't care though - they can change/adjust/update their guidelines, enforce them from then on, and state that if caches are reported to them they'll deal with them - and effectively put all the bad blood and blame back on geocachers who do the "policing" for them on caches that aren't considered "grandfathered" but rather sitting there now breaking guidelines waiting to be reported.

Example, in short: two caches, both now break different guidelines but didn't when first published; only one is considered "grandfathered", yet both remain active and enjoyable. One cacher wonders how they're still active considering they're 'illegal', and mentions them in the presence of a reviewer, who sees that one isn't grandfathered and must be fixed. Non-grandfathered cache is disabled and/or archived by the reviewer, and the geocacher who 'outed' it is vilified (and perhaps the reviewer who was only doing their job)

It's a flawed system. But that's how it tends to go in the context of this game...

In the case of private property caches with permission, or caches granted exceptions or grandfathered status, perhaps there should be notes with the cache - for the public - to assuage any concern of rule-breaking properties, and to make the job for reviewers of dealing with those concerns much quicker and easier? *shrug*

Edited October 13, 2011 by thebruce0

3.7k · October 13, 2011

I've always taken the guidelines to be based on the premise that we don't want geocachers taking trowels or spades with them so that they can dig up caches or dig holes to place caches. Or more to the point, dig around an area until they find the cache or fashion a good enough hole.

As long as the cache isn't going to need digging up then it should be OK, as long as it isn't in a hole specially dug for a cache.

In the latter case, if the hole HAS been specially dug then I'd think it allowable as long as the reviewer was told about the landowner situation. I'd also make it clear on the cache page that the landowner is fully aware of the cache.

October 13, 2011

I see two sides to the no burying' rule: A lot of caches are placed on public land, owned by councils or local governments where caches are tolerated, but not always expressly allowed (how many people have asked permission to place a magnetic on teh back of a parking meter or to place an LPC?). So far these caches are non-destructive, so tolerated by councils and so on. If people were allowed to dig to place a cache though, that then opens up problems with the landowners who won't want to have to deal with holes being dug, land being damaged and all the associate problems, who will then ban caches which we don't want. Certainly an owner placing a cache on private land is allowed to legally do what he wishes, but if he is allowed to place such a cache, there is a precedent for the next cacher who wants to place a cache and hasn't got the full permission.

From the other side of it we also don't want geocachers knowing caches may be buried, and therefore turning the areas around hides into bombsites digging multiple holes in the search and leaving a horrible mess that will only compound the problems above.

Pre-existing holes and buried structures are of course fair game - caves, bridges, man made tunnels and so on. They were not dug by the hider, and don't require any digging to find.

As for the cache planned in the OP, if it is your land, and you want to essentially place a structure to hide a cache in, then that is presumably your prerogative - to place a PVC pipe on your land is allowable, and once the pipe is placed it then would come under the rules cover pre-existing holes - the cache is not buried, it is just placed in something else that was already buried. I would perhaps try to keep the above problems in mind though, and try to disguise the hide so that it is not obviously 'a pipe buried to hide a cache in' but more 'a pipe that was formerly doing something else useful, but now holds a cache'.

Either way the final word comes from your local reviewer, who has the authority from Groundspeak to lay down their laws - if they feel it is within the rules you get your cache, if they think you are obviously bending the rules then they have the right to deny it.

October 14, 2011

I know of two hides in my area like this. One is a fake Septic drain field three four inch dia pvc pipes sticking in the ground.

One other a half gallon bottle under a big rock in a hole. The cap is glued to the rock.

Burying cache on private property

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation