Dig or No dig?

[+river222]

Over many months of geocaching I have come across quite a few geocaches.Geocaches which disobey the guidelines of geocaching.

Quote:Geocaches are never buried.

Now I don't quite get this,what does it mean by buried.The majority of caches i've seen are underneath our feet but can be easily spotted when moving an object out of the way like a rock or brick.So here's my question:Are you allowed to place a geocache underneath our feet if something can be removed to find it?

Thanks,river222

[+Bear and Ragged]

If you have to dig, to put the cache under the rock or brick, no.

[+Isonzo Karst]

If the cache owner had to dig the hole to place the cache, no.

 

Sometimes you're seeing cache placed in an hole which pre-existed the hide.

 

Local to me, caches which stay in the same place for a long time can end up sitting in a cache shaped depression - from the shifting of the light sandy soil around the cache, or from a build up of humus from leaf litter.

 

I just did some maintenance on an old ammo can cache of mine, on its side, in a neat square depression that of pine humus that has formed since it was placed in 2003. It does look like I dug a square 3 inch hole for it.....

[+river222]

If the cache owner had to dig the hole to place the cache, no.

 

Sometimes you're seeing cache placed in an hole which pre-existed the hide.

 

 

I placed a cache out once which was in a pre-existed hole once however everyone thought that I dug it up myself which I did not do.Do those people who place a geocache in a pre-existing hole say on the listing about that or is it just people are cautious that it's breaking the guidelines?

River222

[+Bear and Ragged]

If the cache owner had to dig the hole to place the cache, no.

 

Sometimes you're seeing cache placed in an hole which pre-existed the hide.

 

 

I placed a cache out once which was in a pre-existed hole once however everyone thought that I dug it up myself which I did not do.

 

Do those people who place a geocache in a pre-existing hole say on the listing about that or is it just people are cautious that it's breaking the guidelines?

River222

 

On the listing? Rather a spoiler, for those looking for the cache.

In a note to the reviewer? I don't know, only the CO and reviewer can see them.

[Keystone]

I am moving this thread from the Geocaching.com Web Site Discussion forum to the Geocaching Topics forum.

[+briansnat]

If the cache owner had to dig the hole to place the cache, no.

 

Sometimes you're seeing cache placed in an hole which pre-existed the hide.

 

 

I placed a cache out once which was in a pre-existed hole once however everyone thought that I dug it up myself which I did not do.Do those people who place a geocache in a pre-existing hole say on the listing about that or is it just people are cautious that it's breaking the guidelines?

River222

 

I've placed a few caches in pre-existing holes and I mentioned the fact that they were pre-existing on the cache page.

[+Chokecherry]

I noted in my note to the reviewer on my cache that I used a pre-existing hole I believe. In our search for a hide spot we dislodged a boulder on accident and it was perfect.

[AZcachemeister]

The guidelines say neither the hider nor the finder should need pointy tools to hide or find the cache.

If you can dig the hole with your bare (or perhaps even gloved) hands, it's OK.

If you need a shovel, trowel, pointy stick or a back-hoe, you are out of line.

[+tozainamboku]

So here's my question:Are you allowed to place a geocache underneath our feet if something can be removed to find it?

Thanks,river222

Like all the guidelines you have to understand a bit of the rationale behind it to know what it means.

 

In the early days of geocaching, some parks adopt a policy of not allowing geocaches because the land managers had an image of geocachers digging for buried treasure. The imagined hundreds of geocachers descending on their parks with shovels and digging holes where their GPS zero'ed out. In order to convince park managers otherwise the "Geocaches are never buried" mantra was developed. Still, in early interpretation geocachers could sometimes bury caches so long as finders did not have to dig to access the cache. Some park managers made it clear that they didn't want hiders digging up their parks either, so now there is no digging either to hide or find a cache.

 

However, while caches are not buried in holes dug for this purpose, caches can be buried under leaves, rocks, sticks, and even covered with loose sand or soil. Also existing holes are considered fair game.

 

Since the rule was basically adopted to satisfy a few park managers, you might ask why this applies to all caches. Surely, if a land manager doesn't care that people dig holes shouldn't you be able to do so when hiding caches on that property? Again you need to look at the reason for the guideline. It wasn't to prohibit digging; it was to change the image of geocaching from buried treasure to a more accurate view. In a few case, if you can show permission for burying a cache you might get it approved. However, the reviewer can still refuse to publish the cache just so other land managers will not have this image of geocachers digging holes.

 

SPOILER: an interest variation are caches that are literally placed underneath your feet. I've seen caches hidden in a culvert or tunnel beneath the road or in a subterranean parking garage beneath a park. The coords take to a spot where there is no obvious place for a cache to be hidden. You have to realize that it may be underneath you and figure out how to access it.

[diggingest_dogg616]

I think if it's buried under a brick or a rock, then that's more like camoflaging than really burying, unless you've really gone out of your way to put it in the ground. Putting some sand or leaves on it, while technically burying, I still kind of see as camoflaging To each their own, but you can still get to it with your hands and not require some sort of earth moving implement.

[+jellis]

Lets say in forums or if reviewers know, then it's NO.

But if you go ahead and do it then the finders say "what a creative cache" "nice hide"

and it never gets reported. And if it does will anyone do anything?

 

 

I reported this one which was placed in the open in a city park. It was archived for about a day. Then it was said they had permission.

That was back in June. The CO has not logged back in since Oct and I went to check on it. The lid was missing and the container inside was gone and only rocks and mud was left inside. Last log says that now there is only a hole in the ground left.

Edited December 28, 2011 by jellis

[+Coldgears]

I reported this one which was placed in the open in a city park. It was archived for about a day. Then it was said they had permission.

I'm pretty sure the guidelines state that they are not allowed... Even with permission.

 

You could've fought it with Groundspeak. Whether it would be worth it though... That's another story.

[+Lieblweb]

I reported this one which was placed in the open in a city park. It was archived for about a day. Then it was said they had permission.

That was back in June. The CO has not logged back in since Oct and I went to check on it. The lid was missing and the container inside was gone and only rocks and mud was left inside. Last log says that now there is only a hole in the ground left.

 

I'd take those hides anyday over a typical Tupperware container!! I don't see anything wrong with that!!

[+A & J Tooling]

I reported this one which was placed in the open in a city park. It was archived for about a day. Then it was said they had permission.

That was back in June. The CO has not logged back in since Oct and I went to check on it. The lid was missing and the container inside was gone and only rocks and mud was left inside. Last log says that now there is only a hole in the ground left.

 

I'd take those hides anyday over a typical Tupperware container!! I don't see anything wrong with that!!

 

Because now everyone will start digging stuff up looking for a cache.

[+Lieblweb]

 

Because now everyone will start digging stuff up looking for a cache.

 

And there lies the reason the rules are in place. So finding them doesn't require digging it up.

 

If a PVC pipe is buried but the cap is accessible, then the cache seeker does not need to dig for it - they only need to remove the cap).

[+RobDJr]

 

Because now everyone will start digging stuff up looking for a cache.

 

And there lies the reason the rules are in place. So finding them doesn't require digging it up.

 

If a PVC pipe is buried but the cap is accessible, then the cache seeker does not need to dig for it - they only need to remove the cap).

 

We also need to consider that the rules are in place so that the hiding of a cache doesn't require digging.

 

The rule is there to distance the idea of "geocaching" from the idea of "digging", in order to reduce resistance from land managers towards geocaching.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Over many months of geocaching I have come across quite a few geocaches.Geocaches which disobey the guidelines of geocaching.

Quote:Geocaches are never buried.

Now I don't quite get this,what does it mean by buried.The majority of caches i've seen are underneath our feet but can be easily spotted when moving an object out of the way like a rock or brick.So here's my question:Are you allowed to place a geocache underneath our feet if something can be removed to find it?

Thanks,river222

I see these hides all the time. I know of two that I have not logged but many experienced cachers have loged them these cachers are more concerned with their numbers count. One a cacher creates a hole in the ground the cache is considerd burried. the guidlinesare very clear on this matter. A cacher can not poke anything in the ground in order to hide a cache. Many cacher claim that the caches must be covered with dirt to be burried, but that is not the Groundspeak view of a burried cache. It is the ground speak view that counts.

This topic has been brought up many times in the past. I have a very strong opinion of cachers that hide illegal caches. At one time my opinion even got be locked out of the forums for a few weeks. This is why I do not spend as much time here. I guess I should not have named the offending cachers. But I consider these types of cache hider geo scum.

[+JohnnyVegas]

If you have to dig, to put the cache under the rock or brick, no.

you are 100% wrong. you cannot dig ti hide a cache-go read the guidlines

[+JohnnyVegas]

I reported this one which was placed in the open in a city park. It was archived for about a day. Then it was said they had permission.

That was back in June. The CO has not logged back in since Oct and I went to check on it. The lid was missing and the container inside was gone and only rocks and mud was left inside. Last log says that now there is only a hole in the ground left.

 

I'd take those hides anyday over a typical Tupperware container!! I don't see anything wrong with that!!

really, have you even read the guidlines for placing a cache? the cache in the photo is a burried cache and those hides are not allowed

[+JohnnyVegas]

 

Because now everyone will start digging stuff up looking for a cache.

 

And there lies the reason the rules are in place. So finding them doesn't require digging it up.

 

If a PVC pipe is buried but the cap is accessible, then the cache seeker does not need to dig for it - they only need to remove the cap).

This is indeed a burried cache

If a PVC pipe is buried but the cap is accessible, then the cache seeker does not need to dig for it - they only need to remove the cap).

But like I have said in the past some cachers are more interested in running up there numbers count, no doing what is right.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

If you have to dig, to put the cache under the rock or brick, no.

you are 100% wrong. you cannot dig ti hide a cache-go read the guidlines

 

You do realize he basically said "No, you can't dig to hide a cache", right?

[+BMndFul]

I understand the "no dig" rule, but it really a matter of practical application. If you set a sprinkler hide, aren't you digging a hole for it. I would say probably 99% didn't find an existing hole. Same with various electrical box, PVC type hide which require the illusion of a pipe in the ground etc. I think it really a matter of common sense, which is a dangerous thing. I don't have a problem with buried tubes, sprinklers etc....however, where do you draw the line? Is a semi-buried 5 gal bucket to much? I can see people allowing a tolerance for smaller pipes etc, then someone will come along and the bury something that could be dangerous if left unattended or in ill-repair. I guess we are left with a basic rule which does get broken, and it up to each of us to use some type of judgement on how far to push the rule.

[4wheelin_fool]

I reported this one which was placed in the open in a city park. It was archived for about a day. Then it was said they had permission.

I'm pretty sure the guidelines state that they are not allowed... Even with permission.

 

You could've fought it with Groundspeak. Whether it would be worth it though... That's another story.

 

There was one near me which was archived even with explicit permission mentioned on the page.

 

I thought that was going a bit too far.

 

Perhaps it is the realization that caches with explicit permission are not allowed as to bend the guidelines, because it could spur a copycat hide without any permission.

 

And in the process taking away an incentive for cachers to obtain permission.

[+The A-Team]

The guidelines say neither the hider nor the finder should need pointy tools to hide or find the cache.

If you can dig the hole with your bare (or perhaps even gloved) hands, it's OK.

If you need a shovel, trowel, pointy stick or a back-hoe, you are out of line.

Nope. It doesn't matter what you use to dig with, it isn't allowed. Some cachers have used the wording of the guideline as a loophole to allow them to use their hands, but it has been clarified in the past that the spirit of the guideline is "no digging". Basically, if you are creating a hole in the ground in which to hide the cache, it isn't allowed.

Face it, your hands are kind of pointy!

[+niraD]

If you set a sprinkler hide, aren't you digging a hole for it.

Maybe. Maybe not. Most of the fake sprinkler caches I've found have been held in place by loose landscaping bark or similar ground cover.

 

I think understanding the intent of the "no digging" rule helps clarify the gray areas. And yes, there are gray areas. Tossing a handful of leaves and twigs over a cache is fine. Digging a hole to sink a 5-gallon bucket into the ground is not. But there are a lot of techniques that fall between these two examples.

[+Lieblweb]

I understand the "no dig" rule, but it really a matter of practical application. If you set a sprinkler hide, aren't you digging a hole for it. I would say probably 99% didn't find an existing hole. Same with various electrical box, PVC type hide which require the illusion of a pipe in the ground etc. I think it really a matter of common sense, which is a dangerous thing. I don't have a problem with buried tubes, sprinklers etc....however, where do you draw the line? Is a semi-buried 5 gal bucket to much? I can see people allowing a tolerance for smaller pipes etc, then someone will come along and the bury something that could be dangerous if left unattended or in ill-repair. I guess we are left with a basic rule which does get broken, and it up to each of us to use some type of judgement on how far to push the rule.

Exactly and very well said. Can't we just play the game?

 

I think there are far more important things to worry about in this hobby than trying to archive someone's sprinkler hide or PVC pipe hide just because it's considered buried?

 

Why don't we spend our efforts cleaning up and archive (or adopt) all the caches that their owners have disappeared for months and they're left to disrepair?

[+JohnnyVegas]

If you set a sprinkler hide, aren't you digging a hole for it.

Maybe. Maybe not. Most of the fake sprinkler caches I've found have been held in place by loose landscaping bark or similar ground cover.

 

I think understanding the intent of the "no digging" rule helps clarify the gray areas. And yes, there are gray areas. Tossing a handful of leaves and twigs over a cache is fine. Digging a hole to sink a 5-gallon bucket into the ground is not. But there are a lot of techniques that fall between these two examples.

It is only a grey area for those that do not want to see in black and white

[+power69]

The guidelines say neither the hider nor the finder should need pointy tools to hide or find the cache.

If you can dig the hole with your bare (or perhaps even gloved) hands, it's OK.

If you need a shovel, trowel, pointy stick or a back-hoe, you are out of line.

I was told fingers are considered pointy objects!

[AZcachemeister]

GC1PBJW

[+sbell111]

If you set a sprinkler hide, aren't you digging a hole for it.

Maybe. Maybe not. Most of the fake sprinkler caches I've found have been held in place by loose landscaping bark or similar ground cover.

 

I think understanding the intent of the "no digging" rule helps clarify the gray areas. And yes, there are gray areas. Tossing a handful of leaves and twigs over a cache is fine. Digging a hole to sink a 5-gallon bucket into the ground is not. But there are a lot of techniques that fall between these two examples.

It is only a grey area for those that do not want to see in black and white

My eyes don't allow me to see the world in black and white. There's plenty of grey, not to mention color.

[4wheelin_fool]

GC1PBJW

Found with Haygra - was well below 12 inches when we found it, replaced at 4-6 inch depth. TFTC!

Found it10/27/2010found it with family-was buried more than 6" though. the hint was helpful. TFTC

Found it10/22/2010Dug in the wrong spot at first, but second one was the right one! Went at night, beware mosquitoes!!

Owner Maintenance10/16/2010Checked on this one today. Looks like the city decided to add a little more sand again. About 12 inches worth so the cache will be a little deeper down than normal.

 

Edited December 29, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

[+To The Moon]

I once came across one under a rock , but it was in a special plastic container. It looked like it was used in the army at one time. In any event the top of the contained was flush with the ground and easily visible but they would have had to dig to put the container in.

 

It was pretty cool and a bit challenging.

 

Moon.

[knowschad]

GC1PBJW

Found with Haygra - was well below 12 inches when we found it, replaced at 4-6 inch depth. TFTC!

Found it10/27/2010found it with family-was buried more than 6" though. the hint was helpful. TFTC

Found it10/22/2010Dug in the wrong spot at first, but second one was the right one! Went at night, beware mosquitoes!!

Owner Maintenance10/16/2010Checked on this one today. Looks like the city decided to add a little more sand again. About 12 inches worth so the cache will be a little deeper down than normal.

 

 

It sounds to me at though that particular cache is covered with sand. That has been discussed here throughout the years and it has been pretty much accepted that sandy beach caches (and sand dune caches) are exceptions.

 

The main thing to remember here is the reason that guideline exists in the first place. Land managers and their perception of geocaching. It is doubtful that a land manager would get upset by somebody moving some sand on a beach around. It happens every day. Digging a hole in a park is quite another matter.

[knowschad]

Because now everyone will start digging stuff up looking for a cache.

 

And there lies the reason the rules are in place. So finding them doesn't require digging it up.

 

If a PVC pipe is buried but the cap is accessible, then the cache seeker does not need to dig for it - they only need to remove the cap).

 

Bzzzzzzt!! Wrong!!

 

The reason is one of land manager's perception. That has been stated here many times by those that make these rules.

[+SwineFlew]

We got a city along the coast that we called the water vaule cache city. Because there are alot of caches in water vaule covers. What happen was that the CO used to work for the city and he got full permission to do it. The problem is this, a newbie will come along and thinks its all ok and start digging.

[+briansnat]

I once came across one under a rock , but it was in a special plastic container. It looked like it was used in the army at one time. In any event the top of the contained was flush with the ground and easily visible but they would have had to dig to put the container in.

 

It was pretty cool and a bit challenging.

 

Moon.

 

And probably a guideline violation.

 

To me the whole digging thing shows a total lack of imagination. Of course you can make a cache challenging if you can dig to hide it. Make it challenging without violating the guidelines, now THAT is pretty cool.