Are These Permissable Cache Containers?

September 4, 2012

I've seeen cache containers on sale, and even found one similar cache myself, which consist of a tube inserted into the ground with fake grass etc planted in its top. A typical example is shown at http://www.ukgeocachers.co.uk/catalog/Large-Long-Grass-Ready-Made-Micro-Cache.html.

But a new 15 mile geotrail near me has just been rendered "temporaily unavailable" because a reviewer had been told that the caches consisted of yellow tubes inserted into the ground - which he believes makes them buried caches. (The geotrail cache descriptions actually states the caches are film canisters but as I've not yet been out to see it I cannot verify the cache container employed.)

My query is not intended to interfere with the review of this geotrail itself, but just to clarify whether these cache containers, being sold by geocaching suppliers are legitimate or not, and to ask whether the suppliers should not also be contacted if it os felt they are selling cache containers that are not allowed by the rules.

Chris

September 4, 2012

Technically, if you have to insert something into the ground to hide the cache, it is illegal. The reading of the official rule makes it sound like if you even have to drive a stake into the ground to have something to attach the cache container to, it's illegal. So I guess if the cache container has a spike on the end of it to help keep it in place, then it is not permissible.

September 4, 2012

No.

Caches are no longer Allowed to be even pushed into the ground slightly, so when bought they can't really be used on new caches. However, caches previously published before this rule have been grandfathered, so I presume they're still selling the containers to COs who may need to replace the missing container on an old cache?

6.2k · September 4, 2012

... so I presume they're still selling the containers to COs who may need to replace the missing container on an old cache?

Looks like they're not as the link above nolonger works, so looks like they've withdrawn it. Maybe you'll be still be able to buy them under the counter if you ask for one of the 'specialist' containers and it will come supplied in plain packaging

1.5k · September 4, 2012

The buried cache guideline changed May 2012. The language now reads, "break ground to hide ...then the cache is not permitted." this is more restrictive then the old guideline.

i suspect the suppliers are unaware, as are many cache placers. I doubt if those sellers are simply going to throw away items that are in inventory.

There are certainly a lot hides out that "break the ground", fake sprinklers, geo-stakes, various small things pushed into the ground. I expect that this will gradually sort itself out.

1.4k · September 4, 2012

Restrictions restrictions and even more restrictions. Very soon we will not even be allowed to hide a cache under a pile of stones or logs, maybe we should just simply leave them all out in the open for all to see :rolleyes:

Or even better all just stop playing the GS game and go somewhere else, then when the revinue drops off from all of the premium members who have jumped ship maybe GS will think again. Or even better maybe the eagle eyed snoopers who enjoy reporting a clever hide should just enjoy the game and stop being spoilsports. <_<

6.2k · September 4, 2012

...Very soon we will not even be allowed to hide a cache under a pile of stones or logs...

Well I've seen plenty hidden under stones & logs where the hider has had to scrape away an inch or so of soil to make room for the cache

... Or even better maybe the eagle eyed snoopers who enjoy reporting a clever hide ...

But don't worry I'm keeping mum

September 4, 2012

Presumably you could look for some dry ground that happens to have a crack in the top surface of the soil and push your cache container into the crack. As long as you don't enlarge the crack by inserting the cache then you haven't dug or broken ground.

If the soil becomes wet and the crack closes up who's to know if the initial cache broke the rules or not?

September 4, 2012

Looks like they're not as the link above nolonger works...

Trailing full stop in link - try:

http://www.ukgeocachers.co.uk/catalog/Large-Long-Grass-Ready-Made-Micro-Cache.html

September 4, 2012

What about http://www.ukgeocachers.co.uk/catalog/Toad-Stool-Geocache.html?osCsid=lvv64kpgpur541komlgsamqvc6 the page says "They are made with a waterproof container, which has a pointed end making it easy to push into the ground"

It does seem a one size fits all rule but I'm sure there are other types of container that could be used that wouldn't need pushing into the ground.

6.2k · September 4, 2012

Looks like they're not as the link above nolonger works...

Trailing full stop in link - try:

http://www.ukgeocachers.co.uk/catalog/Large-Long-Grass-Ready-Made-Micro-Cache.html

Well spotted young man :lol:

September 4, 2012

Thanks folks, I wasn't aware of the changed rules. At least I hadn't bought the container for a new cache I was planning yet!! And sorry for the extra fullstop in my link; I'd tried to just copy in a pic but that wasn't allowed either

Guess I'll stick to earthcaches for know

Chris

September 4, 2012

One cache I saw here in the US involved what looked like a gas pipe stuck in the ground, unscrewing and removing the plug revealed the cache container which was glued inside the plug. Similarly I've found one in the (defunct) housing of a typical garden solar light. In both cases the cache container was well above ground level and the pipe and solar housing merely camouflage, albeit stuck in the ground. How is this any different to cache hidden under the cap of a fence post or a fake electrical box screwed to a wall?

Edited September 4, 2012 by Shanghai Joe

1.3k · September 4, 2012

The buried cache guideline changed May 2012. The language now reads, "break ground to hide ...then the cache is not permitted.".

mmm...never knew it changed....that's one cache I was thinking of placing which has now bitten the dust (no pun intended!)

Edited September 4, 2012 by eusty

September 4, 2012

Was this rule made retrospective? If not all existing caches should be left in place,only new ones become foul of this rule. personally I have not seen anything about existing caches.

Edited September 4, 2012 by fat bloke

3.7k · September 4, 2012

I've seen hundreds of caches that break this rule. What's the point of the reviewers' rule anyway? Was there some incident that has triggered it?

The Guideline doesn't prohibit such caches;

Geocaches are never buried. If one has to dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache, then the cache is not permitted.

Clearly the guideline is to prevent the burying and digging up of containers. It looks like the "break ground" part is so that you can't argue "There was no digging as such, so the cache is within the guidelines (even though it's actually buried).". Now, if you bury a cache it doesn't matter HOW you buried it.

The principle of the guideline has always been to ensure that we aren't accused of "digging for treasure". As caches are never buried then there's no point in starting to dig up an area when you can't spot a cache above ground. So there's no point in taking a spade on a cache hunt; and if we are seen by muggles they won't see us digging holes. If holes have been dug, then it's not by us. Nothing to do with sticking a cache in the ground, or making a firm foundation for an above-ground cache.

The essence of the guideline is that if you need to dig it up then it's buried.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Happy Humphrey

September 4, 2012

Remember it's a global "guideline", and geocaching does go on in countries where is isn't wise to stick things into the ground for fear of what they may hit.

September 4, 2012

My Learned Friends. I bring to your attention the fiasco that was the CBN series. Is this caching deja vu that I am witnessing here?

I'm with DrDick&Vick. Not that I'm nearly so qualified to judge.

Maybe this is the sort of ridiculous situation that stops me from

making this my prime hobby. I've never seen such a heavy handed debacle by those with a little power. I am disgusted. :mad:

3.7k · September 4, 2012

Remember it's a global "guideline", and geocaching does go on in countries where is isn't wise to stick things into the ground for fear of what they may hit.

Not sure about that, and anyway the guideline doesn't prohibit such caches. It's about burying caches.

6.2k · September 5, 2012

...the CBN series...

What was that?

September 5, 2012

Some years ago we did a couple of caches in the Netherlands which were buried. When you got to GZ it just looked like a ploughed field and this is what we have avoided with this sort of rule.

Having done several of the caches on the suspended trail, the hides consist of a 2" length of 2" diameter yellow plastic gas pipe with a piece of slate on the top. Inside there is just room for the film pod. Most of these had just been placed in natural hollows in roots or similar and don't seem to go against the new 'rule'. I hope after all the effort put in that the series survives but it will take a lot of effort to sort out....

MaxKim

September 5, 2012

To go back to the OP's original point, there are other listing sites who don't have the same guidelines as GS, so it would be perfectly 'legal' to sell these sorts of caches and use/list them elsewhere

1.6k · September 5, 2012

Remember it's a global "guideline", and geocaching does go on in countries where is isn't wise to stick things into the ground for fear of what they may hit.

Not sure about that, and anyway the guideline doesn't prohibit such caches. It's about burying caches.

Sorry you seem to have misread the Guideline

If one has to dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache

Anything which penetrates the Ground, is breaking it. The wording seems very clear. Anything which is," pushed into the Ground., "Breaks" the ground.

Deci

September 5, 2012

It sounds to me that the guideline is all about preventing damage to the environment. Which is ironic considering that there are those who will walk in a straight line regardless of the damage they may be doing by just that rather than following a path to the cache. Likewise when you get those cachers who show no respect for the area around the hide and instead of looking carefully will just pick up an object and if the cache is not there throw it somewhere else until they find it. Pushing an object into the ground where it will remain until the owner removes it, is imo not on the same leauge of disturbance as these 2 examples, and the fact is we all cause such damage when caching even if its unintentional.

1.4k · September 5, 2012

I feel that this is a gross over reaction by GS, there is a great difference between digging out a hole so as to set a container in the ground and simply pushing a thin ground spike in the ground to hold something in place.

This statement is not intended as a dig at our reviewers, as I feel that they do a good job, but I would be very interested to see how other nationality reviewers interpret and apply this guideline, surely a guideline is open to a little flexibility.

Will GS be surprised when players start to leave and go and play on other listing sites that do not have such rigid 'guidelines' and stop paying the premium membership that generates their revinue if they insist on continuing to bring in so many severe 'guidelines?

Edited September 5, 2012 by DrDick&Vick

1.7k · September 5, 2012

... but I would be very interested to see how other nationality reviewers interpret and apply this guideline...

If it's a non English speaking country, it will most probably be ignored just like most other guidelines are ignored :blink:

Mark

September 5, 2012

I've just been looking at some on-line definitions of the term:

"To open the earth as for planting; to commence excavation, as for building, siege operations, and the like; as, to break ground for a foundation, a canal, or a railroad."

I don't think shoving a spike, or even a spiked container, into the ground fits this definition, which is probably immaterial as problematic caches still won't be published.

3.7k · September 5, 2012

Sorry you seem to have misread the Guideline

If one has to dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache

Anything which penetrates the Ground, is breaking it. The wording seems very clear. Anything which is," pushed into the Ground., "Breaks" the ground.

Deci

Well, the wording looks clear to me. To interpret the sentence you have to take note of the context. The heading is;

Geocaches are never buried

...so under this heading, when you break ground in order to bury a cache you're also breaking the guideline. This wording is just to clarify that it's not just about digging, but any method of burying (there have been debates about this in the past where people have argued that they only scraped away earth using their hands so it doesn't count as "digging").

Now, it would be ridiculous to expect people to avoid clearing the ground a little, or pushing in a small stake or tube, to stabilise the cache and hide it better. If it's not covered in earth then it's not buried. Some of my caches are seated / pushed into the ground an inch or so. Buried? Not at all. If the interpretation was that anything pushed into the ground is "buried" then the guideline would fall into disrepute, as anyone can find any number of guideline-breaking caches. The acid test is whether you need to dig it up, or make a similar effort, to find the cache. If so, it breaks the guideline and we can easily see why.

September 5, 2012

I'm in full agreement with HH. Avoiding burying is the important aspect. And for me, I've really appreciated when there has been a stake indicating the cache location.

However where I see the change is also important is in placing caches pushed into the ground and hidden in such a way that damage is done to the surrounding area. You may not need to dig for the cache but with all surrounding vegitation obliterated you may as well have done so.

Regarding the OP specific question about the cache, well it doesn't have to be buried. I had one of these sticking out of a hole in a stile. That was until they change the old wooden stile for a metal kissing gate.

September 7, 2012

...the CBN series...

What was that?

It was the Chelmer and Blackwater Navigation Series.

September 8, 2012

To go back to the OP's original point, there are other listing sites who don't have the same guidelines as GS, so it would be perfectly 'legal' to sell these sorts of caches and use/list them elsewhere

They may be legal if you own the land or the landowner has given specific permission. But otherwise I doubt it very much.

September 28, 2012

Remember it's a global "guideline", and geocaching does go on in countries where is isn't wise to stick things into the ground for fear of what they may hit.

Not sure about that, and anyway the guideline doesn't prohibit such caches. It's about burying caches.

Sorry you seem to have misread the Guideline

If one has to dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache

Anything which penetrates the Ground, is breaking it. The wording seems very clear. Anything which is," pushed into the Ground., "Breaks" the ground.

Deci

Hi All

I've not been around these forums for quite a while, but happened to stumble into this discussion.

I wonder if the UK Team have sought clarification on this from GS?

I'm with HH on this and I'm looking at this from 2 angles.

Firstly, GS are American and having lived there for 3 years I know there are a great many subtleties in our respective use of the English language. What an American writes or says is not always the same as what a Brit reads or hears. It's the whole 'Tomato', 'Tomarto' thing. So perhaps their use of 'Break Ground' is not an ideal choice of words.

Secondly, I'm a H&S professional (yes you can all groan) and I spend my life fighting inappropriate over interpretation of quite sound regulations. All those crazy stories of banned flower baskets etc are caused by officialdom (usually local authorities) over interpreting the core reason and meaning of the regulations.

'Break Ground' has a clearly defined and accepted meaning in the English language which is to dig up land so you can plant crops or build something.

While I am fully supportive of the excellent work done by our Reviewers, to over interpret this wording as anything more restrictive is simply on a par with all the barmy H&S stories so beloved of the Daily Mail.

I'm afraid IMHO, Deci is being too selective in his use of bold to highlight the word break from the actual quote of break ground. GS have clearly used the phrase break ground. They have not used 'Break the surface' or any similar term.

Edited September 28, 2012 by careygang

3.7k · September 28, 2012

I don't always agree with careygang but I think that's an excellent post.

Actually, some caches that appear to contravene Deci's interpretation of the guideline are good for the environment. Giving a cache its own "home" in the ground by using a stake means that it'll stay put and you don't need to go trampling all around, in order to find something that's drifted away a few feet.

1.6k · September 28, 2012

Remember it's a global "guideline", and geocaching does go on in countries where is isn't wise to stick things into the ground for fear of what they may hit.

Not sure about that, and anyway the guideline doesn't prohibit such caches. It's about burying caches.

Sorry you seem to have misread the Guideline

If one has to dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache

Anything which penetrates the Ground, is breaking it. The wording seems very clear. Anything which is," pushed into the Ground., "Breaks" the ground.

Deci

Hi All

I've not been around these forums for quite a while, but happened to stumble into this discussion.

I wonder if the UK Team have sought clarification on this from GS?

I'm with HH on this and I'm looking at this from 2 angles.

Firstly, GS are American and having lived there for 3 years I know there are a great many subtleties in our respective use of the English language. What an American writes or says is not always the same as what a Brit reads or hears. It's the whole 'Tomato', 'Tomarto' thing. So perhaps their use of 'Break Ground' is not an ideal choice of words.

Secondly, I'm a H&S professional (yes you can all groan) and I spend my life fighting inappropriate over interpretation of quite sound regulations. All those crazy stories of banned flower baskets etc are caused by officialdom (usually local authorities) over interpreting the core reason and meaning of the regulations.

'Break Ground' has a clearly defined and accepted meaning in the English language which is to dig up land so you can plant crops or build something.

While I am fully supportive of the excellent work done by our Reviewers, to over interpret this wording as anything more restrictive is simply on a par with all the barmy H&S stories so beloved of the Daily Mail.

I'm afraid IMHO, Deci is being too selective in his use of bold to highlight the word break from the actual quote of break ground. GS have clearly used the phrase break ground. They have not used 'Break the surface' or any similar term.

I don't always agree with careygang but I think that's an excellent post.

Actually, some caches that appear to contravene Deci's interpretation of the guideline are good for the environment. Giving a cache its own "home" in the ground by using a stake means that it'll stay put and you don't need to go trampling all around, in order to find something that's drifted away a few feet.

Sorry I know you "believe" that I personally misinterpreted the interpretation, but the interpretation was one as explained by a number of my colleagues from around the world, in the Reviewers Private forum!

So not "my" interpretation, but one based on the opinions of those which a huge amount of experience between them, in interpreting the Guidelines!

Some Reviewers, who have put in more time in the role than I have , agreed with the interpretation!

Could we see a rewording of the Buried Guideline, who knows . The Guidelines are a constantly evolving entity, ones that evolve to take in the experiences and lessons learnt. Are the Guidelines perfect? Well no, and they will never be. Will there be disagreements about the implementation of them? Yes because we are all human, but the Reviewer Community do discuss the meaning and implementation of the Guidelines on a virtually constant basis. So it is not a case of one or 2 deciding that a specific interpretation is valid. Rather a large Group of experienced people, who can get further guidance off Groundspeak, in regards to the interpretation in regards to specific wording.

Deci

PS: anyone was free to contact Groundspeak at any time, and query the way I had interpreted the wording of the Buried Guideline. But did anyone actually so so? Instead, did they just decide, that because they did not "agree" with the interpretation I gave, that I was completely wrong, without asking the company who write the Guidelines! Or actually asking me personally, where I had got the interpretation from.

3.7k · September 28, 2012

PS: anyone was free to contact Groundspeak at any time, and query the way I had interpreted the wording of the Buried Guideline. But did anyone actually so so? Instead, did they just decide, that because they did not "agree" with the interpretation I gave, that I was completely wrong, without asking the company who write the Guidelines! Or actually asking me personally, where I had got the interpretation from.

Firstly, it's not a guideline but a rule. Secondly, the rule seems pretty clear and not open to interpretation; you aren't allowed to bury caches. That you've interpreted it differently from that isn't being disputed, and I'm not really bothered how you came to see the rule about buried caches NOT being about buried caches (if you get what I mean! :laughing: ).

The last time we had this sort of discussion about the wording of the rules, it ended when Groundspeak changed the wording (despite people initially claiming that it wasn't necessary). I think that the wording needs changing on this occasion too, and we could also do with an explanation about what problem this rule is meant to be addressing. Otherwise you won't get much co-operation.

September 29, 2012

PS: anyone was free to contact Groundspeak at any time, and query the way I had interpreted the wording of the Buried Guideline. But did anyone actually so so? Instead, did they just decide, that because they did not "agree" with the interpretation I gave, that I was completely wrong, without asking the company who write the Guidelines! Or actually asking me personally, where I had got the interpretation from.

I realise I have come to this discussion a bit late, and I take Deci's point. However I stand by my view that this is an over interpretation of what is a poorly written 'guideline'. It is clearly poorly written since it has lead to a discussion over interpretation. It's a pity the Prime Minister isn't a Geocacher; he'd love to rant on about bureaucracy and red tape impeding and stifling the activity. <_<

Well taking Deci's advice, I have now emailed GS, so lets see what comes back. I realise that only a minuscule number of Cachers use the Forums, but perhaps if a few more email them it might get a response.

For everyone's info, here's what I sent:

Hello
Reference : http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=301248

There is an ongoing discussion in the UK Forum (which I would like to think you are aware of) regarding the wording change to this placement guideline:

Geocaches are never buried.

If one has to dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache, then the cache is not permitted.

The UK Reviewers, and apparently some other Reviewers according to a recent post, are taking a viewpoint that 'Break Ground' means anything that breaks the surface of the planet. To quote the UK Reviewers "Anything which penetrates the Ground, is breaking it. The wording seems very clear. Anything which is, pushed into the ground, 'Breaks' the ground."

This would appear to be a quite extremely excessive interpretation of a phrase which is supposed to mean "dig up land so you can plant crops or build something".

From this new interpretation, we are no longer allowed to have a cache secured against movement by any form of ground fixing, so fake tree stumps, etc, any of the multitude of caches which require some form of fixing to prevent them falling over or blowing away in a slight wind are now prohibited.

The 'guideline' in no longer guidance; it has now become a hard and fast 'rule' that absolutely no disturbance or interference of the surface of the planet in any form is allowed.

Are Groundspeak rewriting the English Dictionary with this new definition of 'Break Ground' or are the UK Reviewers reading something which was not intended.

Let's see what, if anything, comes back in the coming week(s).

3.7k · September 29, 2012

Let's see what, if anything, comes back in the coming week(s).

Well written. I'll also watch with interest, as several of my caches are now "illegal" even though not buried.

September 29, 2012

........and, as will always tend to happen, the use of the term "Guideline" is again questioned.

A guideline is open to interpretation and is advisory - not mandatory.

A rule is mandatory.

To all intents and purposes it appears that - here at least - GSP does not have "guidelines" it has Rules.

The sooner this is clarified, and the correct term used (or the correct leeway is applied) the fewer questions about the correct interpretation will aris.

September 29, 2012

........and, as will always tend to happen, the use of the term "Guideline" is again questioned.

A guideline is open to interpretation and is advisory - not mandatory.

A rule is mandatory.

To all intents and purposes it appears that - here at least - GSP does not have "guidelines" it has Rules.

The sooner this is clarified, and the correct term used (or the correct leeway is applied) the fewer questions about the correct interpretation will aris.

+1, like etc etc

September 29, 2012

PS: anyone was free to contact Groundspeak at any time, and query the way I had interpreted the wording of the Buried Guideline. But did anyone actually so so? Instead, did they just decide, that because they did not "agree" with the interpretation I gave, that I was completely wrong, without asking the company who write the Guidelines! Or actually asking me personally, where I had got the interpretation from.

Firstly, it's not a guideline but a rule. Secondly, the rule seems pretty clear and not open to interpretation; you aren't allowed to bury caches. That you've interpreted it differently from that isn't being disputed, and I'm not really bothered how you came to see the rule about buried caches NOT being about buried caches (if you get what I mean! ).

The last time we had this sort of discussion about the wording of the rules, it ended when Groundspeak changed the wording (despite people initially claiming that it wasn't necessary). I think that the wording needs changing on this occasion too, and we could also do with an explanation about what problem this rule is meant to be addressing. Otherwise you won't get much co-operation.

HH, I'll have to disagree with the use of the word Rule. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I do disagree that there are rules. If they were rules, then EVERY neglected or marginal cache should be eliminated tomorrow morning. No cache should be approved without a hand written hardcopy original letter from the property owner in tandem with the CO's request to publish. That would eliminate no less than 80% of the hides on the planet, at my best guess. Is this what we want?

A reviewer told me that they are NOT rules when I was calling someone's hand on the difference of a traditional and a multi. That was a rather sensitive argument, and had some rather lengthy posts about rules, so I invoked the "let's ask the Reviewer" 'rule'. He very pointedly said that the 'rules' are not rules at all, but guidelines that allow Groundspeak, the Reviewers, and all cache owners some "wiggle room". Groundspeak keeps as much wiggle room as possible to allow (perhaps too much sometimes) the artistic creativity of people, yet keep the game from being destructive to the environment or personal property. Otherwise, if they were declared rules, Groundspeak would need a whole team of lawyers just to determine what they could tell people to do and what not to do without violating someone's civil rights or any federal/international laws regarding discrimination. The very fact that difficulty and terrain ratings are used as "guidelines" to suggest whether or not a cache should be attempted prevents them from being discriminatory. And, I will point to this page http://support.Groun...g=kb.book&id=11 as my argument that there are no rules, but only guidelines. Note the page title.

Supposedly, reviewers collaborate and debate acceptable and unacceptable aspects, but since I don't know the secret handshake and don't belong to that elite group, I don't have access to their discussions, nor any say so in their decisions about interpretations. I will say, that in here, I see a lot of different opinions from reviewers that TRY to settle arguments or debates, that don't necessarily reflect the views of the majority of reviewers, let along the majority of cachers. What I see certainly does little to convince me of any real collaboration or unity. But, apparently, Groundspeak saw enough qualities to appoint them reviewer, and doesn't/won't challenge their "guidelinings". It's a volunteer and sometimes very thankless job that consumes a lot of their personal lives. I don't know how a person with a real job and family can have the time for it. I may not always agree with them, but sometimes, I'm not asked to. That's the nature of the game, and I have to be willing to accept that if I want to play. If the game displeases me enough, I'll find other things to use the GPSr for or simply use "that other site". If Groundspeak wants to continue to collect my $30/year, they'll reign in reviewers that are being tyrants, but also clarify the guidelines when asked. But with 6 million plus playing the game, I can see where dispute resolution could be come a LOT of full time jobs, and $30/year might not be enough for subscription. Be careful how much you ask for, you might just get it, along with a few other things you don't want.

Do you always agree with the way your Senator or Representative votes in Congress (or whatever your form of democratic government might be).

See the paradox?

1.4k · September 29, 2012

I emailed Groundspeak when this first came up on here and after a few days I received a reply that simply stated that anything that breaks the ground is not permitted even if it was a simple 2cm spike. So as far as I can see that is a rule as there is no fluctuation at all so therefore cannot be a guideline.

They did say that 'Guidelines ???' are reviewed regularly and that they take in to consideration correspondence concerning them.

So get emailing your views

3.7k · September 30, 2012

HH, I'll have to disagree with the use of the word Rule. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I do disagree that there are rules. If they were rules, then EVERY neglected or marginal cache should be eliminated tomorrow morning.

It's a rule. If your cache is so much as slightly worked into the ground to stop it falling over, it has to be disabled.

If you state that this is how it's placed, then your listing can't be published on gc.com. That much has been confirmed.

It's nothing to do with buried caches; although as it's in the section about buried caches it appears that a cache can be completely above ground but can be classified as "buried" for the purpose of this rule. How ridiculous!

I don't know about neglected caches; perhaps there's some leeway on that, but not on this one as it's a rule.

P.S. I missed the bit where it explains why this isn't a load of nonsense but is actually there for a very good reason. So if you know the secret reason and it's a good one then please ignore me.

P.P.S. There are other listing sites. I shall be looking more carefully at them now!

September 30, 2012

I emailed Groundspeak when this first came up on here and after a few days I received a reply that simply stated that anything that breaks the ground is not permitted even if it was a simple 2cm spike. So as far as I can see that is a rule as there is no fluctuation at all so therefore cannot be a guideline.

They did say that 'Guidelines ???' are reviewed regularly and that they take in to consideration correspondence concerning them.

So get emailing your views

Good to know that somebody has been in touch, though not good to know they just confirmed that any puncture of the plant's surface is no longer allowed.

GS have always publicly supported the Reviewers, so not surprising a single query would get such a response. Clearly needs a few more emails to point out the problem.

I guess it's one of the problems with communication, particularly with English.

In this case they have used a phrase which, whilst technically serving their supposed intent to describe "Breaking the integrity of the plant's surface", has a common and accepted usage which is somewhat different i.e. "dig up land so you can plant crops or build something".

Bit of a linguistic issue here I think.

Either that of the person drafting it isn't actually a Geocacher so hasn't a clue of the practicalities of actually placing a Cache! :blink:

3.7k · September 30, 2012

Can anyone come up with a good reason for banning caches that are pushed into the ground or attached to the ground in any way?

I don't mean buried, just slightly anchored or seated in the ground. An example would be a spike that is placed so that it sticks into the ground an inch or so, with a micro attached to the top so that it's clear of the earth and doesn't gather water. That's against the rules; obviously it's not buried, so why is it now banned?

There's a rule being applied rigorously (it seems) but no-one is stating why it's important to ban such caches. In the end, it doesn't matter that much whether it's a rule or a guideline and whether the wording is ambiguous. The important bit is what we're trying to achieve by banning seated or anchored caches. Personally I haven't a clue; unlike buried caches, where the logic is quite easy to understand.

September 30, 2012

Can anyone come up with a good reason for banning caches that are pushed into the ground or attached to the ground in any way?

I don't mean buried, just slightly anchored or seated in the ground. An example would be a spike that is placed so that it sticks into the ground an inch or so, with a micro attached to the top so that it's clear of the earth and doesn't gather water. That's against the rules; obviously it's not buried, so why is it now banned?

There's a rule being applied rigorously (it seems) but no-one is stating why it's important to ban such caches. In the end, it doesn't matter that much whether it's a rule or a guideline and whether the wording is ambiguous. The important bit is what we're trying to achieve by banning seated or anchored caches. Personally I haven't a clue; unlike buried caches, where the logic is quite easy to understand.

Good job the rule does not apply to 35,155 golf courses world wide - no Tee Pegs :o

3.8k · September 30, 2012

Why is in necessary to say anything about a spike being pushed into the ground if you hide a cache that way? If you don't mention it on the cache page then the reviewer won't know... "and what the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve over". I know common sense is in short supply these days but if you've got a bit... use it.

September 30, 2012

Why is in necessary to say anything about a spike being pushed into the ground if you hide a cache that way? If you don't mention it on the cache page then the reviewer won't know... "and what the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve over". I know common sense is in short supply these days but if you've got a bit... use it.

Are you advocating dishonesty John? :o or simply being parsimonius with the truth :lol: :lol:

3.8k · September 30, 2012

Why is in necessary to say anything about a spike being pushed into the ground if you hide a cache that way? If you don't mention it on the cache page then the reviewer won't know... "and what the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve over". I know common sense is in short supply these days but if you've got a bit... use it.

Are you advocating dishonesty John? :o or simply being parsimonius with the truth :lol:

Dishonest...moi?... of course not. If a reviewer asks me if any of my caches 'break ground' I'll tell them but if they don't ask......

3.7k · September 30, 2012

...I'm going to go round checking, and any cache that is as much as 1mm pushed into the ground will be reported! Mwahaha!

3.7k · October 3, 2012

The important bit is what we're trying to achieve by banning seated or anchored caches. Personally I haven't a clue; unlike buried caches, where the logic is quite easy to understand.

Still nobody has come up with an explanation. I'll be ignoring this rule, as the conclusion seems to be that it's arbitrary and ill thought out. Even the reviewers appear to have no idea.

Are These Permissable Cache Containers?

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

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