Are These Permissable Cache Containers?

[+HEADLANDERS]

There is a fundamental issue here which is that if one wants to use GC as a site on which to publish caches then one should abide by the rules of the site otherwise use one of the alternatives. I cannot answer the reason for this ruling but I am sure there is one. GC have to do what they deem necessary to protect our environment. As an aside, I have seen several times what damage and disturbance the 'FTF bloodhounds' create during the first few days of a new listing before things settle down to 'normality'.

 

When seeking permission for cache placement I have been asked on more than one occasion on what 'basis' and therefore 'organisational guidelines' the cache will be placed. Such rules are very valuable in this kind of situation.

[+Happy Humphrey]

GC have to do what they deem necessary to protect our environment. As an aside, I have seen several times what damage and disturbance the 'FTF bloodhounds' create during the first few days of a new listing before things settle down to 'normality'.

Ah: so it's about protecting the environment. Now we're getting somewhere. Perhaps you would kindly explain further?

 

Any rule should have a basis in common sense, and be quite easy to justify. For instance, golf is full of rules, and at first some of them seem a little counter-intuitive. But they are all there for a reason, and an experienced golfer can generally explain why any given rule is necessary.

[+lodgebarn]

Any chance ivy can be made a protected plant as well? :D

[+lodgebarn]

Any rule should have a basis in common sense, and be quite easy to justify. For instance, golf is full of rules, and at first some of them seem a little counter-intuitive. But they are all there for a reason, and an experienced golfer can generally explain why any given rule is necessary.

When I played golf a bit it seemed that most rules were designed to stop people cheating rather than facilitating the game.

[+Team Noodles]

Any chance ivy can be made a protected plant as well? :D

 

hahaha, nice one!

[+Seaglass Pirates]

ohhhhhhhhhh

 

god that took a while to trawl through all that. Well thats my patch. The Canal series. Oh its not my series, but I grew up there. I lived and died on every stretch of that canal. Its a wonderful place.

 

Sooooo following a death in the OH family we went back. I went caching and the OH went to the funeral. I did that series as it holds so many memories for me. And all I can say is whoever moaned about it is pathetic. So there its said an done, you are, and need a good slap. I grew up on that canal and in no way has that series ruined it.

 

The series is literally miles of caches and the tubes are sink overflow pipe. So about 1.5 inches across. About 5 inches long 2 inches of which has been pushed into the ground at the base of trees mainly, and a piece (in most cases when I did them),of wood laid on top of the tube to hide the pipe. Into the pipe is placed the film pot. Now the pipe section is not level with the ground. The pipe is only pushed in to stop it rolling away. The pipe is above ground to the height of the film pot, if that makes sense.

 

As for those poor little trees that have had the ground disturbed near them, well they were stumps. Huge great willow tees they were from memory. Some still remain. Now sadly chainsawed to death to literally ground level. It is at the base of these stumps (and there is miles of them) that most of these tubes are placed. In fact when I went there, at Paper Mill Lock, there was a very dodgy bunch of workmen, thrashing a tank tracked vehicle around and the ground was not so much "broken* but more literally obliterated. As were the sapling trees that got in their way. In fact I had to wait to pass because huge trees they had obliterated with their chainsaws, were gently blazing with flames 40 foot high cutting a scar of black acrid smoke across the area. At one point they were beaten back themselves and had to retreat to a safe distance. Which was 30 feet away.

 

So I would like to thank the CO's of that series for bringing me back to a favourite area of mine in the world. I would like to thank them for placing those caches in the most sensible way. I am soooooo glad that they HAVE broken ground. Its a good job that most of the caches I find here dont break ground but are placed in holes in walls or hedgerows instead. Much better ..... Anyway I think that this whole thing will lead to one of two conclusions. Either Reviewers will band together and turn a blind eye to this overly ambiguous tosh or I am afraid I agree with Dr Dick (a phrase I never thought I would write), that people will begin to drift away to other sites. I've seen it time and time again. Clench too tight and you force it out faster you know

 

I see the tip toe posts where we pre state "I think the reviewers do a wonderful job" and it makes me roar with laughter. Its like the old statement that says "With the greatest of respect" which usually precedes some insult. If the reviewers are being over zealous they should be told and reprimanded. I see post after post and comment after comment "Yes but we are volunteers". AND? .... no one asked you to volunteer. If you place yourself in a role, you accept all that role entails. Dont bleat. Don't go all Jeremy Kyle on us, just do your best and use common sense and policy to guide you. Please dont quote your interpretation of the policy to defend what is obviously a moronic decision. And then stamp your foot and confuse reviewer with moderator. You are not in charge, you are a reviewer. I will tell you who is in charge ...... US. We pay, we are in charge. The tail does not wag the dog and if this organisation becomes unfit for purpose i.e. it no longer satisfies a need, it will be replaced. And in this age of fast moving technology someone will have a site up and running in days.

 

Please do not assume this a rant. Its just common sense. I avoided geocaching because I heard about all these crushing rules. So although I knew about it in 2006 I did not do it until this year. I've been a letterboxer ( since 1996) for years and I recoiled at tales of how regulated and pedantic this "geocaching" was. But thankfully I gave it a go. But literally in the last few weeks it seems that heavy handed, fire fighting type policy is getting out of hand and the essence of the idea is being smothered. What you are seeing here on this thread is the people who pay for this service, squirming with discomfort at being forced into a position they do not like. Its a warning in fact. It should be seen as that and not as a rowdy few who need stamping on. And as for "A reviewers forum, where we discuss reviewery stuff" lol. Oh dear. Platinum club is it? And you need that inner sanctum because ...? Sorry but its awfully elitist. Well I paid for membership can I play grown ups

 

Well thats my twopeneth and a few quid as well. Let battle commence I spose

[+Happy Humphrey]

Top post, Seaglasses.

[+careygang]

 

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).

 

Well in response to the above message to GS, I have just received the following short reply.

 

Thank you for contacting Groundspeak. The guideline has been updated to make it easier to understand. Please see the new update here: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

Kind Regards,

 

Cathy Hornback

 

Community Support Specialist

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

 

What a pathetic response! "make it easier to understand"; clearly not, otherwise it would not be discussed here and over in the main forum, nor would I have written to them!!!

I have now sent a second message!

 

Your response is completely unacceptable.

The change to wording has not made it easier at all.

In fact the exact opposite.

Did you actually read what I wrote?

 

To "Break Ground" means to plant something or dig out foundations for a building.

It DOES NOT mean push a stick or spike into the ground.

 

Please explain yourself. How does this change make it clearer; it's just started arguments.

 

:mad:

[+Shanghai Joe]

 

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).

 

Well in response to the above message to GS, I have just received the following short reply.

 

Thank you for contacting Groundspeak. The guideline has been updated to make it easier to understand. Please see the new update here: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

Kind Regards,

 

Cathy Hornback

 

Community Support Specialist

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

 

What a pathetic response! "make it easier to understand"; clearly not, otherwise it would not be discussed here and over in the main forum, nor would I have written to them!!!

I have now sent a second message!

 

Your response is completely unacceptable.

The change to wording has not made it easier at all.

In fact the exact opposite.

Did you actually read what I wrote?

 

To "Break Ground" means to plant something or dig out foundations for a building.

It DOES NOT mean push a stick or spike into the ground.

 

Please explain yourself. How does this change make it clearer; it's just started arguments.

 

:mad:

 

I can understand the sentiment, but it seems a touch aggressive to me. I think you might need to read a copy of "How to make friends and influence people"

 

[+drdick&vick]

 

So I would like to thank the CO's of that series for bringing me back to a favourite area of mine in the world. I would like to thank them for placing those caches in the most sensible way. I am soooooo glad that they HAVE broken ground. Its a good job that most of the caches I find here dont break ground but are placed in holes in walls or hedgerows instead. Much better ..... Anyway I think that this whole thing will lead to one of two conclusions. Either Reviewers will band together and turn a blind eye to this overly ambiguous tosh or I am afraid I agree with Dr Dick (a phrase I never thought I would write), that people will begin to drift away to other sites. I've seen it time and time again. Clench too tight and you force it out faster you know

 

What have I ever done to upset you? :(

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Lol nothing. I meant I never thought I would be writing that particular phrase. Not, I never thought I would agree with you. I do totally agree with you btw.

[+careygang]

Guideline has been changed!

 

I had a response back from GS

Yes, I did read your email. Break Ground has been removed from the guideline so it shouldn't be a subject of contention any longer. Caches should not be buried or partially buried. You should not dig a hole for a cache, nor should use another means to make a hole so you can say you did not dig. If a tiny thing is pushed into the ground where it will have no impact, we can look at those on a case by case basis. If you are uncertain about the appropriateness of the hide, consult your reviewer. If they are unable to make a determination, they will refer you to appeals.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Cathy Hornback

 

Community Support Specialist

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

 

To which I am going to send a nice and humble response. I suspect that at the time Cathy previously contacted me, either the Guideline change was lagging behind her message, so she believed it to be changed but it had not, or else my PC had cached the page and did not provide me with the latest version. Either way, the rule, sorry, guideline, now reads:

 

Geocaches are never buried, neither partially nor completely.

 

If one has to dig or create a hole in the ground when placing or finding a geocache, it is not allowed.

[+The Patrician]

Strewth, am I on the right geocaching website?

 

It looks almost like an outbreak of common sense.

Edited October 6, 2012 by The Patrician

[+Seaglass Pirates]

And I would like to say thank you to Careygang and whoever else emailed geocaching to bring it into resolution. If they had not I would not have been able to go caching for fear my shoes might break ground on the way to a cache. Poor geohound has had to wear felt booties so he'll be chuffed. Course I did enjoy the hovercraft lessons. And I'll put my electronic stealth cape plans on hold. And again thanks to all including geocaching inc.

[+careygang]

 

I can understand the sentiment, but it seems a touch aggressive to me. I think you might need to read a copy of "How to make friends and influence people"

 

 

I don't have a high tolerance for sloppy behaviour, sometimes it's an advantage, sometimes it's not. Depends who I'm dealing with. Equally, I was presumably dealing with an American; culturally they are more aggressive as I learned when living out there. It took me a while out there to understand that they often don't respond to the British reserved way of doing things. I spent 3 years banging my head against a wall of bureaucracy with utility companies and the like, and don't even get me started on the levels of intelligence displayed by the Nevada Dept of Motor Vehicles, even the locals hated them!

[+Happy Humphrey]

Result! Well done Careygang if your contribution helped.

 

Now can we have a UK Reviewer opinion with examples of what's LIKELY to be allowable and where they would, in general, expect the line to be drawn (with the rider that there may be exceptions).

 

The phrase "no impact" in the revised wording seems to imply that the rule was originally to prevent excessive damage from the act of placing a cache (although I'm only surmising, as no-one seems willing to justify the rule). As I spiked my walking pole into the ground and commenced hunting a cache earlier today I was wondering what real impact a small part-buried cache really has in most cases, and I think that there is a grey area; but if the impact is similar to the mark left by a walking pole (or even several such) then it should be well within the new guideline (which is no longer a rule!). In other cases, although a cache is (for instance) placed inside a small tube that has been sunk into the ground, it should get the benefit of the doubt; the hide actually preserves the environment around the cache, unlike the traditional pile of sticks and stones - which is often sourced from just around the area and doesn't always help people replace the cache in the original spot.

[+Jaz666]

A small tube pushed into the ground, like the golf-tee sized tubes I've come across, might have minimal impact when placed (approx the same footprint as a walking pole spike), but we also have to think about the impact of those seeking the cache. How many would move "just a bit of earth", just in case the cache they can't find has been pushed in too far? Then how many of those would start to move earth in multiple spots?

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Edited this out as to be honest whilst true it's not very helpful and despite being relevant in broad terms of perspectives on this issue - is probably a pointless statement as any outcome will be the same. Apathetic I know.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Seaglass Pirates

[Keystone]

Result! Well done Careygang if your contribution helped.

The discussion about the revised guideline wording was well underway weeks prior to Careygang's "inquiry." Similar questions arose elsewhere in the world.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Result! Well done Careygang if your contribution helped.

The discussion about the revised guideline wording was well underway weeks prior to Careygang's "inquiry." Similar questions arose elsewhere in the world.

Thanks - so that confirms that Careygang most likely helped tip the balance. Well done for doing the UK's bit.

 

Any chance that Groundspeak in future might consult, before launching some ill thought out guideline? We could have had this discussion ages ago and come up with something that actually conveyed the meaning rather than cause immediate confusion.

[+Happy Humphrey]

A small tube pushed into the ground, like the golf-tee sized tubes I've come across, might have minimal impact when placed (approx the same footprint as a walking pole spike), but we also have to think about the impact of those seeking the cache. How many would move "just a bit of earth", just in case the cache they can't find has been pushed in too far? Then how many of those would start to move earth in multiple spots?

In reality, few caches need to be placed so they're in the ground at all. Of those, perhaps a few would be put in a tube sunk into the ground. I've found a few like that, and I've never even considered digging the area over just in case they've become buried.

 

You could argue that, if the decsription hints that it's this type of hide then you're less likely to cause damage; you won't bother turning over every tree branch, stone, tin can and so on in the area (disturbing useful insects and other creatures). You might just poke about with a stick a bit. Then you'll replace the cache exactly where it was before, not somewhere nearby (as so often happens, causing people to search wider and create more impact).

 

But the real confusion was where containers such as fake grass were outlawed because they are attached to a small spike for support. Formerly they were classified as "buried", but now the guideline allows these caches.

[+careygang]

Result! Well done Careygang if your contribution helped.

The discussion about the revised guideline wording was well underway weeks prior to Careygang's "inquiry." Similar questions arose elsewhere in the world.

Thanks - so that confirms that Careygang most likely helped tip the balance. Well done for doing the UK's bit.

 

Any chance that Groundspeak in future might consult, before launching some ill thought out guideline? We could have had this discussion ages ago and come up with something that actually conveyed the meaning rather than cause immediate confusion.

No thanks needed; I came to this topic late having been away from the forums for ages. Once it became clear that the Mods wished us to contact GS directly, rather than them be the gatherers of national feedback, the only option was to contact GS. I'm sure plenty of others were doing the same.

 

The suggestion that GS issues revisions for consultation is eminently sensible. Give us a few weeks to discuss a proposal and then there wouldn't be the need for all this frustration building up.

GS put themselves in difficult positions unnecessarily. Once a revision comes out, the Mods are duty bound to enforce it, no matter how poorly thought out they see it (or not as the case may be). Then all this angst has to take place, while GS are trying to work out how to extract themselves from the mess; not admitting meanwhile that there is anything wrong.

Of course, the previous wording could have remained; if GS has simply told all the Mods around the world that it was to be read as stated, and not have some picky over-interpretation applied.

 

Still that's probably the end of this particular issue; unless the UK Mods have any words of wisdom for us all?

[Keystone]

Result! Well done Careygang if your contribution helped.

The discussion about the revised guideline wording was well underway weeks prior to Careygang's "inquiry." Similar questions arose elsewhere in the world.

Thanks - so that confirms that Careygang most likely helped tip the balance. Well done for doing the UK's bit.

No, I did not post to confirm that. To the contrary, my sole purpose for posting was to prevent anyone from claiming or ascribing credit where no credit was due.

 

The revised guideline language currently in effect was settled upon well prior to Careygang's "inquiry."

[+Happy Humphrey]

No, I did not post to confirm that. To the contrary, my sole purpose for posting was to prevent anyone from claiming or ascribing credit where no credit was due.

 

The revised guideline language currently in effect was settled upon well prior to Careygang's "inquiry."

I meant that the debate and discussion led to Groundspeak being queried on this, and you confirmed that it had had the required effect. Careygang also contributed, and from the non-privileged viewpoint the rule was apparently changed soon after the e-mail queries from Careygang and others. Although perhaps it was announced earlier elsewhere, reviewers are aware of this thread and never told us not to bother!

 

In fact, only a few days ago we were encouraged to do this by a UK reviewer, and Careygang went ahead;

 

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.

...if you read that post entirely, it's clear that at that time the rule had not been changed.

 

Anyway, I hope that this fiasco leads to a revision of procedures so that the geocaching community can be aware of proposed changes to guidelines and proposed wording BEFORE it goes ahead. It's not enough to only include reviewers in the process.

[+castagnari]

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.

...if you read that post entirely, it's clear that at that time the rule had not been changed.

 

You are correct, at that time the rule had not been changed, BUT - the decision to change it had been made.

[+Happy Humphrey]

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.

...if you read that post entirely, it's clear that at that time the rule had not been changed.

 

You are correct, at that time the rule had not been changed, BUT - the decision to change it had been made.

Point is, at that time neither the common geocacher nor the reviewers were aware that the decision had been made.

Deceangi would have said so if he knew, as he wouldn't have wanted us wasting our time badgering Groundspeak when they'd already decided that they'd made a mistake and were in the process of revising the wording. I'm a bit disappointed that we weren't told on this thread until the wording was actually published; it looks like reviewers learnt about it some time after Deceangi's post but before we'd had the announcement from Groundspeak.

 

Perhaps the way forwards is to have a group of geocachers that can be consulted on proposed changes before they become widely advertised. It's no good consulting reviewers only, because (with exceptions) they tend to have a limited view of caching, can't necessarily see the wider picture, and sometimes have only limited practical experience. Reviewers are picked because they are most suited to cache reviewing, not because they are most knowledgable about caching. You need to talk to members who've had many years experience finding lots of caches of various types in different areas and several countries and are still out finding them every week, and who also have placed lots of caches of different types over the years. Some Groundspeak employees might have all this but be too blinkered by having to be loyal to the company.

[+Guanajuato]

The trouble with 'open consultation' is that you'll get a large bunch of contradictory comments from people who cannot possibly be wrong. You'll never please everyone. Get 10 cachers together to discuss a topic and you'll get 12 opinions.

 

The original interpretation did appear to be a bit OTT. But you could argue that by using a spike, you're enlarging holes that already exist, rather than creating a hole. ground is rarely a homegenous surface. And to put something into such a surface would require a lot more than a spike. A spike is doing on a small scale what we do with our hands when we move rocks to find the cache underneath.

 

Spike = OK. 3" drainpipe hammered into the ground = not OK? What about a cache hidden in a 3" drainpipe that was already there? Or the remains of a signpost that creates a handy hole?

[+Ma & Pa]

[CraftyKel*]

I had a meeting yesterday to discuss placing a trail of caches in a local country park. The guy was quite tentative about it until I pointed out that we have rules that prohibit us from breaking the ground or digging or drilling into trees or otherwise damaging the area.

 

To me, it's meaning, intention and value is obvious, I don't understand why people have to look for loopholes and play with semantics to get around the rules that are there to protect and reassure land-owners and in turn benefit us hiders.

 

Just my point of view, I understand other viewpoints given even if I don't agree with them

[BOBBLES WORLD TOUR]

I had a meeting yesterday to discuss placing a trail of caches in a local country park. The guy was quite tentative about it until I pointed out that we have rules that prohibit us from breaking the ground or digging or drilling into trees or otherwise damaging the area.

 

To me, it's meaning, intention and value is obvious, I don't understand why people have to look for loopholes and play with semantics to get around the rules that are there to protect and reassure land-owners and in turn benefit us hiders.

 

Just my point of view, I understand other viewpoints given even if I don't agree with them

 

So did you put him off? As he was quite tentative to begin with.

Edited October 10, 2012 by JoLuc

[CraftyKel*]

I had a meeting yesterday to discuss placing a trail of caches in a local country park. The guy was quite tentative about it until I pointed out that we have rules that prohibit us from breaking the ground or digging or drilling into trees or otherwise damaging the area.

 

To me, it's meaning, intention and value is obvious, I don't understand why people have to look for loopholes and play with semantics to get around the rules that are there to protect and reassure land-owners and in turn benefit us hiders.

 

Just my point of view, I understand other viewpoints given even if I don't agree with them

 

So did you put him off? As he was quite tentative to begin with.

 

No, all was good. He was reassured by the no digging/breaking ground rule and that the site wouldn't be altered/damaged in anyway and verbally gave me permission to go ahead

 

....It was verbal though, I just have to try to get it in writing now or it's a no-go anyway

[+Happy Humphrey]

The trouble with 'open consultation' is that you'll get a large bunch of contradictory comments from people who cannot possibly be wrong. You'll never please everyone. Get 10 cachers together to discuss a topic and you'll get 12 opinions.

I wasn't suggesting that the consultation would be "open". It would be too hard to work out who had a useful opinion and who had misunderstood (or wasn't experienced enough to have useful input). My suggestion is that there should be a panel of selected geocachers around the world who would be in a good position to help tweak the wording of a proposed change so that it would accurately reflect the intention, and to check that the intention wasn't misguided in the first place.

It was a while before my attention was drawn to the "breaking ground" wording; had I seen it before release I could have easily pointed out the weakness that caused all the confusion. I'm not saying that I should be on the panel (should it exist) by the way, there are plenty of others who could have foreseen the same trouble! But both times in the last year that I've queried the wording of a guideline the end result has been that the guideline has been changed, and it seems to me that it would have been better for me (and others) to have had chance to help get it changed before it was on general release. Clearly, if there's any consultation under the present system the wrong people have been consulted.

 

I had a meeting yesterday to discuss placing a trail of caches in a local country park. The guy was quite tentative about it until I pointed out that we have rules that prohibit us from breaking the ground or digging or drilling into trees or otherwise damaging the area.

 

To me, it's meaning, intention and value is obvious, I don't understand why people have to look for loopholes and play with semantics to get around the rules that are there to protect and reassure land-owners and in turn benefit us hiders.

 

Just my point of view, I understand other viewpoints given even if I don't agree with them

The guideline is currently;

 

Geocaches are never buried, neither partially nor completely.

 

If one has to dig or create a hole in the ground when placing or finding a geocache, it is not allowed.

So there is no longer any "breaking ground" wording. This also allows caches placed in existing holes.

Anyway, people were not necessarily playing with semantics; without any explanation from Groundspeak there was some room for interpretation. Taken literally it would be difficult to place a cache at all on the ground in the typical British countryside location, as frequently a box has to be nestled down slightly into the ground and therefore "break" it a little. Was that really the intention? I don't know, but I doubt it.

The key point is that with no explanation as to why this particular wording was selected, no examples to illustrate how it's supposed to work and no indication of the problem it was addressing we had to take it literally, and this made it rather impractical.

[+Dartmoor Dave]

I've only just come across this topic and thought I would add my views. To answer the original question, of course these caches are legal! Almost all caches are legal (there are obviously exceptions) but it's the placement of a cache which can cause problems, not the cache itself, so of course they can be sold as well. This interpretation of the rules/guidelines does seem rather arbitrary regardless of what the reviewers say about collaborating. Surely a little common sense is what is required, both by cachers placing caches and by reviewers reviewing them. Even with the strictest interpretation of the rule it can only be relevant if the cacher "breaks" the ground whilst placing the cache. There are always sufficient areas of the ground already broken to place these caches, or they can be placed in moss etc which would require no existing break. Taking this interpretation to extremes means that we cannot even use a walking pole to walk with. A walking pole will certainly break the ground, and conveniently just about the right size to place a cache !

 

Sorry, about my post above, but the thread seems to have moved on since I first saw it and I missed some subsequent posts which seem to suggest a sensible resolution has been reached. So I can put my walking poles away!

Edited October 13, 2012 by Dartmoor Dave

[patdhill]

I was a looking at the bug reporting forum and came across a mention of this promotion/partnering by Groundspeak http://www.geocaching.com/minelabmetaldetectors/ I always thought the first thing anyone with a metal detector did when they hear the beep was get out the spade to break ground. Should I read any double standards into this or is it just the cash is different to the cache ;-)

[Deceangi]

I was a looking at the bug reporting forum and came across a mention of this promotion/partnering by Groundspeak http://www.geocachin...metaldetectors/ I always thought the first thing anyone with a metal detector did when they hear the beep was get out the spade to break ground. Should I read any double standards into this or is it just the cash is different to the cache ;-)

 

The whole competition is about Photographing a Minelab Geocoin

 

where participants compete to win by snapping the most creative photos of special hidden coins in caches throughout the United States of America and Canada.

 

So whilst a Metal Detector Manufacturing Company is sponsoring the competition is based on a Geocaching Activity Geocoins, not digging up the ground to find bits of metal. And participants get a "Free" Geocoin to boot.

 

Plus from past experience, the majority are just going to end up in peoples collections, or on Ebay. Just Look at the different Jeep Promotions, or the 2 separate Diabetes promotions, or even the Garmin Geocoins Promotion. The number of those which ended up on ebay was huge (and they were given out for Free)

 

Deci

[patdhill]

I thought the whole point of the competition was to promote Minelab products. The use of who's products normally involves digging holes in the ground, which Groundspeak specifically ban in the placement of geocaches due to to the damage it causes to the environment at least that's my reading of it.