Is this an acceptable cache ?

[+teammellin]

Hi,

I've just seen this cool looking cache for sale and was wondering if you think it would be acceptable as a cache. Would this fall within the guidelines for placing a cache because it would be "partially buried" and from what I gather that is a no-no. It seems to me that it would be a shame to not place this for people to find when no-one is really having to dig or bury to enjoy it ....thoughts ?

Thanks

[+mellers]

Looks great but won't get past the review stage I'm afraid.

 

The rules now prohibit any cache which a hider or finder has to "break ground" to hide or find. The reviewers have interpreted this not only to mean no digging holes (which is sort of what 'breaking ground' means in it's colloquial American sense) but also to prohibit the ground to be broken or penetrated in any way, such as by something which would be pushed in to it, without digging or removal of earth, soil or other substance.

[+Legochugglers]

Looks like a cool container so a shame if it can' t be utilised in some way. Maybe it could be incorporated where there is already a hole,gap in a rock etc which wouldn't contravene the guidelines. It may that you have to hunt around a bit more but I'm sure you will find somewhere suitable.

[+mellers]

Looks like a cool container so a shame if it can' t be utilised in some way. Maybe it could be incorporated where there is already a hole,gap in a rock etc which wouldn't contravene the guidelines. It may that you have to hunt around a bit more but I'm sure you will find somewhere suitable.

Oooh, I like that idea! Think laterally...

[+Beach_hut]

Looks great but won't get past the review stage I'm afraid.

 

The rules now prohibit any cache which a hider or finder has to "break ground" to hide or find. The reviewers have interpreted this not only to mean no digging holes (which is sort of what 'breaking ground' means in it's colloquial American sense) but also to prohibit the ground to be broken or penetrated in any way, such as by something which would be pushed in to it, without digging or removal of earth, soil or other substance.

 

I was under the impression that view had changed? Certainly the guideline has changed.

 

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

 

Perhaps run it by a reviewer first? I believe it's being looked at on a case-by-case basis? Certainly, mellers' suggestion of using a pre-existing hole would be fine.

[+mellers]

Well hat will certainly be good news if they are interpreting them more leniently. Perhaps a reviewer/moderator, can wade in?

[+eusty]

Well hat will certainly be good news if they are interpreting them more leniently. Perhaps a reviewer/moderator, can wade in?

Best to drop your local reviewer a message, not all interpret the same. Southerntrekker seems to be yours...although I've never heard of them!

[+Antheia]

We all review to the same as the full guideline says

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 if we knoe this it wont be published

 

I have one of these containers hidden and it is amongst other rocks in a hole that was already there, so it can be used within the guidelines.

[+teammellin]

Thanks everyone...I'll keep looking

[+simplysup]

I wonder how one determines whether a "hole" was pre-existent to the placing of the cache..

 

I would suggest there is room for sensible guideline interpretation here. Stating that you had to create a hole to hide your cache is sure to ensure the listing isn't published. Not mentioning, or mentioning in passing, that you used a pre-existing orifice, is likely to be reviewed in a more kindly light, I suspect.

[+bazzer1975]

Hi,

I've just seen this cool looking cache for sale and was wondering if you think it would be acceptable as a cache. Would this fall within the guidelines for placing a cache because it would be "partially buried" and from what I gather that is a no-no. It seems to me that it would be a shame to not place this for people to find when no-one is really having to dig or bury to enjoy it ....thoughts ?

Thanks

There are loads of bison's just pushed in the ground whats the difference

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/geocache-micro-container-complete-with-logs-geocaching-x-5-/260930332358?pt=UK_SportingGoods_OtherSports&hash=item3cc0a8e6c6

[+Betelgeuse]

I wouldn't hesitate to use a pre-existing hole. One of my caches is in a grassy pocket I found - a hole but not one I dug. One of my other caches is in a hole too. That type of cache wouldn't be too hard to use within the GS rules at all.

[+sparklefingers]

Find a rocky area that you could move rocks to hide it. I've seen one of those in a rocky area took me ages to find the cache.

[+mellers]

There are loads of bison's just pushed in the ground whats the difference

There is no difference according to the "you may not break ground" rule. If either was used on a new cache and pushed in to the ground, neither would be allowed.

 

You may be confused by some older caches which exists and were published before the stricter interpretation of the rule.

[+Pharisee]

There are probably more than a few out there that were published because the cache setter wasn't aware of that particular guideline and / or omitted to mention exactly what sort of container they were using in the cache description or the reviewers note. What the Reviewer's eye doesn't see, the Reviewer's heart doesn't grieve over!!

[Dave from Glanton]

If you do use a pre-existing hole in the ground, then it's probably worth mentioning this in the cache description. That way, if a newbie cacher visits the cache then it won't give them any ideas about digging new holes when they get to placing caches of their own.

[+Happy Humphrey]

There is no difference according to the "you may not break ground" rule. If either was used on a new cache and pushed in to the ground, neither would be allowed.

 

You may be confused by some older caches which exists and were published before the stricter interpretation of the rule.

there's no "you may not break ground" rule (uinless you can see one that I can't). The rule is

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

So it would appear that this cache should be fine if it's just pushed into the ground. We had a heated discussion on this some weeks ago and Groundspeak changed the rule to make it clear that they don't disallow caches unless you actually dig a hole before burying a cache in it.

[+bazzer1975]

There are loads of bison's just pushed in the ground whats the difference

There is no difference according to the "you may not break ground" rule. If either was used on a new cache and pushed in to the ground, neither would be allowed.

 

You may be confused by some older caches which exists and were published before the stricter interpretation of the rule.

 

When did the rule come in??

[+mellers]

There is no difference according to the "you may not break ground" rule. If either was used on a new cache and pushed in to the ground, neither would be allowed.

 

You may be confused by some older caches which exists and were published before the stricter interpretation of the rule.

there's no "you may not break ground" rule (uinless you can see one that I can't). The rule is

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

So it would appear that this cache should be fine if it's just pushed into the ground. We had a heated discussion on this some weeks ago and Groundspeak changed the rule to make it clear that they don't disallow caches unless you actually dig a hole before burying a cache in it.

Yes I remember that discussion and the reviewers who were very careful to say that anything pushed in the ground wasn't acceptable. It's great to hear that's been amended now.

[Deceangi]

Sorry but there is a huge difference between the cache in question, and a tent stake or a piece of wire with a item attached to it. The 2 are not the same, in any sort of way. So sorry, but pushing that into the ground, would not meet the Guidelines.

 

A tent stake/piece of wire is a couple of mm thick, the cache being discussed is cm's thick. There is a huge difference. The change in wording was to allow the artificial grass type hide, where the piece of wire is pushed into the ground to support the container, which is "above" ground. So pushing a a Bison into the ground, would fail the Guideline.

 

You are of course free to obtain individual clarification in regards to the above off Groundspeak.

 

And to make it very clear, what Geocaching Suppliers sell, might not meet the Guidelines used by Geocaching.com. So just because you see them for sale, does not mean they will be published on Geocaching.com. What other Listing Sites allow, is down to each individual Listing Sites, just like any potential issues with Landowners created by those hides, are down to those individual Listing Sites.

 

Deci

[BOBBLES WORLD TOUR]

This to me is one of the more laughable of gc.com rules.

Not allowing a tube some cm's thick to be pushed a few inches into the ground every 0.1m squared is ridiculous.

And what if I were to get permission from the landowner to do such?

Surely landowner permission is more valuable.

Hopefully I won't have to apologise for this statement.

[+bazzer1975]

Out of the last 10 caches I have found 4 should be arcived then intresting

 

In fact about 10 of every 200 I have found should

[+mellers]

Out of the last 10 caches I have found 4 should be arcived then intresting

 

In fact about 10 of every 200 I have found should

I'm not sure reviewers would go so far as to archive existing caches which go in the ground... it's just less likely that new ones will be published if the "something going into the ground" bit is apparent to them (subject of course to any rewording of the breaking ground" rules which may have taken place and which was mentioned above so that something may possibly be now allowed to be pushed in to the ground if it's small enough)...

[+MartyBartfast]

Out of the last 10 caches I have found 4 should be arcived then intresting

 

In fact about 10 of every 200 I have found should

I'm not sure reviewers would go so far as to archive existing caches which go in the ground...

 

well they did when this all kicked off last year, which was one of the triggers for the debate which led to GS changing the wording in the guidelines.

 

Personally I'm with Pharisee who said above "What the Reviewer's eye doesn't see, the Reviewer's heart doesn't grieve over!!"

[+Happy Humphrey]

So sorry, but pushing that into the ground, would not meet the Guidelines.

Sorry, I was basing my opinion on the publicly-available guideline, which is now quite clearly advising that the cache would be fine, as it doesn't involve digging a hole. The diameter of an allowable spike isn't specified in the rules that we can see.

 

I'm aware that reviewers have extra rules that aren't visible to cache placers, and it might be that one of these disallows spikes pushed into the ground.

 

Any chance of a quote from the hidden rules? Or at least, an explanation for the rule? It's always much easier to get people to follow a rule if they can see the sense in it. If it appears ridiculous then people will simply ignore it. At the moment I don't see any harm in this cache so I'd advise people to go ahead but not mention the details to reviewers.

[BOBBLES WORLD TOUR]

I too can only agree with Mr Pharisee's sentiments.

But the problem was that someone "grassed"

I have an idea that may be beneficial to cachers.

I am quite willing to go out into the woods with my walking pole and make a nice hole for would be cache.

Obviously it would be a coincidence if a cacher were to see such a hole and think.....etc, etc.

Edited January 26, 2013 by JoLuc

[+MartyBartfast]

I am quite willing to go out into the woods with my walking pole and make a nice hole for would be cache.

Obviously it would be a coincidence if a cacher were to see such a hole and think.....etc, etc.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[+Legochugglers]

One of the first caches I placed required me to just push the end of a home made long stick cache into the ground, just for stability, at the base of a rambling hedge which had large bushes and Hawthorne surrounding it. I had read the guidelines and felt so guilty that I went back just prior to publication to correct my breach just in case somebody reported this misdemeanour. I eventually had to move this cache to another area when the landowner completely destroyed about 2 miles of ancient hedgerows around these meadows(bulldozed and burnt) and dug about 2000 large holes about 3ft deep and 1ft in diameter for a new fencing network right across the fields.

It made my adherence to the guidelines somewhat moot.