Star droppers counted as digging a hole?

February 12, 2013

My link (There are a few photos on this page)

Hello fellow cachers,

I have recently hidden a creative geocache and submitted it for review, the reviewer temporarily disabled it because this person thinks that hammering a star dropper into the ground is counted as digging a hole. By suspending it in the air by these 4 star droppers this cache, (Made to look like the house of a gnome) allows vegetation to grow on the ground underneath the cache, if it was on the ground, #1 the door wouldn't open, and #2 it would kill all the vegetation underneath it. Using these is much better than propping it up on bricks, or bolting it to a tree! it was the most environmentally friendly way to install it and the reviewer thinks hammering a few star droppers into the ground is counted as digging a hole. Would you say that it is digging a hole if I hammer a few thin star droppers into the ground. I would of thought that it would be better if vegetation was allowed to grow underneath it! What are your views? My area has hardly any creative caches so why can't the reviewer cut us cachers a bit of slack when we go to the effort of installing a creative cache (Which also cost me over $200 to make)

Edited February 12, 2013 by Bushwalker53

February 12, 2013

I believe your reviewer is following the guidelines which state: "If one has to dig or create a hole in the ground when placing or finding a geocache, it is not allowed." I have no idea what a star dropper is but your description of it being hammered into the ground means you are making a hole with the star dropper. Unfortunately your time and money cannot be a factor to override the guidelines.

Make a base for the Gnome home or place it on a stump or rock if there are any in the area.

Edited February 12, 2013 by rjb43nh

2.6k · February 12, 2013

Star dropper seems to be a kind of fence post.

Yes per the guidelines it is not allowed; even if it might be better for the environment than putting the house on the ground.

21.9k · February 12, 2013

"Star dropper" is not a term I've ever heard here in America. It might help the conversation if you posted an image of your cache, if you have one available, or something like it that you found online.

The old wording of the "buried caches" guideline talked about using a "pointy object" to move ground. Now the guideline says "If one has to dig or create a hole in the ground when placing or finding a geocache, it is not allowed." Your example helps illustrate why the wording change was made.

Rest assured, when your submission talks about going into a National Park very early in the morning so that the noise of pounding a sledgehammer won't attract any attention while you're placing your cache, you are likely to be questioned about that.

Remember that, if you disagree with a volunteer reviewer's determination, you can always write to appeals@Groundspeak.com to get a second opinion from the Geocaching.com staff.

3.1k · February 12, 2013

By suspending it in the air by these 4 star droppers this cache, (Made to look like the house of a gnome) allows vegetation to grow on the ground underneath the cache, if it was on the ground, #1 the door wouldn't open, and #2 it would kill all the vegetation underneath it.

Would it be possible to put "stilts" on the bottom of your "house?" That would seem to serve the same purpose as the "star droppers," but it wouldn't cause any holes to be dug.

11.6k · February 12, 2013

"Star dropper" is not a term I've ever heard here in America. It might help the conversation if you posted an image of your cache, if you have one available, or something like it that you found online.

Google Images shows very few fence-post-like items, with the term "star dropper". Here are some possibilities:

February 12, 2013

Apparently synonyms for "star dropper" are "star picket" and "fence dropper".

Googling "star picket" gives you a representative variety of images.

Locally, this kind of post is commonly used for permanent geodetic survey markers.

These survey markers are quite useful for hiding micros, nanos, and film canisters.

They are already there for official reasons, so they make valid hosts.

February 12, 2013

What are your views? My area has hardly any creative caches so why can't the reviewer cut us cachers a bit of slack when we go to the effort of installing a creative cache (Which also cost me over $200 to make)

My view is that it's not digging per se, but it's still not something I would advise. Regardless of the lack of creative hides, if the reviewer lets this one slide it could potentially create perception issues. I don't think many land managers want people sticking fence posts wherever they want. Even if this is in your own backyard, if cachers assume fence posts are ok because you placed one and copy the idea, then the perception could become that geocaching=fence posts. Much like for so long many land managers assumed geocaching=buried.

As for already having spent $200. That's unfortunate, but if there's any question about a cache hide, it's always a good idea to run it by a reviewer first.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Mr. 0

1.2k · February 12, 2013

OP, please correct me if I'm wrong, but Google and Wikipedia come up with this as a translation for "star droppers". If the translation is correct, I'm gonna have to agree with the Reviewer on this one...4 T-posts is not within the guidelines cited above.

18.9k · February 12, 2013

Sorry - but I have to agree that pounding those into the ground is a violation of the way I read the guidelines - just my thoughts. Also, unless it is your land or you have explicit permission to place those - it sure would give land managers a dim view of caching if they find it.

3.7k · February 12, 2013

Rest assured, when your submission talks about going into a National Park very early in the morning so that the noise of pounding a sledgehammer won't attract any attention while you're placing your cache, you are likely to be questioned about that.

:laughing: While I sympathize with the frustration, you are not supposed to dig or break ground when you hide a cache. For your next creative hide, I would suggest running the details by your reviewer first.

13.7k · February 12, 2013

I'd think that a stump would be ideal for what you have in mind, fitting with the theme.

'Course the "over $200 to make" hide may not be as firmly anchored in place as fence stakes.

February 12, 2013

The guideline is there to avoid cachers to place geocaches in a way that is bad for the environment and therefore bad for geocaching.

If your cache is placed in a way the land owner thinks is fine, and I assume you talked about this with the landowner when you got permission to place it, it is clearly not a case where the environment is harmed.

I don't know if you shared the information on your permission of the landowner with the reviewer. But in similar cases I know this information was the solution, since guidelines are there to protect geocaching, not to frustrate you in making nice geocaches.

And if the reviewer still thinks it is a bad idea, you can of course ask appeals to look into it. Reviewers have so many caches to judge, to make (even logical) exceptions to the standard guidelines can mean a lot of extra work involved. There is nothing wrong with the reviewers doing the bulk work and judge according to the guidelines. As long as appeals will take a serious look at exceptions, since guidelines are not rules, just a guide to keep geocaching fun for everyone.

I think it is not about, or should be about, reviewers having to cut geocachers some slack. It is about making sure everyone involved agrees on how a cache can best be placed in a specific situation, so it is both environment and cachers friendly. Be honest with your reviewers when you place a cache and give them all the information on how you got permission and what is agreed. The guideline has been written because cachers didn't have this permission in place, didn't give honest information to land owners and reviewers, which resulted in buried caches, caches where ground has been moved, in places where they weren't welcome.

There are lots of places where it's fine to "move ground" for a geocache, and I hope that honest and complete communication with landowners, reviewers and/or appeals will always result in permission for those who have everything arranged according to the goals of the guidelines.

6k · February 13, 2013

I guess it is all in how you state what you do. I did one this week that was dug at least 8 inches into the ground, placed and then the ground around it moved back. I am sure that the hider didn't convey all that to the reviewer.

7.8k · February 13, 2013

I did one this week that was dug at least 8 inches into the ground, placed and then the ground around it moved back. I am sure that the hider didn't convey all that to the reviewer.

Since you found it, I'm assuming it's still active, which means the finders aren't conveying that information either. A cache that clearly violates the guidelines lives on, new cachers copy it, land managers find out about it and ban caching on their lands...

Most hiders wouldn't reveal such information to the reviewer. In those cases, it's up to the finders to bring that information to light.

February 13, 2013

If it is underground level, not allowed.

If it is above ground, just tell that to the reviewer. If they don't believe you, take pictures and contact management. Reviewers OFTEN get it wrong or don't judge things fairly. Some are better than others too. You might just have a bum one.

7.8k · February 13, 2013

If it is underground level, not allowed.

That's too general. What if the cache is in a cave or mine? It's digging, burying, or otherwise making holes that are intended to be covered by the guideline, not a cache's position relative to ground level.

Reviewers OFTEN get it wrong or don't judge things fairly. Some are better than others too. You might just have a bum one.

Had some bad experiences with reviewers, have we?

Reviewers, by the nature of the selection process, are the most experienced and respected cachers out there. They'll occasionally make mistakes or make decisions based on falsely-represented information, but saying they often get it wrong or aren't judging things fairly simply isn't accurate. If that were the case, they wouldn't still be reviewing.

February 13, 2013

If it is underground level, not allowed.

That's too general. What if the cache is in a cave or mine? It's digging, burying, or otherwise making holes that are intended to be covered by the guideline, not a cache's position relative to ground level.

Reviewers OFTEN get it wrong or don't judge things fairly. Some are better than others too. You might just have a bum one.

Had some bad experiences with reviewers, have we?

Reviewers, by the nature of the selection process, are the most experienced and respected cachers out there. They'll occasionally make mistakes or make decisions based on falsely-represented information, but saying they often get it wrong or aren't judging things fairly simply isn't accurate. If that were the case, they wouldn't still be reviewing.

Not talking in general...just talking about this guys cache. Tunnels and such are fine..I have one, found a few.

Yes, bad experiences. My experience hasn't been nearly as bad as some others I've talked with. I won't get into who specifically (for forum rule reasons). But Lets say they clearly aren't objective. I myself have reviewers archive caches based on lies from their buddies and others make up excuses so their friends can have a cache at a particular spot.

Edited February 13, 2013 by TheWeatherWarrior

21.9k · February 13, 2013

Any reviewer who did NOT question the OP's cache design deserves to be fired. "Yeah, there was all that stuff about sneaking into the National Park right at sunrise to use a sledgehammer, but I'll look the other way."

February 13, 2013

Any reviewer who did NOT question the OP's cache design deserves to be fired. "Yeah, there was all that stuff about sneaking into the National Park right at sunrise to use a sledgehammer, but I'll look the other way."

He's not in the USA dude...relax. Besides, there is nothing wrong with using a sledgehammer on Park Property here either...though I think it still is not possible for regular folk to place caches in National Parks.

3.7k · February 13, 2013

Any reviewer who did NOT question the OP's cache design deserves to be fired. "Yeah, there was all that stuff about sneaking into the National Park right at sunrise to use a sledgehammer, but I'll look the other way."

Either fired or they could have their doggie biscuits taken away.

Edited February 13, 2013 by The_Incredibles_

1.1k · February 13, 2013

funny story..

if the CO placed this one, and did not say details, it would have been approved

and all finders would have been happy, and no one would say or do a thing against it.

The bottom line is :

GET A PERMISSION, then you can do what ever cool thing you like,

you can modify objects and dig 100 ft deep holes and fill them with dirt of concrete what ever is possible

with a full permission from land owner !

with no permission.. sneeking in erly..

sorry you need to put it into a stump or up a tree like anyone else.

Edited February 13, 2013 by OZ2CPU

3.9k · February 13, 2013

There are two common ways to react when a reviewer declines to publish your cache:

/1/ Write a nice polite note to appeals@geocaching.com, explaining where you think the reviewer may not have fully understood all of the circumstances, and asking nicely if your cache can be published.

/2/ Come to the forums and give everyone one side of the story, and expect them to get their torches and pitchforks and march round to the reviewer's house.

Both of these are quite common things to do. Guess which one results in more caches getting published?

1.1k · February 13, 2013

>>There are two common ways to react

many more ways :

how about first fix the problem, then kindly inform the reviewer who denied it,

the trouble have been solved and relist it.

now end of story, and all are happy :-)

I think 99% of all issues are actually a CO own fault,

and under 1% a reviewer who was a little bit too strict or misunderstood maters.

1.6k · February 13, 2013

Sorry but if I'd reviewed the cache, I'd have bounced it straight back to you as well. You have used major metal stakes, which you personally hammered into the ground, having sneaked into a National Park (a status which I'm guessing gives it more legal protection?) to hide what you were doing. So avoiding Park Staff from noticing your activity. So a issue there to start with, you then break the Buried Guideline, with those metal stakes, so a second issue.

You do not appear to have made the effort to communicate and work with your local Reviewer, who could have made a number of suggestions, on how to rectify things to get the cache published. So a Third Issue.

Having then not gone through the Reviewer/Cache Owner discussion process (something which is highly affective, because if you work with your local Reviewer, that person will work with you to get issues resolved), you appear not to have gone to Appeals, again something which can be highly favourable to the Cache Owner, despite what some will claim. I've seen Appeal overturn decisions made by Reviewers, which were not borderline, but gave a exception to a Guideline, something Appeals can do, but Reviewer can not. So issue Four.

Instead of following the above, you dive straight to the forums, expecting the community to rally around you. Only for community consensus to side with the Reviewer.

Personally I've been a Reviewer for nearly 7 years, and have Published over 45,000 caches, several of those involved major back and forth between myself and the Cache Owner. But in the end we got the cache Published. Only because the CO, was prepared to work with me, to resolve all issues.

One case of a Muggle, relocating a Container over 70 miles, and submitting it as a new cache listing. Involved it moving from the Irish Sea to the North Sea to the English channel (I'm in the UK). But by steadily working with this person, over a large number of emails, I finally tracked down the new location, and which cache it was. And managed to reunite the container with it's owner. Another case of working together to resolve issues. One email simply stated "behind the War Memorial" there being thousands of such in the UK. But with patience and continually working together we resolved things. Personally I consider it the greatest Geocaching Puzzle I'll ever solve :lol:

Working with your Local Reviewer, despite rejections, will eventually get your cache published. Remember Reviewers are cachers, who want to go out and find new caches. So it is in their best interests, to work with you to get a cache published, however long, and however the amount of communication between you both. Work with the Local Reviewer and they will work with you, work against the Local Reviewer, and then don't expect them to put in their unpaid free time, to help you. It has to be 2 sided to succeed.

When Additional Waypoints first came out (they were made Mandatory in the UK in June 2006, with the backing of Groundspeak), I swapped around 10 emails with someone who was struggling to create one. I eventually sat down, and wrote out each stage as I created one. I then emailed this to the person, and hey presto the issue was cracked. The person kept communicating with me up to that point, so working with me, to try and resolve the issue. That was time well used up, because it ended in a cache being published (even though it was over 200 miles away from me, so the likelihood of me ever finding it was remote, I still got the warm fuzzy, from knowing "we'd" resolved the issue).

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer

10.2k · February 13, 2013

I could probably write about 2 paragraphs saying how bizarre it is to refer to metal fence posts as Star droppers, but I don't want to cause an international incident or anything. :laughing: Well, I had heard that the infamous sprinkler head caches, which involve pushing plastic stakes into the ground, were not allowed under the changed wording in the guidelines regarding "burying". I guess this confirms it, once and for all. And for the love of God, don't tell me what you guys call sprinkler heads down there.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Mr.Yuck

February 13, 2013

Based on the reviewer notes I see, I would have done the same thing in my area. Not only has the buried issue been violated, there is this:

Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

It also appears that you have attempted to get permission after the fact. This part must have been overlooked as well:

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.

Having permission already in hand goes a long way in getting caches such as this published, providing the land owner / manager / park ranger understands the full scope of the cache hide, including knowing in advance you're going to be pounding 4 fence posts (OK, "star droppers") into the ground with a sledgehammer. Asking permission after the fact most likely will result in him or her saying no, and asking telling you to remove it. I'm not saying that having permission up front is a guarantee you'll get any cache published, but it helps.

Work with your reviewer. There could be many ways to salvage your idea, and still stay within the guidelines.

February 13, 2013

First off, Cool looking cache, I hope your placment of this thing will prevent it from getting destroyed or stolen. I would be placing it a front yard with a game camera pointing at it myself.

Secondly, get a chop saw and cut off the star droppers (T-posts in Canada) and have it sit on top of the ground, you can lash it to a tree if you want to keep it from wandering off.

Problem solved.

6.5k · February 13, 2013

My link (There are a few photos on this page)

Hello fellow cachers,

I have recently hidden a creative geocache and submitted it for review, the reviewer temporarily disabled it because this person thinks that hammering a star dropper into the ground is counted as digging a hole. [sNIP]

My area has hardly any creative caches so why can't the reviewer cut us cachers a bit of slack when we go to the effort of installing a creative cache (Which also cost me over $200 to make)

Neither of these are grounds for making an exception to the guidelines for listing a cache on this website.

You did read them before submitting this right?

It does sound like a cool idea, and is a neat looking hide. I've seen similar stuff placed on private property with permission. Then you don't have to worry about sneaking around with your sledge hammer.

3.1k · February 13, 2013

funny story..

if the CO placed this one, and did not say details, it would have been approved

and all finders would have been happy, and no one would say or do a thing against it.

All will be well until the land manager comes across it, realizes it's a geocache, and bans all geocaches from their park (and perhaps all Australian national parks). Then, the story isn't so funny.

1.6k · February 13, 2013

I'd like to know the reason for the hammered fence posts. Is it to keep the cache from being stolen? If so there are other mehtods to achieve that goal. If the intent is to raise the cache off the ground to allow the door to open (as described in the original post) feet can be applied to the bottom of the cache. Also, can it be hung from a tree like a fake birdhouse? you could even decorate it with winged gnomes. Finally, I have a seen a similar cache that was inserted into an existing opening at the bottom of a mature tree. Kinda like the keebler elves. Personally I think the idea is cool, and I'd like to help the op make it appropriate for publication.

February 14, 2013

My link (There are a few photos on this page)

Hello fellow cachers,

I have recently hidden a creative geocache and submitted it for review, the reviewer temporarily disabled it because this person thinks that hammering a star dropper into the ground is counted as digging a hole. By suspending it in the air by these 4 star droppers this cache, (Made to look like the house of a gnome) allows vegetation to grow on the ground underneath the cache, if it was on the ground, #1 the door wouldn't open, and #2 it would kill all the vegetation underneath it. Using these is much better than propping it up on bricks, or bolting it to a tree! it was the most environmentally friendly way to install it and the reviewer thinks hammering a few star droppers into the ground is counted as digging a hole. Would you say that it is digging a hole if I hammer a few thin star droppers into the ground. I would of thought that it would be better if vegetation was allowed to grow underneath it! What are your views? My area has hardly any creative caches so why can't the reviewer cut us cachers a bit of slack when we go to the effort of installing a creative cache (Which also cost me over $200 to make)

No idea what a star dropper is but i do understand the word "No" from a Reviewer.

3.7k · February 14, 2013

I don't even understand why you need to bang the star droppers into the ground. Why can't they just sit on top of the ground? :unsure:

I also don't understand what you are emphasizing saving the vegetation under the cache. All the vegetation *around* the cache is going to trampled.

Edited February 14, 2013 by The_Incredibles_

5k · February 14, 2013

I could probably write about 2 paragraphs saying how bizarre it is to refer to metal fence posts as Star droppers, but I don't want to cause an international incident or anything. Well, I had heard that the infamous sprinkler head caches, which involve pushing plastic stakes into the ground, were not allowed under the changed wording in the guidelines regarding "burying". I guess this confirms it, once and for all. And for the love of God, don't tell me what you guys call sprinkler heads down there.

Personally, my opinion always was that this would be allowed under the old wording, but the new wording is pretty clear, "create a hole". We are not allowed to create a hole in the ground. Hammer your star dropper, stake, sharpened PVC pipe, whatever, into the ground and then remove it. What do you see. Yep, it's a hole alright, and you created it.

1.6k · February 14, 2013

I don't even understand why you need to bang the star droppers into the ground. Why can't they just sit on top of the ground?

I also don't understand what you are emphasizing saving the vegetation under the cache. All the vegetation *around* the cache is going to trampled.

I believe the OP was attempting to emphasize the ecologically sensitive way in which s/he was hammering posts into the ground.

3k · February 14, 2013

If you need to hammer something into the ground for your geocache then it's against the guidelines.

February 14, 2013

I can understand the rule against digging holes, even with permission, because of the perceptions that it creates. But I don't understand a blanket ban on fence posts. I'm sure there are places where they would be a bad idea, but there are also spots where it's no more destructive than walking on the ground.

1.6k · February 15, 2013

I can understand the rule against digging holes, even with permission, because of the perceptions that it creates. But I don't understand a blanket ban on fence posts. I'm sure there are places where they would be a bad idea, but there are also spots where it's no more destructive than walking on the ground.

Because cacher A sees it and thinks its ok, then takes it one step further and puts a bigger post in to an existing hole in concrete. Before you know it, we've built a small cabin. The purpose of the guidelines is to ensure containers are placed in such a manner that land owners are not likely to complain and ban all caches on their property. An important issue to a community that relies on free use of other people's property.

5k · February 16, 2013

I can understand the rule against digging holes, even with permission, because of the perceptions that it creates. But I don't understand a blanket ban on fence posts. I'm sure there are places where they would be a bad idea, but there are also spots where it's no more destructive than walking on the ground.

Because cacher A sees it and thinks its ok, then takes it one step further and puts a bigger post in to an existing hole in concrete. Before you know it, we've built a small cabin. The purpose of the guidelines is to ensure containers are placed in such a manner that land owners are not likely to complain and ban all caches on their property. An important issue to a community that relies on free use of other people's property.

I'm wondering how many follow the geocaching blog and the "Cache of the Week"? A significant percentage of these violate one guideline or an other and can lead to the "copycat" issues that keep coming up in this discussion. On the blog, I have seen caches in fixtures that have been permanently set. It's obvious that exceptions have been made and the property owner has been on board. How else can someone install a "cache vending machine", or other objects that have been set in concrete, or permanently attached to a wall of a building?

Of course, sneaking something onto land that someone else controls, in the dead of the night is not the way to go, but after looking at the images of the cache in question, it could easily turn into one of the "caches of the Week" if properly planned and done with permission, and with Groundspeak's guidance.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Don_J

February 16, 2013

umm guys,

I didn't sneak in in the dead of night. We drove the car in through the gates in broad daylight, payed the park entry fee with the park staff looking into the back of the car without the slightest concern, they let us in to go about our business. we only did it in the morning quietly so muggle joggers didn't come to have a look and possibly vandalise the container after we had left, the star droppers were hammered into the ground for security because the cache cost us too much to just make it the easiest thing to steal in the world.

6.7k · February 16, 2013

Next time, just use a bike lock to secure it to a tree.

February 17, 2013

umm guys,

I didn't sneak in in the dead of night. We drove the car in through the gates in broad daylight, payed the park entry fee with the park staff looking into the back of the car without the slightest concern, they let us in to go about our business. we only did it in the morning quietly so muggle joggers didn't come to have a look and possibly vandalise the container after we had left, the star droppers were hammered into the ground for security because the cache cost us too much to just make it the easiest thing to steal in the world.

You'll have to remember that different countries have different customs. Some places have parks that encourage geocaching as another way to get people out to enjoy them. Some feel that you have to fill out paperwork in order to place one and yet others refuse to allow them.

Anyway you have enough options to keep your cache in place without your stakes in the the ground. Just make sure you kiss it goodbye in case the first muggle on the place kicks it to death.

February 17, 2013

Next time, just use a bike lock to secure it to a tree.

This sounds like the legal solution but I think the rule is a bit silly in this case. Plus, how many caches do you see on YouTube that violate this?

7.8k · February 17, 2013

Next time, just use a bike lock to secure it to a tree.

This sounds like the legal solution but I think the rule is a bit silly in this case. Plus, how many caches do you see on YouTube that violate this?

Right from the top section of the guidelines:

Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache. If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the geocache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated, the geocache is likely to be grandfathered and allowed to stand as is.

6.7k · February 17, 2013

Next time, just use a bike lock to secure it to a tree.

This sounds like the legal solution but I think the rule is a bit silly in this case. Plus, how many caches do you see on YouTube that violate this?

Right from the top section of the guidelines:

Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache. If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the geocache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated, the geocache is likely to be grandfathered and allowed to stand as is.

Yup. Just because some other idiot breaks the rules doesn't mean it's ok for everyone else to do so. If they start giving a pass on this or that cache because it's just a little bit over the rules where does it end?

5k · February 17, 2013

I wonder if this is installed in the ground, or if anyone can just walk up and take it?

However it is installed, the CEO didn't seem to mind.

At any rate, perhaps the OP can just weld a 30 lb iron plate to the bottom on his star droppers and just set the thing on the ground.

7.9k · February 17, 2013

At any rate, perhaps the OP can just weld a 30 lb iron plate to the bottom on his star droppers and just set the thing on the ground.

I was thinking a big hunk of concrete, but the effect would be the same.

The problem would still be the delicate vegetation that would be damaged by something sitting on it.

(But let's just forget about the delicate root systems that were mangled by having the 'star droppers' pounded through them.)

The first heathen that would take it (but can't) will just bash it to pieces with the nearest tree limb or loose rock.

February 17, 2013

The question is did you have permission to hide the cache in the manner you did from someone who had the authority to give you that permission. The fact that there were fence posts in the back of your car and they allowed you to drive into the park does not mean you had permission to pound them into the ground and leave them. I expect if you can give your reviewer proof that you have permission to install your cache would probably get it approved. You may in the circumstances need pretty solid proof of that permission however.

February 17, 2013

It does look great though! I'd love to find a cache like this and I understand your concern with theft, but with those rules in place I also understand why it wasn't allowed.. It's a shame to let all that hard work go to waste, maybe you could still place it unsecured in good faith that it will be left safe... Or attach it to something too heavy to take off with, like a downed log or something...

It's clearly not any worse than bolting things to trees, but rules are rules..

Again, thanks for making a fun cache, I wish we had some like that around here!! :grin:

2.8k · February 17, 2013

I wonder if this is installed in the ground, or if anyone can just walk up and take it?

That may be on the owner's property.

Star droppers counted as digging a hole?

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