Favorite points on an illegal cache

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

I wonder if anyone wants to BUY my favorite points (though I haven't read the rules yet, if it is against the rule). I have 25 unused ones. Hahahahahahah.

[Clan Riffster]

it CAN be perfectly legal to dig down a cache, if you got a permission to do so !

 

 

Not true at all. Caches must NEVER be buried. Doesn't matter if you have permission to do it. Check the guidelines again.

Not true at all. The current oldest active cache is buried. I recognize that it was hidden before the prohibition against burying was written into the guidelines, and as such, gets a pass under the grandfather clause, but the fact that it is buried makes that particular guideline about as accurate as a politician at a fundraiser. Also, we've all seen instances where Reviewers have posted in these very forums that, while probably not a good idea due to the 'Monkee See / Monkee Do' axiom, if you have explicit permission, such as being the property owner, you can bury a cache and it will get published.

 

No need to check the guidelines again.

 

I suspect that wording was carefully chosen to mollify land managers.

[+JL_HSTRE]

To know whether a cache is "illegal" i.e. violates guidelines you usually need to find it first. I have no qualms about logging a Find followed immediately by a NA.

 

I wouldn't involve park management as it might just cause them to get pissed off. Once I've passed the pertinent info to the Reviewer (preferably with photographic evidence), I would let them and the CO sort the issue out.

 

As far as Favorite Points on illegal/violating caches, I see at least two reasons:

1) Many cachers - even PMs - are not adequately familiar with the Guidelines.

2) I believe most cachers will not report a Guidelines violation - either due to the aforementioned uncertainty, fear of receiving community backlash as a "cache cop", and/or indifference to such matters.

[Trinity's Crew]

I feel that the situation is worthy of discussion. I just don't understand why the specific cache has to be named, or why anything has to be reported to the park manager. There is no reason to share the specific cache info with anyone but the local reviewer. I feel very strongly about this.

 

According to the cache page, the current incarnation of the cache was placed in May of last year. The OP posted a found log in August stating "Great camo, and interesting hide", so it baffles me why this is suddenly an issue, seven months later.

Seriously? August? Jellis did you report it in August and bring it here to get some action on it? If not, what prompted you to report it now?

 

Apparently she didn't want to make a big deal out of it, or be known as the bad guy and figured an e-mail to the reviewer would be sufficient. Since he basically ignored her e-mails, and with the guideline violation being glaringly obvious, she is left wondering why. Sometimes we are told in these situations that this is a "private" matter between the CO and the reviewer which is rather silly, as the hide is publically listed for all geocachers to find and imitate, and does not have any permission information listed on the page whatsoever. If it is so "private", it should be archived and available for invitation only. With the amount of hides which violate the guidelines that are being listed, it is only fair to conclude that a few reviewers knowingly are quietly allowing it.

Thanks for that answer but I don't understand how you came to that conclusion based on the information I've read in this thread. I wasn't able to determine when Jellis actually reported the cache, which is why I asked. Which post(s) state that she reported it in August?

[4wheelin_fool]

There was a previous thread in which the same cache was mentioned. She has said that she emailed him twice, and never recieved a reply. Ignoring someone who has a valid issue is not going to magically make it go away. I'm willing to bet that some reviewers have never archived caches for guideline violations, only obvious maintenance and proximity issues.

[+Harry Dolphin]

We've got one like this here. Totally underground and yet people are raving about it and giving it favorite points.

 

I should guess that most geocachers do not understand the guidelines. Which is unfortunate. I am not generally the cache police. Yes, I've seen a few underground caches (since archived.)

We have a local one that violates guidelines, though not as egregious as buried. It does not have a log. Magnetic numbers on a power box. Backside says "Congrats. You have found the cache. Name your favorite movie to log your find." I refuse to log it, since it does not have a log book. Yet, it has four favorites for being 'innovative'. I have mentioned to the CO, via e-mail, and in person, that it violates guidelines. But he has done nothing to make it fit the guidelines.

[AZcachemeister]

I am not generally the cache police.

I'm not out to spoil anyone's fun, but sometimes enough is enough, eh?

 

Magnetic numbers on a power box.

 

Innovative? That is SOOOOOO 2004.

[+BlueDeuce]

some people focus on what kind of fun they had

some people look at errors even if they did not perform research,

who got time to do the research before complain ?? better just to complain and be happy,

what a good life to have.

 

as a side note :

it CAN be perfectly legal to dig down a cache, if you got a permission to do so !

and you can also drill holes in wood you own,

or hammer dons of nails in your own trees, even if they are not dead,

you can also use holes some one else made or maybe there are allready in the ground,

then it is fine to use it, impossible to prove WHO made the hole ??

 

Some people have to deal with land-owners, police, the public, and have to clean up after others. I'm all for being happy when I'm not carrying the dustpan.

[4wheelin_fool]

With the amount of hides which violate the guidelines that are being listed, it is only fair to conclude that a few reviewers knowingly are quietly allowing it.

 

Because we don't physically inspect each cache we can only go by what we see on maps, sat photos and what information the CO volunteers. Some are so proud of their handiwork and so clueless about the guidelines they will sometimes proudly include a photo or two of their guideline violation. Those are the easy ones. For the rest we have to trust the cache owner and the community.

 

Sometimes there are circumstances where what on the surface appears to be a guideline violation may have factors that allow for its publishing. I'm in favor of mentioning those factors on the cache page so there is no doubt, but not all reviewers require that.

 

I'm sure that any reviewer who made a habit of quietly ignoring guideline violations would not be a reviewer for long.

 

 

And how can you be so sure of that?

 

Does the Lily Pad do audits of the caches that get archived for guideline violations, and check to see if the reviewer had found it under their player account while quietly ignoring the obvious? I don't think so. However geocache players tend notice these things right away and remember them, as well as use them as motivation to hide their own illegal cache.

 

Last year or so, I noticed an NA log someone wrote on a cache at a Superfund site with obvious No Trespassing signs posted. I was surprised that there was no action taken, but forgot about it. Many months later I noticed, and was perplexed, to see that it was still listed. I posted my own NA, and it was only then archived. I suppose that the original NA may have been overlooked, but reading the logs I noticed that the reviewer had been at the site and found it previously. The title indicated that it had always been a Superfund site. How would they not notice that it was off limits? Pictures showed the signs.

 

At another cache, someone had drilled several 1" holes in a dead tree leading up to a fake nailed birdhouse, and placed a bag of footpegs nearby to use to climb up to it. Since the tree was dead, personally I didn't have a problem with it, but it still violated the defacement guidelines. I noticed in the logbook that a reviewer had found it and wrote that it "was an interesting hiding method". They made no effort to have it archived, and you know that someone else doing the same thing and being honest about it would not be able to have it published. But someone else seeing a reviewer find on it would probably guess that drilling holes was OK.

 

I'm sure that any reviewer who made a habit of quietly ignoring guideline violations would be able to get away with it for a fairly long time, as long as it was not thrown in their face during the initial publication.

 

If someone posts an obvious issue with a cache with an NA, getting no reply back at all is a little obnoxious.

[+Ambrosia]

Sometimes reviewers make mistakes. Sometimes they're not perfect.

 

They're people.

 

[+OZ2CPU]

I find illegal caches all the time then,

but I am no geo-police so I find them, sign them and be happy..

 

Where is a clear definition about WHEN a cache is too much dug down, to be alowed ?

Some people say if you need NO tools to FIND IT, then it is ok.

but offcourse if you need a showel to dig it up to be able to find it, then it is a NO

Edited March 5, 2013 by OZ2CPU

[4wheelin_fool]

I find illegal caches all the time then,

but I am no geo-police so I find them, sign them and be happy..

 

I am aware of at least a dozen or more caches which violate the defacement guidelines. I don't think they would cause problems, so I haven't said anything. However calling someone a geo-police for doing so is obnoxious to both the police and the reviewer who is tasked to archive them, as well as the land manager who may ban all caches in the area. And yes, it has happened quite a few times.

 

Where is a clear definition about WHEN a cache is too much dug down, to be alowed ?

Some people say if you need NO tools to FIND IT, then it is ok.

but offcourse if you need a showel to dig it up to be able to find it, then it is a NO

 

It seems that you do not understand the guidelines, or have reading comprehension difficulties. All caches which use a shovel or pointy object to hide or find were previously not allowed. Since that definition was stretched and ignored they recently expanded it to include all buried caches in which any hole is created.

Edited March 5, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+OZ2CPU]

>any hole is created.

 

by whom ?

if the hole is allready there, the hider did not dig it

 

how about this picture:

for us with a reading disorder :-)

WHEN do you say a cache is too deep in the ground to be approved ?

Edited March 5, 2013 by OZ2CPU

[4wheelin_fool]

>any hole is created.

 

by whom ?

if the hole is allready there, the hider did not dig it

 

 

Correct, if the hole is already there is no question of "whom". Any hole which is created by a human with the intention to hide a cache. Any disruption of soil. Any slight movement of precious dirt particles. Fake sprinkler heads, posts, ect.

 

You never know what may set someone off. I learned that the rock "chert" was used by early man to create tools due to its sharp edges. So I found some and broke it in an effort to see how it happens. It was in the woods on a riverbank, about a mile from anywhere. An archaeologist that I was with got upset and admonished me for "creating artifacts", and picked up every tiny piece of the stone and disposed of them to places unknown. They said that another archaeologist could stumble upon the pieces of chert someday in the future and think that it was an archaeological site. So basically I got in trouble for breaking a rock apart. If it was another type of rock it would be fine though. This same archaeologist said that a one inch post or a sprinkler head would not cause any damage to a possible archaeological site unless it was under a rock shelter, and could not understand why it would be disallowed in the guidelines.

Edited March 5, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+OZ2CPU]

thanks alot 4wd :-)

you know me, I am going to loop in this for a little while more..

 

>Correct, if the hole is already there is no question of "whom".

 

so back on track,

the so called illegal caches, the CO simply found a hole previously made,

but his cache inside the hole, now the cache is more or less buried,

but legal..

 

so unless the CO wrote on the cache page : I MADE THE HOLE USING A TOOL,

there is actually nothing to say or do about the hide.

[+larryc43230]

Are we so lacking in creative ideas for hiding a cache that we feel the need to repeatedly split hairs about this "buried cache" restriction? There are an infinite number of other clever ways to hide a cache. And I seriously doubt whether all of this rehashing is going to change Groundspeak's policy on the issue one bit. They have their own image to protect, and one aspect of that is to avoid giving land managers any more excuses to ban caches from their jurisdictions.

 

Of course, if we stopped nitpicking about these tempests-in-a-teapot, we might wind up with nothing to argue about here on the forums. Imagine that.

 

--Larry

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I still don't understand the hesitance people have in reporting a cache that clearly doesn't follow the guidelines (buired, hole bored into a tree, on property that has a "no caching" policy, behind NO TRESPASSING signs, etc). "Oh no, I may be called a cache cop! GASP!" We should *all* be cache cops to some degree.

 

If we as cachers don't report it (to have it removed) what will happen if the land owner / manager finds it? They will likely take a dim view of cachers and caching, and request of GS to have all caches removed, even those placed sensibly with little impact to the area. How is that better?

 

I drop my reviewer an email (with pictures if necessary), and let them handle it. If it comes back that there was permission, or the CO owns the privtae property, etc, I get an email back from the reviewer, with the scoop. However, the cache is usually archived.

[+Castle Mischief]

it CAN be perfectly legal to dig down a cache, if you got a permission to do so !

 

 

Not true at all. Caches must NEVER be buried. Doesn't matter if you have permission to do it. Check the guidelines again.

Not true at all. The current oldest active cache is buried. I recognize that it was hidden before the prohibition against burying was written into the guidelines, and as such, gets a pass under the grandfather clause, but the fact that it is buried makes that particular guideline about as accurate as a politician at a fundraiser. Also, we've all seen instances where Reviewers have posted in these very forums that, while probably not a good idea due to the 'Monkee See / Monkee Do' axiom, if you have explicit permission, such as being the property owner, you can bury a cache and it will get published.

 

No need to check the guidelines again.

 

I suspect that wording was carefully chosen to mollify land managers.

 

Guidelines exist for present and future hides. There's wording in the guidelines (last I looked) that covers old hides and precedent. I'm pretty sure that I've seen a thread or two from disgruntled hiders that were not allowed to bury a cache on their own land or drill a hole in their own tree. Not all reviewers interpret the guidelines the same ways.

[+Castle Mischief]

...we feel the need to repeatedly split hairs...

 

The internet is fueled by the energy released from split hairs.

[+larryc43230]

...we feel the need to repeatedly split hairs...

 

The internet is fueled by the energy released from split hairs.

Scientists learned how to split the atom... Bloggers and forum posters learned how to split hairs.

 

So, what's the ratio of light to heat from either of these accomplishments?

 

--Larry

[+bflentje]

Post the GC# or it didnt happen.

GC3F7JE

You know me. I wouldn't lie or exaggerate

 

Nope, just broadcast everything to the world, including the park manager, so all caches can be properly banned system wide. Ever hear of the word discretion? I'd have simply notified one of my reviewers in private and then gone and remedied the situation after it was archived. But, what fun is that?

 

I agree. While I don't condone guideline violations, I often times find the reaction to be worse than the offense. Why on earth would you call this out publicly and not just take care of it locally is beyond lame. Don't some of you people have better things to do?

 

Which reminds me, the cache that came in second place for MN Cache of the Year last year had just about every stage screwed into a tree of power pole. I think find to favorite ratio must be near 100%.

[+bflentje]

I still don't understand the hesitance people have in reporting a cache that clearly doesn't follow the guidelines (buired, hole bored into a tree, on property that has a "no caching" policy, behind NO TRESPASSING signs, etc). "Oh no, I may be called a cache cop! GASP!" We should *all* be cache cops to some degree.

 

If we as cachers don't report it (to have it removed) what will happen if the land owner / manager finds it? They will likely take a dim view of cachers and caching, and request of GS to have all caches removed, even those placed sensibly with little impact to the area. How is that better?

 

I drop my reviewer an email (with pictures if necessary), and let them handle it. If it comes back that there was permission, or the CO owns the privtae property, etc, I get an email back from the reviewer, with the scoop. However, the cache is usually archived.

 

I agree. But to come to the national forums and call out a specific cache publicly rather than take care of it locally is what smells.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

...we feel the need to repeatedly split hairs...

 

The internet is fueled by the energy released from split hairs.

 

There is also an untapped energy source from forum knee-jerks.

[4wheelin_fool]

thanks alot 4wd :-)

you know me, I am going to loop in this for a little while more..

 

>Correct, if the hole is already there is no question of "whom".

 

so back on track,

the so called illegal caches, the CO simply found a hole previously made,

but his cache inside the hole, now the cache is more or less buried,

but legal..

 

so unless the CO wrote on the cache page : I MADE THE HOLE USING A TOOL,

there is actually nothing to say or do about the hide.

 

Well, if the hole is in the middle of nowhere, the exact same size of the cache container, and there are no similar holes nearby, there is a pretty good chance that someone created it. What about the five gallon bucket I found with fresh dirt piled around it? I suppose the owner could say that someone else randomly went into the woods and dug a hole to that shape just before he discovered it. This is why the guidelines have gotten more restrictive because of nonsense excuses like that.

 

It's possible that a groundhog or fox could have created the hole that Jellis is talking about, and the CO used it to his advantage, but without any reply back about it, the whole scenario starts to smell bad. Suppose you go into a store or a restaurant and notice that one of the employees are doing something forbidden and offensive. So you mention it to the manager and he ignores you - twice. So you bring it up on the businesses website and nothing comes about it. At that point you could always go higher and mention it to the owner or the corporate office, but noticing a pattern you suspect that it's wasted energy. At that point many people would go down another avenue and contact someone outside the business, especially if it was illegal. This appears to be why the park ranger is mentioned. There should be absolutely no reason to do that, but I can understand why. It's a typical example of how tiny, miniscule problems can get much bigger. There is a tiny fire on the other side of your house in a wastebasket that your 9 year old son started. Yeah, you don't want to yell at him right now, so don't say anything and hope that it goes out. Right?

Edited March 5, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+edscott]

Seems like hollowing out a spot in the bottom of the stump to hold the container would be a better solution. Less likely to get wet and no digging required.

[Clan Riffster]

it CAN be perfectly legal to dig down a cache, if you got a permission to do so !

 

 

Not true at all. Caches must NEVER be buried. Doesn't matter if you have permission to do it. Check the guidelines again.

Not true at all. The current oldest active cache is buried.

 

Guidelines exist for present and future hides. There's wording in the guidelines (last I looked) that covers old hides and precedent. I'm pretty sure that I've seen a thread or two from disgruntled hiders that were not allowed to bury a cache on their own land or drill a hole in their own tree. Not all reviewers interpret the guidelines the same ways.

I think I covered grandfathered caches pretty well. But that wasn't my primary point. Rather, I was discussing the blatant fabrication which exists in that wording. If caches are 'never' buried, then Mingo, (not to mention Dave Ulmer's first), would be a significantly different hide. Obviously, at some point in our hobby's past, cache burying was hunky dory, and as such, the word 'never' really doesn't belong.

 

Which led me to ponder why TPTB chose that rather deliberate phrase.

 

Me suspects land manager pacification.

 

As to folks grumbling about their private property buried caches not being published, I seem to recall several cases in these forums where Reviewers mentioned they would publish a buried cache, on private property, if they had very explicit permission from the owner?

 

(Unless my cheesecake has turned, and I'm hallucinating in some post Salmonella bliss?)

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

I agree that history of caching in the early days had me find a decent few caches buried (though not necessarily covered). Heck, some caches have been around long enough the leaf, pine needle and other natural debris builds up and it goes from surface based to buried due to time.

 

And what is 'burying' really? Digging, sure, but digging what, soil, leaves, grass, branches, etc. Most anything can be dug, technically.

[4wheelin_fool]

Post the GC# or it didnt happen.

GC3F7JE

You know me. I wouldn't lie or exaggerate

 

Archived.

 

I'm still left wondering why it took so long.

[+hzoi]

Post the GC# or it didnt happen.

GC3F7JE

You know me. I wouldn't lie or exaggerate

 

Archived.

 

I'm still left wondering why it took so long.

 

Well, thank Jeebus. Now I can sleep at night.

[4wheelin_fool]

Post the GC# or it didnt happen.

GC3F7JE

You know me. I wouldn't lie or exaggerate

 

Archived.

 

I'm still left wondering why it took so long.

 

Well, thank Jeebus. Now I can sleep at night.

 

Good God man, how would you sleep at a time like this? I was up all night tossing and turning, in awe and wonder of why the archival was delayed over the last year. After jogging a few miles, downing a few pints of Jack, and watching a video of Groundspeak's hamsters a few hundred times, I finally passed out.

[+hzoi]

Post the GC# or it didnt happen.

GC3F7JE

You know me. I wouldn't lie or exaggerate

 

Archived.

 

I'm still left wondering why it took so long.

 

Well, thank Jeebus. Now I can sleep at night.

 

Good God man, how would you sleep at a time like this? I was up all night tossing and turning, in awe and wonder of why the archival was delayed over the last year. After jogging a few miles, downing a few pints of Jack, and watching a video of Groundspeak's hamsters a few hundred times, I finally passed out.

 

Clearly I'm a monster without a conscience.

[+The Rat]

I think the person who said illegal caches get favorite points is on point. There's a local challenge cache that requires you to find the 20 caches centered on your zip code with the most favorites. I had found about a third of the so I started on the rest. Then I realized that most of the points went to caches with unique camo. That's not bad in itself, but several of them were items that were, or looked exactly like, real life objects which were attached to private property (or public entity property not open to the public like utility district equipment), like padlocks, sprinkler heads, or light fixtures. The CO may say you don't have to destroy or harm anything to find the cache, but the problem is you do have to fiddle with or yank on various things that are NOT the cache to find it since you don't know which thing it is. One example on the list was a cache whose description intentionally sounded exactly like a sprinkler (e.g. round, where water flows, etc.) so I tested the sprinkler head at ground zero by unscrewing what I thought was the head, but accidentally unscrewed it at the base, which was three feet deep. When I lifted it and realized what I'd done, I tried to replace it, but dirt or rocks had gotten into the threads and it wouldn't screw back in. Some city worker was going to have to dig a large hole 3 feet deep in the middle of a nice flower planter in order to clean out the opening and replace the sprinkler head shaft. After I posted my DNF and detailed this little misadventure on the cache page the owner put a sentence in red on the cache description not to touch any of the sprinklers, but that was too little too late. Not only does this ruin my day when I find out I've done harm to someone's property, it makes geocachers in general be thought of as vandals or at least nuisances and causes more restrictions or hostility toward all of us. I stopped doing the challenge cache after experiencing a couple of these. What needs to happen if for people to stop giving favorite points to these well-intentioned but misguided CO's. It only encourages them.

[+Off Grid]

I find illegal caches all the time then,

but I am no geo-police so I find them, sign them and be happy..

 

Where is a clear definition about WHEN a cache is too much dug down, to be alowed ?

Some people say if you need NO tools to FIND IT, then it is ok.

but offcourse if you need a showel to dig it up to be able to find it, then it is a NO

 

Never mind it being buried what about when it does not follow one rule at all like clearly posting its a geocache

[+OZ2CPU]

>like clearly posting its a geocache

 

That drives me nuts too :-(

you will be able to find numerous posts where I state a box with a piece of paper

is LITER unless there is GEOCACHE written on it,

if there is no GEOCACHE text on the outside where room and no such info on the paper inside

threat it like any other liter you find like any good CITO geocacher.

 

to get bact to the burried mater :-)

today we found a nice ammo can standing compleetly free on the top of the ground

on its top a HUGE sticker with GEOCACHE on it.

it was soo easy to find it was not even funny,

I say if half of it was burried a bit, and 2-4 large branches was pulled to its sides

and 2 smaller ones on the top, it would have been normal..

and more fun, and longer will the cache live before it go missing.

but this one just had to follow to guideline, the only one we found in month that follow all rules perfectly.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

to get bact to the burried mater :-)

today we found a nice ammo can standing compleetly free on the top of the ground

on its top a HUGE sticker with GEOCACHE on it.

it was soo easy to find it was not even funny,

I say if half of it was burried a bit, and 2-4 large branches was pulled to its sides

and 2 smaller ones on the top, it would have been normal..

and more fun, and longer will the cache live before it go missing.

but this one just had to follow to guideline, the only one we found in month that follow all rules perfectly.

 

Seems to me like an ammo can was probably not the right container for the location.

[+OZ2CPU]

I love ammocans for their rugged style and watertight and long good service life

and the size for swag and TB's

 

if an ammocan, can not be hidden, maybe just a little bit

people will stop using them,

offcourse at EXTREAMLY remote locations, only geocachers go to the spot and find it,

but where I live, there are no such spots, NONE at all,

people will show up with their kids or their dog, and fint it, muggle it..

so offcourse people dig it down a little bit.

Edited March 14, 2013 by OZ2CPU

[+fuzziebear3]

Putting some sticks over a can is not the same as burying it. The stick covering is fine.

 

Putting a cache in an existing 'hole', such as the roots of a tree, a natural depression, or even a cave is not burying it. Also all fine.

 

Digging a hole to put your cache in, and shoveling dirt on top of it, both of those activities are related to burying.

I think we need to apply a little common sense here sometimes.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I just saw two caches got archived here in FL and reminded me of this discussion.

 

Both caches were published in 2012 by the same CO and had 20 Finds each, with 3 Favorites between them. Someone (not me) who knows a thing or two about the guidelines found both and NA'd both of them for violating the prohibition on buried caches.

 

The CO and nearly all of the finders have several thousand finds each; several finders had over 10,000. Other than the FTF who questioned in his/her log whether they violated the guidelines, no cacher before the final one expressed any concerns in their logs about the caches and presumably none had reported concerns to the reviewers.

 

I guess none of those folks wanted to be the cache police...

[AZcachemeister]

 

I guess none of those folks wanted to be the cache police...

 

I regularly report caches I think are violations.

Everyone should do the same, and let the reviewers review the evidence (pictures are helpful here).

 

The guidelines are there for good reason, and if WE don't police ourselves, land managers WILL make Geocaching illegal.

Then the only place for your cache will be your own yard.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

I guess none of those folks wanted to be the cache police...

 

I regularly report caches I think are violations.

Everyone should do the same, and let the reviewers review the evidence (pictures are helpful here).

 

The guidelines are there for good reason, and if WE don't police ourselves, land managers WILL make Geocaching illegal.

Then the only place for your cache will be your own yard.

 

"Cache police" is an obnoxious and offensive term which includes Reviewers, who are just unpaid geocachers who only volunteer their time to help out the game. Creating a wall between the Reviewers and other cachers only leads to discord.

[+tozainamboku]

The guidelines are there for good reason, and if WE don't police ourselves, land managers WILL make Geocaching illegal.

Then the only place for your cache will be your own yard.

The guidelines may be there for a reason, but other then the speculation we get sometimes in the forums, Groundspeak makes little effort to expose the wider community as to what those reasons are. It is little wonder that when someone finds a geocache partially buried in the ground, they're more likely to think "That's a clever cache" than to think "OMG, this violates the guidelines and I ought to report it to the reviewer".

 

The majority of people assume that the guidelines are just guidelines and that reviewers and Groundspeak make exceptions all the time. My guess is that many people know a cache is "violating" the guidelines, but either assume that the hider had permission or feel that even if the land manager would come across this cache, it is unlikely to cause a major problem.

 

There are certainly cases where land managers have put in blanket bans when they find a cache that violated their own guidelines. It is also true that many land managers only allow caches after being convinced that Groundspeak has a way to deal with caches that violate guidelines and that these violations are rare. However, I would argue that most land managers don't really care if once and a while someone digs a small hole to hide a cache in a area where that hole is not creating a hazard or causing other damage.

 

While keeping a cache within the Groundspeak guidelines tends to lessen the chance it will cause a problem with a land manager, there is no guarantee that it will. Similarly, a cache that "violates" the guidelines will not necessarily result in land managers banning all caches.

[AZcachemeister]

The guidelines are there for good reason, and if WE don't police ourselves, land managers WILL make Geocaching illegal.

Then the only place for your cache will be your own yard.

The guidelines may be there for a reason, but other then the speculation we get sometimes in the forums, Groundspeak makes little effort to expose the wider community as to what those reasons are. It is little wonder that when someone finds a geocache partially buried in the ground, they're more likely to think "That's a clever cache" than to think "OMG, this violates the guidelines and I ought to report it to the reviewer".

 

The majority of people assume that the guidelines are just guidelines and that reviewers and Groundspeak make exceptions all the time. My guess is that many people know a cache is "violating" the guidelines, but either assume that the hider had permission or feel that even if the land manager would come across this cache, it is unlikely to cause a major problem.

 

There are certainly cases where land managers have put in blanket bans when they find a cache that violated their own guidelines. It is also true that many land managers only allow caches after being convinced that Groundspeak has a way to deal with caches that violate guidelines and that these violations are rare. However, I would argue that most land managers don't really care if once and a while someone digs a small hole to hide a cache in a area where that hole is not creating a hazard or causing other damage.

 

While keeping a cache within the Groundspeak guidelines tends to lessen the chance it will cause a problem with a land manager, there is no guarantee that it will. Similarly, a cache that "violates" the guidelines will not necessarily result in land managers banning all caches.

 

OK, we'll do it your way and see what happens.

 

I suppose you must have a nasty scar on your hand because you didn't understand the rationale when your mama said 'Don't put your hand on the stove burner'.

[Clan Riffster]

Groundspeak makes little effort to expose the wider community as to what those reasons are.

I suspect that Groundspeak holds a fairly high opinion regarding our reading comprehension and deductive logic skills. Don't get me wrong. I have no doubt there are a smattering of exceptions. But I can state emphatically that I have never met with anyone who could not read a guideline and ferret out why it was written.

[+Don_J]

The guidelines are there for good reason, and if WE don't police ourselves, land managers WILL make Geocaching illegal.

Then the only place for your cache will be your own yard.

The guidelines may be there for a reason, but other then the speculation we get sometimes in the forums, Groundspeak makes little effort to expose the wider community as to what those reasons are. It is little wonder that when someone finds a geocache partially buried in the ground, they're more likely to think "That's a clever cache" than to think "OMG, this violates the guidelines and I ought to report it to the reviewer".

 

The majority of people assume that the guidelines are just guidelines and that reviewers and Groundspeak make exceptions all the time. My guess is that many people know a cache is "violating" the guidelines, but either assume that the hider had permission or feel that even if the land manager would come across this cache, it is unlikely to cause a major problem.

 

There are certainly cases where land managers have put in blanket bans when they find a cache that violated their own guidelines. It is also true that many land managers only allow caches after being convinced that Groundspeak has a way to deal with caches that violate guidelines and that these violations are rare. However, I would argue that most land managers don't really care if once and a while someone digs a small hole to hide a cache in a area where that hole is not creating a hazard or causing other damage.

 

While keeping a cache within the Groundspeak guidelines tends to lessen the chance it will cause a problem with a land manager, there is no guarantee that it will. Similarly, a cache that "violates" the guidelines will not necessarily result in land managers banning all caches.

 

OK, we'll do it your way and see what happens.

 

I suppose you must have a nasty scar on your hand because you didn't understand the rationale when your mama said 'Don't put your hand on the stove burner'.

 

I think he was only trying to draw a comparison between the average cacher, even one with thousands of finds, when they find such a cache, compared to someone like us that sit here and discuss the guidelines for years on end. I do think that the average cacher does simply dismisses an obvious violation as "no big deal" because they don't fully understand what the end result could be.

 

It would be my guess that a far great majority of geocachers simply do not have the capacity to see the overall result of what could happen when a cache violates the guidelines on someone elses property. When they see such a cache, the reaction isn't "oh my God, this could lead to a 1000 caches getting archived". Instead, it's, "what a cool cache, I'm giving it a favorite".

[+Don_J]

Groundspeak makes little effort to expose the wider community as to what those reasons are.

I suspect that Groundspeak holds a fairly high opinion regarding our reading comprehension and deductive logic skills. Don't get me wrong. I have no doubt there are a smattering of exceptions. But I can state emphatically that I have never met with anyone who could not read a guideline and ferret out why it was written.

 

Ask your average cacher why he can't hide a cache on NPS land and he'll probably answer, "because they're not allowed". Next ask him why. Expect the answer to be, "I don't know". If they knew that the reason is because of one buried cache over ten years ago, they might gain an entire new understanding of the no buried cache guideline.

 

Toz is correct. After a decade of revisions, the reasoning behind the guidelines has been lost on the average geocacher.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I suspect most geocachers are like most non-geocachers: not only are they unaware why a rule/law exists, they don't care. They just know it is something made by faceless strangers that interferes with their fun. And they don't want to report others for breaking the rules because then others might report them when they break the rules.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Joshism

[4wheelin_fool]

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I suspect most geocachers are like most non-geocachers: not only are they unaware why a rule/law exists, they don't care. They just know it is something made by faceless strangers that interferes with their fun. And they don't want to report others for breaking the rules because then others might report them when they break the rules.

 

It's more likely that they are trying to have fun and just enjoy a hobby in their spare time, and not about to worry about whether its against the guidelines. By that same token, they also should not be concerned if someone raises a guidelines question either without being called out as a cache cop. Your local cache cop publishes many Geocaches in their spare time without reimbursement, how about cutting them some slack?

[+jellis]

I know this is old now but I had an update. The CO that I started this thread about, I had found all of his caches but two because they were archived.....Both were on private property. And one of those two I learned was blown up.

Edited July 23, 2013 by jellis

[+Yuma4]

So.. I have seen several caches placed under a pile of rocks or a cache disguised as a rock and placed in a pile of rocks often under a larger rock. Would that be considered "Buried" ?

[+Dame Deco]

No