Geocache of the week ... and digging not allowed

[+fab_seeker]

Hello and happy new year!!!

 

I am asking myself some questions after the discovery of the geocache of the week:

http://coord.info/GC3JQQ1

 

It's clear that the owner had to dig in order to fix the geocache in the ground. But in the guidelines it is mentionned that it is forbidden to dig when searching AND caching a geocache. That's why I don't understand this rule. Can someone from Groundspeak explain when it is tolerated to dig and when it's not.

 

Extract of the guidelines:

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.

 

But of course, I think this geocache is great and would love to discover it! And if someone from Groundspeak confirms I can, I would love trying to make a similar one.

Edited January 2, 2014 by fab_seeker

[+TriciaG]

I've not found it, but looking at the gallery, especially this photo:

http://imgcdn.geocaching.com/cache/log/large/d37513ee-172c-4d62-bec6-0090b8abb2df.jpg

 

it looks like the cache is NOT placed via a hole. It has a rectangular frame at the bottom that sits on the ground.

 

I could be wrong, though. But that's how it looks to me.

[Clan Riffster]

Hello and happy new year!!!

 

I am asking myself some questions after the discovery of the geocache of the week:

http://coord.info/GC3JQQ1

 

Hi Fab, I can't see the listing, since it's a PMO.

Could you offer any details regarding how it is buried?

 

Disregard. I looked it up in the blog.

I assume you're referring to 4x4 posts sunk in the ground?

Edited January 2, 2014 by Clan Riffster

[+fab_seeker]

I've not found it, but looking at the gallery, especially this photo:

http://imgcdn.geocaching.com/cache/log/large/d37513ee-172c-4d62-bec6-0090b8abb2df.jpg

 

it looks like the cache is NOT placed via a hole. It has a rectangular frame at the bottom that sits on the ground.

 

I could be wrong, though. But that's how it looks to me.

 

And you think the rectangular frame was there before? Not me, I think it was set there by the cacher after digging to better fix it in the ground. It is the same wood as the one for the posts supporting the box.

[+TriciaG]

I understand the rectangular frame is part of the cache. Where you and I differ is the assumption that he had to dig to place the flat-bottomed frame on the ground.

 

Only the cache owner knows for certain whether or not he did any digging. All I'm saying is that it is certainly possible that he did not.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

That frame at the bottom of the posts would never keep the unit from falling over. It's top heavy. Unless the posts were pre-existing, holes must have been dug. Otherwise, this is an awesome cache.

 

Note: When were the guidelines amended for digging? Did it precede the placement date?

Edited January 2, 2014 by Cache O'Plenty

[+NeverSummer]

Hmm...

This comes up once again...

 

What say you, Groundspeak?

[+J Grouchy]

That frame at the bottom of the posts would never keep the unit from falling over. It's top heavy. Unless the posts were pre-existing, holes must have been dug. Otherwise, this is an awesome cache.

 

 

Yeah...there's no way that would be a wide enough base to keep it from falling forward/backward. It would probably have to stick out several feet in each direction to prevent it from toppling...and that's only from day-to-day forces (light wind, people opening and closing it, etc.). Stabilizing it from heavy winds, people leaning on it or intentionally pushing it, etc. would require some hefty weights in a wide base just to hold it up without digging into the ground. For something as light and simple as a satellite dish on a roof, there are heavy metal frames weighted down by heavy CMU blocks.

 

[^up]

Remember, they are guidelines and not rules. At least that is what I read in other forum posts. I think that means you can bend the rules somewhat, but more of a case by case review and depends on the reviewer. Some more strict than others.

[+NeverSummer]

Remember, they are guidelines and not rules. At least that is what I read in other forum posts. I think that means you can bend the rules somewhat, but more of a case by case review and depends on the reviewer. Some more strict than others.

 

Consistency is key. And not broadcasting a possible "grey area" of the guidelines via promoting such caches in this case, and the last one brought up.

 

The guideline seems pretty straight forward...

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Who knows what was pre-existing? Stop dropping turds on a beautiful day.

[+K13]

I see a great re-purposing of an old existing sign.

I will presume a positive explanation to counter the negative assumptions provided.

[Clan Riffster]

I see a great re-purposing of an old existing sign.

I will presume a positive explanation to counter the negative assumptions provided.

From looking at the pictures in the blog, it's pretty clear that the 4x4s and frame were constructed and placed solely for the purpose of this cache. As heavy as that box appears, it is evident the posts were sunk to support it. Obviously, the Groundspeak definition of 'buried' was met. The relevant question should be, despite the guideline's claim that caches are never buried, would such a placement be published, if the property owner gave explicit permission for the post holes to be dug?

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I see a great re-purposing of an old existing sign.

I will presume a positive explanation to counter the negative assumptions provided.

From looking at the pictures in the blog, it's pretty clear that the 4x4s and frame were constructed and placed solely for the purpose of this cache. As heavy as that box appears, it is evident the posts were sunk to support it. Obviously, the Groundspeak definition of 'buried' was met. The relevant question should be, despite the guideline's claim that caches are never buried, would such a placement be published, if the property owner gave explicit permission for the post holes to be dug?

I disagree with what you think is obvious, CR. Regarding property owners providing permission to stray from guidelines?...No, that just sets the table for disaster.

[+palmetto]

I published this.

At the time, the picture was not on the page, had it been, I might have asked more questions, and perhaps kicked it up to Geocaching.com staff.

 

However, it is on city property with permission from the city manager. When it was new, the adjacent parking spaces were marked for city employees only, but the cache owner had permission from the manager to tell cachers they could use them for a bit to access the hide.

 

It might be entirely the cache owner's construction, or the cache owner might have re-purposed some existing structure. I'm not inclined to revisit this one.

[+fab_seeker]

Sorry quote functionality doesn't work at the moment I write this:

 

Clan Riffster:

"The relevant question should be, despite the guideline's claim that caches are never buried, would such a placement be published, if the property owner gave explicit permission for the post holes to be dug?"

 

This could be a good solution. Local authorities could allow this.

But well, without any other information, I will simply follow the guidelines... and maybe I can find a way to fix such a cache on a tree stump for example.

[+K13]

I will contend that the cache was built to match the existing sign. My supposition is as valid as any other.

 

As to the property owner giving permission to dig holes to place a cache on private property, I would presume that to be an issue to ask a reviewer to determine. Currently, there is an unused mailbox out by the street next to my driveway, formerly used only for my newspaper delivery. (I do not have mail delivery to my home.) If I convert it into a cache, would it violate the 'no burying rule'? What if I remove the mailbox from atop the post and replace it with an ammo can? Is that a violation of the guidelines?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Remember, they are guidelines and not rules. At least that is what I read in other forum posts. I think that means you can bend the rules somewhat, but more of a case by case review and depends on the reviewer. Some more strict than others.

 

Actually, they're called "Geocaching Listing Requirements/Guidelines". I suppose it's open to interpretation but, to me, a requirement is the same thing as a rule. A guideline would not typically include the word "never".

 

 

[^up]

I published this.

At the time, the picture was not on the page, had it been, I might have asked more questions, and perhaps kicked it up to Geocaching.com staff.

 

However, it is on city property with permission from the city manager. When it was new, the adjacent parking spaces were marked for city employees only, but the cache owner had permission from the manager to tell cachers they could use them for a bit to access the hide.

 

It might be entirely the cache owner's construction, or the cache owner might have re-purposed some existing structure. I'm not inclined to revisit this one.

Knowing you were associated with this one makes me feel inclined to say it was published fairly. You have been more than fair with my caches in Florida.

[+fab_seeker]

I published this.

At the time, the picture was not on the page, had it been, I might have asked more questions, and perhaps kicked it up to Geocaching.com staff.

 

However, it is on city property with permission from the city manager. When it was new, the adjacent parking spaces were marked for city employees only, but the cache owner had permission from the manager to tell cachers they could use them for a bit to access the hide.

 

It might be entirely the cache owner's construction, or the cache owner might have re-purposed some existing structure. I'm not inclined to revisit this one.

Knowing you were associated with this one makes me feel inclined to say it was published fairly. You have been more than fair with my caches in Florida.

 

This is Ok for me too! If "guidelines" may have exceptions when the cache is on a city property and we have the manager permission! I think every finder of such beautiful caches agree with that! We geocache to have fun finding such caches!

[+The Leprechauns]

I feel sorry for the owners of any trackables whose logging codes were shown in pictures taken at this Hotel. The virtual "seen on the internet" discovery logs have already begun. While the cache owner likely consented to the extra attention from being recognized in this manner, I doubt that the trackable owners will enjoy being greeted from Germany.

[+popokiiti]

I've not found it, but looking at the gallery, especially this photo:

http://imgcdn.geocaching.com/cache/log/large/d37513ee-172c-4d62-bec6-0090b8abb2df.jpg

 

it looks like the cache is NOT placed via a hole. It has a rectangular frame at the bottom that sits on the ground.

 

I could be wrong, though. But that's how it looks to me.

Appears that way to me too, and is that a concrete pad I see?