Jump to content

Buried caches - Update


NanCycle

Recommended Posts

Of the 6 caches that either I or my caching partner reported in October-November, 3 have been archived. Unfortunately, I don't think that anything has been/will be done about filling in the holes. I am glad to see that there have been some results from my efforts, but quite disappointed that the Reviewer did not make better use of these examples to educate cache owners and future potential owners as to the reason that these caches are not permitted.

 

Here are the complete stories--caches are identified by the month/year that they were placed.

 

GC-9/200411/2/13 I posted this NA: This is a buried cache. See photos attached to this log. Unfortunately the continued existence of this cache was used by another cacher as justification for placing another cache with a similar type of hide. In addition the CO has not visited the site for over a year and is not maintaining their caches.

 

11/3/13 Temporarily disabled by Reviewer as: It appears that your geocache has been under the weather for a while now. Geocaches that need repair or maintenance should generally be taken care of within a few weeks. Please check on this geocache to repair/replace it and post a log to indicate you have done so, or archive it and pick up any remaining cache contents as soon as possible. Once the geocache has been replaced and/or you have verified that it is OK, you can go ahead and enable it. Please contact me if you have any questions. If there is no evidence that the cache has gotten attention (e.g. cache enabled, or note posted to cache page) or I have not heard from you about this cache in a few weeks it may need to be archived.

 

11/8/13 Found log posted: this cache is awesome ,and in perfect shape found today ,very cool dont no why its disabled it is there. (sic)

 

1/12/14 Archived by reviewer: I am archiving this defunct geocache to keep it from continually showing up in search lists, and to prevent it from blocking other cache placements. If you wish to repair or replace the cache sometime in the future, please contact me via my profile, and assuming it still meets the guidelines, I will be happy to unarchive it.

 

GC-5/200711/18/13 I posted this NA: This cache violates Groundspeak guidelines as a buried cache. It is an ammo box in a hole that was obviously dug to fit it, as clearly shown by the photo posted on 07/02/2011.

 

11/19/13 Temporarily disabled by Reviewer It appears this cache is buried. I am disabling it for now to give the cache owner an opportunity to reply.

Cache owner: Please contact me directly with any additional information you have regarding the placement of this cache. If no response is received soon, your cache will be archived.

 

12/8/13 The CO sent me this email: Re: Name redacted (Placed in a shallow man-made cavity and covered with a "stone") (Archived as per your request)

Geocaches:

1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines

#3. Geocaches are never buried , neither partially nor completely.

Dictionary:

bury/ 2 a: to conceal by or as if by covering with earth...

The geocache entitled Name redacted was not/has not been covered with earth in any way, or form. This is an outstanding hide that has been noted as a favorite by a number of cachers. If caches that have been placed in a "hole" and not covered with earth are to be archived then then the army of reviewers have a never ending task of archiving hundreds if not thousands of outstanding and popular caches all over the world. A request for withdrawal of the previous note to the Reviewer for archiving Name redacted would be greatly appreciated by numerous cachers, both beginners and veterans. Please kindly consider. Many thanks for your attention. Cache on.

[Copy to Reviewer]

 

1/5/14 Archived by reviewer As I have not received an update from the cache owner, I am archiving this cache to keep it from continually showing up in search lists, and to prevent it from blocking other cache placements. If you (the cache owner) wish to repair/replace the cache sometime in the near future, please contact me, and assuming it meets the guidelines, I will be happy to unarchive it.

 

GC-1/201210/30/13 My caching partner posted this NM: This cache is IN the ground. As fake sprinkler-heads are also not allowed to be IN the ground because that is a violation of placement rules, this cache is also in violation. OF-Erad is correct. It is obvious a hole was dug in the ground to place this container.

There are LOTS of opportunities to place this cache container in this area and be compliant. I recommend the CO, or another player with the CO's permission, place the cache in accordance with guidelines. The goal is to not give the DOW an excuse to dis-allow caching on their lands.

 

10/31/13 Temporarily disabled by Reviewer: It has been brought to my attention that this geocache is buried. I am going to disable it for now and ask that the cache owner either moves the cache to another location where it is not buried, or archives the cache and removes the container.

 

1/10/14 My caching partner posted this NA: photos were sent to the reviewer. This cache violates the "buried" rule. As I stated previously, there are lots of opportunities to place a cache in this area within compliance. I suggested the CO modify their cache, about three months ago, to be within compliance. Again, the rules exist to keep authorities from banishing caching altogether. Many land authorities will not look kindly on digging holes in the ground.

 

1/11/14 Reviewer Note posted: It appears that your geocache has been under the weather for a while now. Geocaches that need repair or maintenance should generally be taken care of within a few weeks. Please check on this geocache to repair/replace it and post a log to indicate you have done so, or archive it and pick up any remaining cache contents as soon as possible. Once the geocache has been replaced and/or you have verified that it is OK, you can go ahead and enable it. Please contact me if you have any questions. If there is no evidence that the cache has gotten attention (e.g. cache enabled, or note posted to cache page) or I have not heard from you about this cache in a few weeks it may need to be archived.

 

1/11/14 Archived by CO: We have moved too far away to sort out the issue with this cache, will pick up cache on a return visit this summer but sending it to the archives now

Link to comment

I am glad to see that there have been some results from my efforts, but quite disappointed that the Reviewer did not make better use of these examples to educate cache owners and future potential owners as to the reason that these caches are not permitted.

The reviewer is neutral. None of the COs contested the issue of burial publicly, so there's no reason for the reviewer to bring it up.

 

I guess this didn't occur to you, but it turns out that the place to explain why buried caches aren't permitted is in the NA log that you posted. That would also have put you in a position to acknowledge that many people enjoyed these caches while emphasizing that the reasons for prohibiting them outweigh the fun they might bring people.

Link to comment

So, whats the point of this? You want to feel special? You want to be a cache cop? You want people to be scared that their cache is next? Or you are just trying to cause drama. If I said what I thought about this post, I'd be banned for a long time.

 

And you mention you

quite disappointed that the Reviewer did not make better use of these examples to educate cache owners and future potential owners as to the reason that these caches are not permitted.

 

How do you know that? Do you work for the NSA and was able to spy on all communication? I don't think so. You don't know if the reviewer emails the CO's.

 

PS; IBTL

Link to comment

So, whats the point of this? You want to feel special? You want to be a cache cop? You want people to be scared that their cache is next? Or you are just trying to cause drama. If I said what I thought about this post, I'd be banned for a long time.

 

And you mention you

quite disappointed that the Reviewer did not make better use of these examples to educate cache owners and future potential owners as to the reason that these caches are not permitted.

 

How do you know that? Do you work for the NSA and was able to spy on all communication? I don't think so. You don't know if the reviewer emails the CO's.

 

PS; IBTL

 

It appears that she wanted to show an example of bully behavior, in which your post fits rather nicely.

Link to comment

So, whats the point of this? You want to feel special? You want to be a cache cop? You want people to be scared that their cache is next? Or you are just trying to cause drama. If I said what I thought about this post, I'd be banned for a long time.

 

And you mention you

quite disappointed that the Reviewer did not make better use of these examples to educate cache owners and future potential owners as to the reason that these caches are not permitted.

 

How do you know that? Do you work for the NSA and was able to spy on all communication? I don't think so. You don't know if the reviewer emails the CO's.

 

PS; IBTL

I own some of the geodetecting coins and enjoy their attempt at creating another hobby. :laughing:

http://geodetecting.com/

Link to comment

some people do not consider certain situations as 'buried'. Pine needles is a perfect example. Yes, you have to clear the way for the cache container, and the container may be completely concealed (buried) under the pine needles. However, these have been allowed almost everytime.

 

Just because you say it is buried, doesn't mean it meets the conditions to violate the guidelines (remember they aren't hard rules). I believe for example, buried/digging is permitted when on private property with permission clearly given. I also believe some digging/burying is allowed in some industrial/commercial zones.

 

If memory serves me correctly, the original point of the "not buried" rule was to prevent 'cruel' hides to allow hunters/geocachers a realistic chance at finding. Obviously over the years environmental issues, respect for property (public or private) and more have filtered into the prohibition, but as said above there have been exceptions. I've probably found a dozen or so "buried" caches that didn't need any sort of reporting.

Link to comment

The "no digging" (or if you prefer, "never buried") guideline isn't about "a realistic chance at finding" caches, or anything like that. It's about land managers' concerns about people digging up their parks and open spaces.

 

And no, it isn't about the "covered" or "concealed" definition of buried. Otherwise caches under loose materials like leaves, pine needles, or bark would be prohibited, as would caches under unnatural piles of stones/sticks. The guideline has always been about digging or breaking ground, or about digging or creating a hole.

Link to comment

A simple search showed " no digging" was a suggestion in '01 and the no digging guideline was referred to early '02 with...

**Caches that are buried

- If a shovel/trowel/pointy object is used to dig - in order to hide or find a cache - it's not appropriate.

 

Not appropriate (meaning not proper) seems, to me, to be all about the environment.

I couldn't find "cruel hides" (in regards to digging guidelines) at all.

Link to comment

Often caches are placed in natural depressions or hollows in the ground by roots or fallen trees. Over time, with erosion by wind and rain (and simple gravity) the earth can pile up against it and make it look as though a hole was dug for a cache. Don't be so quick to assume it broke the guidelines.

 

The fake sprinkler, though...those aren't really fooling anyone.

Link to comment
The fake sprinkler, though...those aren't really fooling anyone.
I am not a fan of fake sprinkler caches, but most of the ones I've found have not violated the "no digging" guideline. They've been held in place by loose landscape bark, or they've been attached to a flat dirt-covered base, or they've been supported some other way that didn't involve digging.
Link to comment
The fake sprinkler, though...those aren't really fooling anyone.
I am not a fan of fake sprinkler caches, but most of the ones I've found have not violated the "no digging" guideline. They've been held in place by loose landscape bark, or they've been attached to a flat dirt-covered base, or they've been supported some other way that didn't involve digging.

 

I've had the opposite experience with fake sprinkler heads. Honestly, from what i remember, all of the ones i've come across were pushed into the ground.

Link to comment
The fake sprinkler, though...those aren't really fooling anyone.
I am not a fan of fake sprinkler caches, but most of the ones I've found have not violated the "no digging" guideline. They've been held in place by loose landscape bark, or they've been attached to a flat dirt-covered base, or they've been supported some other way that didn't involve digging.

I don't do much urban caching anymore, so sprinkler hides are pretty rare for me these days. Of the ones I have found, about half were held into place by landscaping material, and the other half were pushed into the soil, with a bit of mulch around the top edge.

Link to comment

It might be that US dirt works in a different way to european dirt, but have to say that I've not seen this desire of nature to cover boxes.

 

We do however own a cache that features a depression caused by a bomb from 1942. No sign of the dirt encroaching there as of last week.

 

Yeah, you know, this weird thing happens when soil gets saturated by rain...it turns into this semi-fluid stuff called "mud". Also, maybe once a year, for some reason all the leaves just suddenly fall right off the trees and dontcha know they just lay there and decompose. It's really this crazy phenomenon that maybe only happens over here. Wild stuff.

Link to comment

Often caches are placed in natural depressions or hollows in the ground by roots or fallen trees. Over time, with erosion by wind and rain (and simple gravity) the earth can pile up against it and make it look as though a hole was dug for a cache. Don't be so quick to assume it broke the guidelines.

 

 

I believe this was one of the caches in question:

 

4f4629d1-b659-4a90-8d74-dec04852f52e.jpg

 

Link to comment

It might be that US dirt works in a different way to european dirt, but have to say that I've not seen this desire of nature to cover boxes.

 

We do however own a cache that features a depression caused by a bomb from 1942. No sign of the dirt encroaching there as of last week.

 

Yeah, you know, this weird thing happens when soil gets saturated by rain...it turns into this semi-fluid stuff called "mud". Also, maybe once a year, for some reason all the leaves just suddenly fall right off the trees and dontcha know they just lay there and decompose. It's really this crazy phenomenon that maybe only happens over here. Wild stuff.

 

You know something really wild? Up here in Canada, after that happens, we have this, this, stuff. It behaves just like dirt, you can dig in it, it gets blown around by the wind. Except it's white and falls from the sky. Then in the spring, when it gets warmer, it reacts with the normal dirt to make mud as well.

Link to comment

It might be that US dirt works in a different way to european dirt, but have to say that I've not seen this desire of nature to cover boxes.

 

We do however own a cache that features a depression caused by a bomb from 1942. No sign of the dirt encroaching there as of last week.

 

Yeah, you know, this weird thing happens when soil gets saturated by rain...it turns into this semi-fluid stuff called "mud". Also, maybe once a year, for some reason all the leaves just suddenly fall right off the trees and dontcha know they just lay there and decompose. It's really this crazy phenomenon that maybe only happens over here. Wild stuff.

 

Now it is entirely possible that the ammo box in the previous posts was placed on the ground... the boards leaned up against the sides to conceal it... and a flat rock placed on top to keep the boards in place... and over time blowing soil just naturally covered it.

 

at least that seems to be what people are trying so hard to convince us happens.:rolleyes:

Edited by NeecesandNephews
Link to comment

It might be that US dirt works in a different way to european dirt, but have to say that I've not seen this desire of nature to cover boxes.

 

We do however own a cache that features a depression caused by a bomb from 1942. No sign of the dirt encroaching there as of last week.

 

Yeah, you know, this weird thing happens when soil gets saturated by rain...it turns into this semi-fluid stuff called "mud". Also, maybe once a year, for some reason all the leaves just suddenly fall right off the trees and dontcha know they just lay there and decompose. It's really this crazy phenomenon that maybe only happens over here. Wild stuff.

 

Now it is entirely possible that the ammo box in the previous posts was placed on the ground... the boards leaned up against the sides to conceal it... and a flat rock placed on top to keep the boards in place... and over time blowing soil just naturally covered it.

 

at least that seems to be what people are trying so hard to convince us happens.:rolleyes:

 

Please refer to my earlier comment. "Don't be so quick to assume..."

Where, in that entire post, did I say that it was NOT buried? Where, in that entire post, did I say it was put in a natural depression. It's amazing how quick folks are to jump on that post. Believe it or not, I speak from experience...and not even that much experience. One of my first hides went into a depression in the earth and when I went to check on it late last year, it was completely surrounded by soil as if it had been pushed into the ground on purpose. I ended up modifying the hide so it wouldn't be like that anymore. This was in under 9 months time.

 

I don't support or defend intentionally buried caches, but that stuff does happen and one can't always assume it was done on purpose on day one. I really don't even need to comment on the image posted above...that's not even worth talking about in reference to my post.

Link to comment

Often caches are placed in natural depressions or hollows in the ground by roots or fallen trees. Over time, with erosion by wind and rain (and simple gravity) the earth can pile up against it and make it look as though a hole was dug for a cache. Don't be so quick to assume it broke the guidelines.

 

 

I believe this was one of the caches in question:

 

4f4629d1-b659-4a90-8d74-dec04852f52e.jpg

Sure, that's a textbook no-no. (The hide AND the spoiler photo.) But the point has been made that an over-zealous cache-cop can misinterpret some situations. At the very least the CO should have time to explain. I brought a modified log from home to the site & it was assumed that I was working on the existing habitat.

Link to comment

The "no digging" (or if you prefer, "never buried") guideline isn't about "a realistic chance at finding" caches, or anything like that. It's about land managers' concerns about people digging up their parks and open spaces.

It was....before you joined the game. "Land managers" were even really a big deal yet.

 

Your memory is wrong. It was entirely about land manager concerns. I have been reading these forums since 2001 and recall it was due to a single buried cache in a National forest that caused a nationwide ban. Just as a single hide on a RR track ROW using spray paint caused the RR guideline, as well as a court case which resulted in a fine and probation.

Link to comment

The "no digging" (or if you prefer, "never buried") guideline isn't about "a realistic chance at finding" caches, or anything like that. It's about land managers' concerns about people digging up their parks and open spaces.

It was....before you joined the game. "Land managers" were even really a big deal yet.

 

Incorrect. It was a couple of caches placed in a National Recreational Area here in Washington State that led to the ban on caches by the NPS and the "no burying" guideline. A couple of caches (link 1, link 2) were placed in the Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area in Washington by user "fuzzybear." These were pulled by a ranger who stated that all NPS-administered lands were off-limits to caching. This incident made it into the NPS Morning Report on March 11, 2002.

 

Unfortunately, the report painted an extremely negative picture of our activity. The worst part was the misrepresentation of how fuzzybear's caches were hidden - they were not buried at all. The damage was done, however, and all National Park land is now off-limits to geocaching without express permission. So, land manager impressions were a major reason for the guideline.

Link to comment

The "no digging" (or if you prefer, "never buried") guideline isn't about "a realistic chance at finding" caches, or anything like that. It's about land managers' concerns about people digging up their parks and open spaces.

It was....before you joined the game. "Land managers" were even really a big deal yet.

 

Your memory is wrong. It was entirely about land manager concerns. I have been reading these forums since 2001 and recall it was due to a single buried cache in a National forest that caused a nationwide ban. Just as a single hide on a RR track ROW using spray paint caused the RR guideline, as well as a court case which resulted in a fine and probation.

Possible. But I've around just as long as you. I guess I was wrong. I do remember it being a hot topic when I joined, but I guess what was going on in Washington State didn't get transmitted as much to Washington DC where I was. ;-) Edited by TheWeatherWarrior
Link to comment

I personally don't consider the sprinkler hides that are "pushed" into the soil a violation. But I look at it as there is ton more damage by caching in a natural reserve than by a person in a MANMADE flower bed or landscaped area where the sprinkler exists.

 

It just so happense I just asked our reviewer about this very thing a couple of days ago. We have a cacher here whose favorite hide style is to attache a vial to something, usually something looking like trash, and jabbing it in the ground. The reviewer told me that this does, in fact, violate the "no digging" guideline. Essentially, if you make any kind of hole in the ground to hide a cache, it is a violation of "no digging".

Link to comment

Incorrect. It was a couple of caches placed in a National Recreational Area here in Washington State that led to the ban on caches by the NPS and the "no burying" guideline. A couple of caches (link 1, link 2) were placed in the Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area in Washington by user "fuzzybear." These were pulled by a ranger who stated that all NPS-administered lands were off-limits to caching. This incident made it into the NPS Morning Report on March 11, 2002.

 

Unfortunately, the report painted an extremely negative picture of our activity. The worst part was the misrepresentation of how fuzzybear's caches were hidden - they were not buried at all. The damage was done, however, and all National Park land is now off-limits to geocaching without express permission. So, land manager impressions were a major reason for the guideline.

So the story that "buried" cache led to the ban in the NPS is not true then.

 

Instead a ranger discovered some caches hidden without permission and decided to mis-characterize the way they were hidden to his superiors in Washington (DC, not the state where it happened) to get caches banned nationwide.

 

I continue to believe that no matter what rules were followed - even getting permission from some underling - sooner or later there would be a bureaucrat who decided that they didn't want caches left in National Parks. That bureaucrat would do whatever it took to convince his higher ups that caches were a danger to the parks, and Groundspeak would have a knee-jerk reaction and let the bureaucrat's mis-characterization dictate the guidelines.

 

Now, I don't doubt that for some land managers there is concern over digging. Perhaps due to past problems with metal detecting and amateur archeologist digging up artifacts. Perhaps due to concerns that someone could damage an underground cable or pipeline. Or maybe just imagining the landscape being marred by lots of excavations. But in reality, so-called "buried" caches don't actually fall into any of these categories.

 

But we are controlled by the fact that we allow land managers to mis-characterize our hobby and feel the need to have guidelines to deal with that. And it isn't even clear that having the guideline does anything to change land managers' misconceptions. Particularly when the forums are full of threads like this one, which highlight that caches are buried anyhow.

Link to comment

- snip the pic -

But the point has been made that an over-zealous cache-cop can misinterpret some situations. At the very least the CO should have time to explain. I brought a modified log from home to the site & it was assumed that I was working on the existing habitat.

Any time I have seen an NA placed and acted on by the Reviewer, an "It has been brought to my attention this cache..."-like note has been on the cache page for the CO to respond/explain to.

 

By your last sentence, are you saying you weren't given the time/opportunity to respond on an issue?

 

In the OP's cases, one didn't respond, one tried to persuade the OP to get the NA lifted and another just gave up.

- By the logs, it appears all were given the time to explain...

Link to comment

 

<snip>

 

But we are controlled by the fact that we allow land managers to mis-characterize our hobby and feel the need to have guidelines to deal with that. And it isn't even clear that having the guideline does anything to change land managers' misconceptions. Particularly when the forums are full of threads like this one, which highlight that caches are buried anyhow.

 

Toz I fail to see where you believe land managers have "mis-characterized" our hobby, and the resulting Guidelines are simply a pointless (no pun intended) knee-jerk reaction.

 

As you said... "the Forums are full of threads like this one, which highlights that caches are buried anyhow." That kind of goes to the point.

 

It doesn't matter if it's a "mis-characterized" notion, a "misconception" or whatever label you wish to place on it. The fact is, as long as this Guideline is not STRICTLY enforced, those land managers have every reason to rest in their beliefs about our hobby. And threads like this, with example after example presented, only serve to reinforce their positions.

 

It's not the Guideline itself that has not "done anything to change land managers misconceptions", it is the fact that it is constantly ignored, caches continue to be buried,and those who wish to change that are vilified for their actions in this very Forum.

 

I support the OP in the action she took.

 

 

Link to comment

Toz I fail to see where you believe land managers have "mis-characterized" our hobby, and the resulting Guidelines are simply a pointless (no pun intended) knee-jerk reaction.

I dunno. I think the description of events Moun10Bike gave us is a textbook definition of mischaracterization and jerking knees. At least it sure seems that way to me.

 

1 ) FuzzyBear hides a cache which was not buried.

2 ) A land manager pulls the cache.

3 ) Said land manager told TPTB in DC that the caches were buried.

(In other words, they mischaracterized the hide technique)

4 ) TPTB decrees a nation wide ban based on this land manager's lie.

(Rather than find out what really happened, and decide based on facts)

 

That's not to say I don't fully support the 'no buried caches' guideline.

 

But in this case, Toz nailed it.

Link to comment

The ranger did mischaracterize the hide as being buried, but to this day ironically there are several that are buried anyhow, despite the ban. Was the rangers wild imagination that far off? And why are the people reporting it still being derisively called cache cops? That phrase is so 2004 and only implies that there are many more in which people are being discouraged not to discuss and which only stimulates more imaginative thoughts..

Link to comment

Toz I fail to see where you believe land managers have "mis-characterized" our hobby, and the resulting Guidelines are simply a pointless (no pun intended) knee-jerk reaction.

I dunno. I think the description of events Moun10Bike gave us is a textbook definition of mischaracterization and jerking knees. At least it sure seems that way to me.

 

1 ) FuzzyBear hides a cache which was not buried.

2 ) A land manager pulls the cache.

3 ) Said land manager told TPTB in DC that the caches were buried.

(In other words, they mischaracterized the hide technique)

4 ) TPTB decrees a nation wide ban based on this land manager's lie.

(Rather than find out what really happened, and decide based on facts)

 

That's not to say I don't fully support the 'no buried caches' guideline.

 

But in this case, Toz nailed it.

 

Riff your number 4 should probably read "4) TPTB decrees a nation wide ban based on this land manager's perception that caches can be buried."

 

I still can't see where this was an unwarranted reaction.

 

eta: It never fails to amuse me that no matter what the "rule", "guideline", or "restriction", there are always those who believe it is somehow unfair, overbearing, or stifles their creativity.

 

A world (even a game one) without rules is chaos. Wouldn't that be lovely??

 

 

Edited by NeecesandNephews
Link to comment

Nice to know the cache police are keeping us safe from these offensive, wholly inappropriate and unacceptable caches in the middle of nowhere.

 

Odd how their jurisdiction seems to extend worldwide. Unexpected for a sleepy little Oklahoma town.

 

ab65d6b2-3e56-48d9-89f1-7cbcf432e8f0.jpg

 

I'll have a word with them the next time I check on our cache in Cache.

 

 

 

(For the record, yes, I did in fact place this cache just so I could keep making this joke.)

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment

Nice to know the cache police are keeping us safe from these offensive, wholly inappropriate and unacceptable caches in the middle of nowhere.

 

Odd how their jurisdiction seems to extend worldwide. Unexpected for a sleepy little Oklahoma town.

 

ab65d6b2-3e56-48d9-89f1-7cbcf432e8f0.jpg

 

I'll have a word with them the next time I check on our cache in Cache.

 

 

 

(For the record, yes, I did in fact place this cache just so I could keep making this joke.)

 

Tell them we are tired of "the Man" trying to keep us down.:ph34r:

Link to comment

So, whats the point of this? You want to feel special? You want to be a cache cop? You want people to be scared that their cache is next? Or you are just trying to cause drama. If I said what I thought about this post, I'd be banned for a long time.

 

And you mention you

quite disappointed that the Reviewer did not make better use of these examples to educate cache owners and future potential owners as to the reason that these caches are not permitted.

 

How do you know that? Do you work for the NSA and was able to spy on all communication? I don't think so. You don't know if the reviewer emails the CO's.

 

PS; IBTL

 

+1....this thread has been a bummer from the beginning. I don't know if we've ever found a regular or small that wasn't " partially " buried according to a strict interpretation of the guidelines. In every activity it seems there are some that want to micro manage and suck the fun out of it. It has been my experience that they usually don't last long and move on to something else.

Link to comment

Nice to know the cache police are keeping us safe from these offensive, wholly inappropriate and unacceptable caches in the middle of nowhere.

 

Odd how their jurisdiction seems to extend worldwide. Unexpected for a sleepy little Oklahoma town.

 

ab65d6b2-3e56-48d9-89f1-7cbcf432e8f0.jpg

 

I'll have a word with them the next time I check on our cache in Cache.

 

 

 

(For the record, yes, I did in fact place this cache just so I could keep making this joke.)

 

Tell them we are tired of "the Man" trying to keep us down.:ph34r:

 

You sir, are a funny guy. Welcome back. And to that other place too. Yeah, this OP is brutal, man. And why don't those links work? Makes my cursor turn into a capital I or something. :huh:

Link to comment

So buried caches have been prohibited for a dozen years or so, and prominently mentioned in the guidelines.

Geocaches are never buried.

 

But somehow they manage to exist anyhow. :unsure:

 

Jellis emails 2 reviewers about buried caches and gets no reply. Nancycle is told to publically post NAs on them, which she does, and is openly decried as a cache cop, and by someone who has only been around since 2011.

 

So after 12 years we are back to square one, as it is still reasonable for rangers to believe geocaches can sometimes be buried, and unlikely to be reported. The question is can we ever move forward from this, or will the juvenile "cache cop" monikers ever continue to be posted along with the tiresome pictures? Honestly sometimes it seems like the game consists mostly of a bunch of 15 year olds running amok.

Link to comment

Was the rangers wild imagination that far off?

If I find a cache at the base of a tree, and another cache next to a boulder, (both clearly and unequivocally above ground), and I call someone in charge and report that I found two buried caches, is that really a matter of imagination? I would call it a deliberate lie, propagated to pursue an agenda.

 

Riff your number 4 should probably read "4) TPTB decrees a nation wide ban based on this land manager's perception that caches can be buried."

I could reword it, but then it would be deliberately inaccurate.

If my memory serves, the Ranger did not report that caches 'could, potentially be buried'.

Rather, he reported that he discovered buried caches.

Which, incidentally, were not buried by any definition.

That lie led to the outrage which caused the ban.

 

On a related note, I absolutely support the 'no digging' guideline.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

Was the rangers wild imagination that far off?

If I find a cache at the base of a tree, and another cache next to a boulder, (both clearly and unequivocally above ground), and I call someone in charge and report that I found two buried caches, is that really a matter of imagination? I would call it a deliberate lie, propagated to pursue an agenda.

 

Yes, you are 100% absolutly correct but at the same time, is his imagiñation that far off, as after 12 years caches are still found to be buried, and not reported because of names such as "cache cops", where adults decry people for "telling"? I don't expect any "snitches get stitches" quotes, but its in the same vein.

Link to comment

So buried caches have been prohibited for a dozen years or so, and prominently mentioned in the guidelines.

Geocaches are never buried.

 

But somehow they manage to exist anyhow. :unsure:

 

Jellis emails 2 reviewers about buried caches and gets no reply. Nancycle is told to publically post NAs on them, which she does, and is openly decried as a cache cop, and by someone who has only been around since 2011.

 

So after 12 years we are back to square one, as it is still reasonable for rangers to believe geocaches can sometimes be buried, and unlikely to be reported. The question is can we ever move forward from this, or will the juvenile "cache cop" monikers ever continue to be posted along with the tiresome pictures? Honestly sometimes it seems like the game consists mostly of a bunch of 15 year olds running amok.

 

+1

 

Hear hear! If cachers insult people who are reporting a GUIDELINE VIOLATION - and a pretty important one at that - then where is the game going? If you have to bury a cache (or break other guidelines) to be "creative", then you are in need of a major creativity infusion. The "cache cops" are keeping the integrity of the game. The insults are sickening.

Link to comment

A world (even a game one) without rules is chaos. Wouldn't that be lovely??

Guidelines restricting cache placement should have a rationale behind them. However Groundspeak will rarely share the rationale so all we get in speculation in the forum.

 

For years the speculation has been that the no-bury guideline was introduced because a ranger found a buried cache on NPS property and that led to caches being banned in all land administered by the NPS.

 

Now we find out that there was no buried cache. Instead we find a ranger who wanted to get caches banned and he was able to argue to his superior that cache were buried and thus a threat to the parks.

 

So the idea may be that the rationale is that any argument someone can make up about caches warrants a guidelines that says caches can never be hidden that way.

 

However, I would think the proper response would be to dig (pardon the pun) a little deeper and find out just what the real concerns of the park management is. While many land managers worry about buried caches - perhaps due to experience with metal detectors - the fact is that when caches are buried the aren't creating the problems that people searching for artifacts with metal detectors do. Nor will buried cache cause the other problem that land managers have with digging. A guideline that is more specific than "caches are never buried" and had a clearly stated rationale would be easier to enforce, IMO. And, yes, it would give cache hiders more options.

 

So buried caches have been prohibited for a dozen years or so, and prominently mentioned in the guidelines.

Geocaches are never buried.

 

But somehow they manage to exist anyhow. :unsure:

 

That's because caches are clearly buried. They are buried under piles of rocks or under sticks and leaves. The confusion is when they get soil place around or on top of them.

 

Most people know the guideline isn't about burying by about digging. The real concern the land managers have is with digging. But digging is nearly as hared to define as burying.

 

Originally, the guidelines referred to using a shovel, trowel, or other pointy tool. So could you dig with your hands or with a stick? Is removing some rocks to create a space for the cache digging? Is pushing a bison tube into soft soil digging?

 

What has happened is guidelines creep. The "shovel, trowel, pointy tool" stuff has been removed and now we can't make a hole. Eventually we won't be able to cover caches with rocks or leaves.

 

I'm not making a judgment on cache cops or whether one should report guidelines violations. The caches in this thread are clearly against the guidelines, at least the current interpretation, and a cacher who finds one is certainly within their rights to report it to the reviewer without having to worry about getting called names.

 

The "no-bury" guideline exists bases on a perception by Groundspeak that land managers are concerned buried caches can cause problems. Rather than working with land managers to address these concerned and having a limited guideline that addresses specific issues, we have a total ban on making holes in the ground.

 

I keep wanting to post an NA on LordBritish's Necropolis of Britannia Manor III. I haven't been to this cache, but my guess is the Mr. Garriott had to dig holes in his property (possible using heavy equipment) to create this unique cache. I wonder what guidelines he violated?

Link to comment

Yes, you are 100% absolutly correct but at the same time, is his imagiñation that far off, as after 12 years caches are still found to be buried,...

Why yes his imagination is still far off. Why, because the kinds of damage that he thought caches (in particular buried caches) cause has not happened.

 

Land managers are rightly concerned with the idea of people digging arbitrarily in their parks.

 

I think the number one concern may be experience with metal detectors in the hands of amateur archeologists and collectors. The big issue is people digging up and looting artifacts that are buried under park lands. These artifacts are not there for the taking, and the park managers see protecting these resources as an important part of the their job.

 

After that, I suspect that land manager are concerned with buried cables, pipelines, and irrigation systems. Damage to these systems because of someone digging can be costly for the park (or for the pipeline owners).

 

And I don't doubt that land managers are concerned with the aesthetics of the park landscape getting covered by hundreds of man made holes. While animals may dig dens or nests in the ground, the human made holes are not natural and parks (especially National Parks) are tasked with protecting the natural beauty of the area.

 

Yet what happens. Most (maybe even all) buried caches are not in areas where there is concern with these three issues. In addition, burying caches requires a small hole and generally shallow. Even if there are artifacts or buried utilities, the chances of these being disturbed by a buried cache is small. Finally, the saturation guidelines already limits the number of holes that could be made in any ares. The guideline no doubt limits them even more, though I suspect that even with a less strict guideline, the number of buried caches would still be a small fraction of what gets hidden.

 

Buried caches with reasonable limitations would not cause land managers to start banning caches. Most of the caches that get reported would likely be allowed under such less restrictive guidelines. Caches, even when buried, just don't cause the same threats that land managers imagine.

Link to comment

We all know that cachers will push the limit. I suspect that there would be a lot of posts driven into the ground in the name of creativity. To stop something like the photo below from happening, they need a rule to stop even the more benign pushing of a centrifuge tube into the ground.

 

IMG_6704-1.jpg

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

Yes, you are 100% absolutly correct but at the same time, is his imagiñation that far off, as after 12 years caches are still found to be buried,...

Why yes his imagination is still far off. Why, because the kinds of damage that he thought caches (in particular buried caches) cause has not happened.

 

Land managers are rightly concerned with the idea of people digging arbitrarily in their parks.

 

I think the number one concern may be experience with metal detectors in the hands of amateur archeologists and collectors. The big issue is people digging up and looting artifacts that are buried under park lands. These artifacts are not there for the taking, and the park managers see protecting these resources as an important part of the their job.

 

After that, I suspect that land manager are concerned with buried cables, pipelines, and irrigation systems. Damage to these systems because of someone digging can be costly for the park (or for the pipeline owners).

 

And I don't doubt that land managers are concerned with the aesthetics of the park landscape getting covered by hundreds of man made holes. While animals may dig dens or nests in the ground, the human made holes are not natural and parks (especially National Parks) are tasked with protecting the natural beauty of the area.

 

Yet what happens. Most (maybe even all) buried caches are not in areas where there is concern with these three issues. In addition, burying caches requires a small hole and generally shallow. Even if there are artifacts or buried utilities, the chances of these being disturbed by a buried cache is small. Finally, the saturation guidelines already limits the number of holes that could be made in any ares. The guideline no doubt limits them even more, though I suspect that even with a less strict guideline, the number of buried caches would still be a small fraction of what gets hidden.

 

Buried caches with reasonable limitations would not cause land managers to start banning caches. Most of the caches that get reported would likely be allowed under such less restrictive guidelines. Caches, even when buried, just don't cause the same threats that land managers imagine.

 

Toz, I appreciate what your are saying, and the point you are trying to put forth. I even appreciate the length you go to (word count) to explain your point clearly.

 

The problem I see is, as you mentioned "guideline creep", that there is also "violation creep". Look at the number of caches placed under the current "overly restrictive" guidelines, that fail to meet the standard set by those guidelines.

 

You state " I suspect ... the number of buried caches would still be a small fraction of what gets hidden." I disagree. Case in point- Power Trails. Back when it was generally "understood" you did not place caches every 528 ft just because you could, you did not see very many of them. When it became more accepted, and became a "more mainstream, acceptable, and even a sub-genre" if you will, of the game, they are now proliferating everywhere. Even in less populated rural areas such as the one I live in.

 

If a "certain manner" of buried caches was allowed, would it not be logical to assume a proliferation of buried caches would ensue?? I can imagine a combination of buried caches and a power trail, with the "creative" name of " The Underground Railroad", or some such idea. Then there is the inevitable "violation creep" that would accompany it.

 

The guideline creep you refer to might be in response to the violation creep I refer to. GS may have the attitude that" they are just not getting the point, we need to tighten up the wording so our intention is clear."

 

I understand what you are trying to say, I just don't think it is plausible.

 

ETA- That underground power trail would be great in the form of geo-art in the shape of a steam locomotive!!

 

OR!!! buried in the fill alongside a railroad track!!! Wait... that wouldn't work because of another one of those "overly restrictive" guidelines. Darn.:mad:

 

 

Edited by NeecesandNephews
Link to comment

+1

 

Hear hear! If cachers insult people who are reporting a GUIDELINE VIOLATION - and a pretty important one at that - then where is the game going? If you have to bury a cache (or break other guidelines) to be "creative", then you are in need of a major creativity infusion. The "cache cops" are keeping the integrity of the game. The insults are sickening.

 

Who me? I can't speak for others, only myself but; It's not that the cacher where reported (Well my post isn't anyway) it's how. A quite email to a reviewer, or a NA log on the cache page saying the cache is buried is fine. But it's when people do other stuff-they brag about it. Or tell others to make others nervous, or scared that theirs are next, or whatever reason -which the OP still hasn't answered why this thread was created-is when it becomes bad. And then there's taste. A buried ammo can, like in the picture being reported is understandable. But when a person goes out of their way to find caches to report, or when it seems like they are, then it becomes being either "power hungry", trying to cause trouble or just being rude.

 

I'd still like to know why this thread was started to begin with...

 

PS I always thought the railroad thing was because in the US the railroad companies owned the land 150 feet(or whatever it is) from the tracks and the railroad companies didn't want caches on their property.

Edited by T.D.M.22
Link to comment
Who me? I can't speak for others, only myself but; It's not that the cacher where reported (Well my post isn't anyway) it's how. A quite email to a reviewer, or a NA log on the cache page saying the cache is buried is fine.

I was mostly reacting to post 33, although post 3 is also kinda ugly. Post 37 is borderline.

 

But it's when people do other stuff-they brag about it. Or tell others to make others nervous, or scared that theirs are next, or whatever reason -which the OP still hasn't answered why this thread was created-is when it becomes bad.

I didn't see bragging in the OP. I see concern about how violation archivals are handled. And others with buried caches SHOULD be nervous - they're breaking the guidelines, so the very next finder COULD (and should, IMHO) report it.

 

But when a person goes out of their way to find caches to report, or when it seems like they are, then it becomes being either "power hungry", trying to cause trouble or just being rude.

Or a fourth option: wanting to keep the integrity of the game and cut down on both violating caches and copycat "they did it, so I guess I can, too" caches.

 

I don't know the OP's motive. I guess I like to think the better of people rather than assuming they're bragging or power hungry.

Link to comment

 

I didn't see bragging in the OP. I see concern about how violation archivals are handled. And others with buried caches SHOULD be nervous - they're breaking the guidelines, so the very next finder COULD (and should, IMHO) report it.

 

Or a fourth option: wanting to keep the integrity of the game and cut down on both violating caches and copycat "they did it, so I guess I can, too" caches.

 

I don't know the OP's motive. I guess I like to think the better of people rather than assuming they're bragging or power hungry.

 

Just how I saw it-And while I do agree with most of what you said-or at least I don't disagree with it-was there a reason for this thread, other than what I said in post #3. Maybe there is and I just don't see it. And I don't think it's about the discussion of buried caches, what buried, or any other variation, as I think the OP would have posted in one of the millions of other threads about the same thing, or not listed caches and copy/paste the NA logs and such...

Link to comment

A world (even a game one) without rules is chaos. Wouldn't that be lovely??

Guidelines restricting cache placement should have a rationale behind them. However Groundspeak will rarely share the rationale so all we get in speculation in the forum.

 

For years the speculation has been that the no-bury guideline was introduced because a ranger found a buried cache on NPS property and that led to caches being banned in all land administered by the NPS.

 

Now we find out that there was no buried cache. Instead we find a ranger who wanted to get caches banned and he was able to argue to his superior that cache were buried and thus a threat to the parks.

 

So the idea may be that the rationale is that any argument someone can make up about caches warrants a guidelines that says caches can never be hidden that way.

 

However, I would think the proper response would be to dig (pardon the pun) a little deeper and find out just what the real concerns of the park management is. While many land managers worry about buried caches - perhaps due to experience with metal detectors - the fact is that when caches are buried the aren't creating the problems that people searching for artifacts with metal detectors do. Nor will buried cache cause the other problem that land managers have with digging. A guideline that is more specific than "caches are never buried" and had a clearly stated rationale would be easier to enforce, IMO. And, yes, it would give cache hiders more options.

 

So buried caches have been prohibited for a dozen years or so, and prominently mentioned in the guidelines.

Geocaches are never buried.

 

But somehow they manage to exist anyhow. :unsure:

 

That's because caches are clearly buried. They are buried under piles of rocks or under sticks and leaves. The confusion is when they get soil place around or on top of them.

 

Most people know the guideline isn't about burying by about digging. The real concern the land managers have is with digging. But digging is nearly as hared to define as burying.

 

Originally, the guidelines referred to using a shovel, trowel, or other pointy tool. So could you dig with your hands or with a stick? Is removing some rocks to create a space for the cache digging? Is pushing a bison tube into soft soil digging?

 

What has happened is guidelines creep. The "shovel, trowel, pointy tool" stuff has been removed and now we can't make a hole. Eventually we won't be able to cover caches with rocks or leaves.

 

I'm not making a judgment on cache cops or whether one should report guidelines violations. The caches in this thread are clearly against the guidelines, at least the current interpretation, and a cacher who finds one is certainly within their rights to report it to the reviewer without having to worry about getting called names.

 

The "no-bury" guideline exists bases on a perception by Groundspeak that land managers are concerned buried caches can cause problems. Rather than working with land managers to address these concerned and having a limited guideline that addresses specific issues, we have a total ban on making holes in the ground.

I keep wanting to post an NA on LordBritish's Necropolis of Britannia Manor III. I haven't been to this cache, but my guess is the Mr. Garriott had to dig holes in his property (possible using heavy equipment) to create this unique cache. I wonder what guidelines he violated?

 

Rule violated? Report & enforce.

 

Question about things? Give the CO a chance to respond. Innocent until proven guilty. "Cache cop" implies over-zealousness.

 

See the above red paragraph. Uncertainty. Armchair NA suggested. Tsk-tsk-tsk. Sounds "cache-cop-ish"!

 

And I'll add this. Let's suppose there's a clear violation and an immediate archive. I think the CO - who put out the effort - deserves a polite email of notice that goes on to suggest what can be done to remedy the problem & allow the cache to be reinstated.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...