Buried caches - Update

[+cerberus1]

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.

Seriously?

If it's a clear violation, like buried or a screw in a tree, the CO already knows what needs to be done to remedy the problem.

Every NA has a note attached at the end that says,"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" or similar.

That's more than good enough. Why should anyone send a "polite email" to an undeserving someone who clearly breaks guidelines.

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

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.

 

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.

My understanding from reviewers (yes plural) is if is is YOUR property, digging is fine....because YOU are the land manager.

[+NeecesandNephews]

My understanding from reviewers (yes plural) is if is is YOUR property, digging is fine....because YOU are the land manager.

 

You have mentioned that several times in previous posts. I would like to hear from a Reviewer (any Reviewer) that this is the case. This is not to be misinterpreted as me questioning what you posted. I would just like to hear it from one of them personally.

 

 

 

 

 

edit spelling

 

Edited February 2, 2014 by NeecesandNephews

[+tozainamboku]

My understanding from reviewers (yes plural) is if is is YOUR property, digging is fine....because YOU are the land manager.

 

That used to be my understanding as well, but in recent threads the claim has been made by some reviewers that caches are never buried since there are copy cats who would not notice the cache is on private property and has permission to be buried. Just one more example of guideline creep.

 

In any case I gave that example not to engage in the cache cop vs enabler debate, but to point out that absolute no burying rules don't make sense and are not workable. Groundspeak is no more likely to tell Richard Garriott that he can't build elaborated caches on his property than they are to tell him he can't put caches on the International Space Station. I'd like to think they would do the same for anyone else who wanted to do something special regardless of how rich or famous they are. Certainly the specifics of the cache should not involve something that would make pulic land managers concerned about how cache are hidden on their property. But I don't think this is some unmanageable problem.

[+aurght]

I can't resist sticking my oar in this pond!!

 

I have seen outlaw caches like several described here. Some of us who find them enjoy the cache anyway and just let it go. A few were purposely altered objects or property, obviously not the CO's property. My NA threshold does not include stuff that isn't hurting anybody. The tree will soon enough absorb that screw or nail. In an endangered plant, I'd sure post the NA. If someone wants to push a vial in the ground, I'll hunt it, but I'd never place one(not many, anyway. I really liked one like that).

That Coke bottle was trash to me, but the CO and lots of finders thought it was a cute container.

Met an angry property owner once. That one got archived right soon. OOPS! departed from the topic!

[+mobywv]

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.

 

Watch out, we got a cache cop over here.

[+Dogmeat*]

I don't disagree with posting a NA. I don't disagree with the guidelines. I do, however, think it's pretty ridiculous to put this amount of effort into the archival of caches you feel broke the rules. To make an update thread 3-4 months later.. actually even thinking about it enough to want to make a thread about it months later seems highly unnecessary. Report the cache, and forget about it. There's absolutely no reason to continue complaining about it after the fact. The reviewers are doing their best, which is more than I would even justify asking for seeing as they also have lives. Something so trivial shouldn't bother anyone this much. Report it, move on.

[+wmpastor]

I don't disagree with posting a NA. I don't disagree with the guidelines. I do, however, think it's pretty ridiculous to put this amount of effort into the archival of caches you feel broke the rules. To make an update thread 3-4 months later.. actually even thinking about it enough to want to make a thread about it months later seems highly unnecessary. Report the cache, and forget about it. There's absolutely no reason to continue complaining about it after the fact. The reviewers are doing their best, which is more than I would even justify asking for seeing as they also have lives. Something so trivial shouldn't bother anyone this much. Report it, move on.

Either he feels this needs to be brought to the attention of the caching community...

 

OR he wants to be promoted to "Cache Cop Chief of Police,"

 

OR he's angling to be nominated for "Geocacher of the Year."

 

[+hzoi]

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?

 

You keep wanting to report a cache you've never visited? One that you have no first-hand knowledge of? Why?

 

I think we may have identified a side problem here: the joy of being the cache police.

 

Actually, this goes beyond the cache police, because police actually investigate things in person. I'm thinking more along these lines.

 

 

'Cause there's NO WAY that the guy who got an exception from policy to publish this undersea cache in 2002 and this orbiting cache in 2008 could possibly have gotten a third exception to policy for this cache in 2010. That would be unpossible.

 

[/sarcasm]

[+Mudfrog]

I don't disagree with posting a NA. I don't disagree with the guidelines. I do, however, think it's pretty ridiculous to put this amount of effort into the archival of caches you feel broke the rules. To make an update thread 3-4 months later.. actually even thinking about it enough to want to make a thread about it months later seems highly unnecessary. Report the cache, and forget about it. There's absolutely no reason to continue complaining about it after the fact. The reviewers are doing their best, which is more than I would even justify asking for seeing as they also have lives. Something so trivial shouldn't bother anyone this much. Report it, move on.

 

I would certainly try to stay on top of an archival,, if it was because a cache that was causing immediate problems. For example, an irate property owner who wanted the cach gone asap. Otherwise, for a more minor guideline violation such as what this thread is about, nah. To be honest, i doubt i'd log a NA on a cached i percieved to be buried. There are a few variables to consider but the main thing for me is that i probably couldn't be 100% sure digging had occurred in the first place.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I don't disagree with posting a NA. I don't disagree with the guidelines. I do, however, think it's pretty ridiculous to put this amount of effort into the archival of caches you feel broke the rules. To make an update thread 3-4 months later.. actually even thinking about it enough to want to make a thread about it months later seems highly unnecessary. Report the cache, and forget about it. There's absolutely no reason to continue complaining about it after the fact. The reviewers are doing their best, which is more than I would even justify asking for seeing as they also have lives. Something so trivial shouldn't bother anyone this much. Report it, move on.

 

I would certainly try to stay on top of an archival,, if it was because a cache that was causing immediate problems. For example, an irate property owner who wanted the cach gone asap. Otherwise, for a more minor guideline violation such as what this thread is about, nah. To be honest, i doubt i'd log a NA on a cached i percieved to be buried. There are a few variables to consider but the main thing for me is that i probably couldn't be 100% sure digging had occurred in the first place.

 

You can't be sure regarding digging including the cache pictured earlier. We've cached a lot in the desert and I've seen a lot of holes...I often wonder what kind of animal dug them. You put your cache in a hole bracketed with wood to keep the sides from caving in....a good rain or dust storm and you have the pictured cache. In my home area, in the woods and swamps, finding a hole isn't a problem but stepping in one is...I've gone down a few times and a caching buddy broke his leg in one.Most holes would swallow an ammo can but finding a perfect one only takes a couple of minutes....in goes the can, cover with a log and you're done.....no tools required to hide or retrieve. Again, why not just assume the hole was there.....no one knows it wasn't....I would have gave it a favorite vote , as I have dozens just like it, and moved on.

[+tozainamboku]

[snip Monty Python picture]

 

[/sarcasm]

You missed my later post where I said I don't want to get into the cache cop debate. I was probably amiss in not including a [/sarcasm] tag like you did. I gave the example to show how silly a one-size fits all no bury guideline is.

[+NanCycle]

I see I’ve been chastised for not answering the question of why I started this thread. Well, although my mother raised me on the ”sticks & stones” principle, when the tone of a question is as nasty as the original question and the follow-up were, I just don’t feel inclined to respond in a civil manner.

 

We are repeatedly told by TPTB that geocaching has to be a self-policing community, but when someone tries to get others to abide by the rules, they are derided as “cache cops” or “power hungry” or worse. The original thread was started in order to get comments on whether it is even worthwhile to try.

 

There are many other caches that I have found that I could report, such as screws in trees, holes drilled in power poles, etc., but I am sticking to holes dug in the ground, because I think that these are the most serious and most likely to get geocaching banned from State Parks, Division of Wildlife lands, State Highway ROWs, and other public lands.

 

This update thread was posted in case anyone was interested in what has happened with the caches in question since the original thread. Three of the caches have been Archived, but three are still just “Temporarily Disabled.” It may be significant that the 3 that were archived were the one that had the best—absolutely unambiguous—pictures available.

 

Any private communication between reviewer and cache owner is beyond the scope of this discussion as it would do nothing to educate other cache hiders, which was the focus of my disappointment that, for the most part, the issues are being addressed as mere maintenance problems.

[+dprovan]

Any private communication between reviewer and cache owner is beyond the scope of this discussion as it would do nothing to educate other cache hiders, which was the focus of my disappointment that, for the most part, the issues are being addressed as mere maintenance problems.

From the point of view of a neutral third party such as the reviewers, this is a mere maintenance problem. A perfectly reasonable reaction by the owner would be to change the hide so that it no longer violates the guidelines.

 

And as I said in my first response, you are the one that missed the opportunity to make this a teachable moment. But instead of an NA expressing legitimate concern of a friendly associate shedding light on a real problem, you act as if you're only role here is to say, "Cuff 'em, Dano," to the reviewer. If you act like a cop, it's hard not to think of you as a cop even for someone like me that considers it quite reasonable to call for archiving these caches that violate the guidelines.

[+T.D.M.22]

From the point of view of a neutral third party such as the reviewers, this is a mere maintenance problem. A perfectly reasonable reaction by the owner would be to change the hide so that it no longer violates the guidelines.

 

And as I said in my first response, you are the one that missed the opportunity to make this a teachable moment. But instead of an NA expressing legitimate concern of a friendly associate shedding light on a real problem, you act as if you're only role here is to say, "Cuff 'em, Dano," to the reviewer. If you act like a cop, it's hard not to think of you as a cop even for someone like me that considers it quite reasonable to call for archiving these caches that violate the guidelines.

 

Exactly-I believe that is what more than one person was trying to say. I know that fits my opinion anyway.

[+wmpastor]

I don't disagree with posting a NA. I don't disagree with the guidelines. I do, however, think it's pretty ridiculous to put this amount of effort into the archival of caches you feel broke the rules. To make an update thread 3-4 months later.. actually even thinking about it enough to want to make a thread about it months later seems highly unnecessary. Report the cache, and forget about it. There's absolutely no reason to continue complaining about it after the fact. The reviewers are doing their best, which is more than I would even justify asking for seeing as they also have lives. Something so trivial shouldn't bother anyone this much. Report it, move on.

 

I would certainly try to stay on top of an archival,, if it was because a cache that was causing immediate problems. For example, an irate property owner who wanted the cach gone asap. Otherwise, for a more minor guideline violation such as what this thread is about, nah. To be honest, i doubt i'd log a NA on a cached i percieved to be buried. There are a few variables to consider but the main thing for me is that i probably couldn't be 100% sure digging had occurred in the first place.

 

You can't be sure regarding digging including the cache pictured earlier. We've cached a lot in the desert and I've seen a lot of holes...I often wonder what kind of animal dug them. You put your cache in a hole bracketed with wood to keep the sides from caving in....a good rain or dust storm and you have the pictured cache. In my home area, in the woods and swamps, finding a hole isn't a problem but stepping in one is...I've gone down a few times and a caching buddy broke his leg in one.Most holes would swallow an ammo can but finding a perfect one only takes a couple of minutes....in goes the can, cover with a log and you're done.....no tools required to hide or retrieve. Again, why not just assume the hole was there.....no one knows it wasn't....I would have gave it a favorite vote , as I have dozens just like it, and moved on.

I've heard it suggested that if you place a hide that is going to look like a violation but actually is not a violation, that you explain in two ways. First, put it in the notes to the reviewer. These are not seen after publication, but I believe a reviewer can access this history if a complaint arises later. Second, make a (non-spoiler) reference in the cache listing. I've done this when I brought a "doctored" log from home - just a quick comment that I brought in all of my materials & didn't alter the environment.

[+L0ne.R]

It may be significant that the 3 that were archived were the one that had the best—absolutely unambiguous—pictures available.

 

This is a good tip for those of us who report guideline infractions. Post a photo.

[jholly]

After reading this thread and thinking about it a bit.

 

I know a reviewer that when caching under their player name in their reviewing area and finding a guideline violation will take off their player hat and put on their reviewer hat and archive the cache. Is the reviewer or the player a cache cop?

 

This same reviewer when caching outside their reviewing area and finding a guideline violation will file a NA on the cache with their player account. Is reviewer under the guise of a player now a cache cop because they filed a NA on a cache that is in violation of the guidelines?

 

If, in this case, the player account is not a cache cop why is an ordinary person a cache cop if they report a guideline violation?

[4wheelin_fool]

After reading this thread and thinking about it a bit.

 

I know a reviewer that when caching under their player name in their reviewing area and finding a guideline violation will take off their player hat and put on their reviewer hat and archive the cache. Is the reviewer or the player a cache cop?

 

This same reviewer when caching outside their reviewing area and finding a guideline violation will file a NA on the cache with their player account. Is reviewer under the guise of a player now a cache cop because they filed a NA on a cache that is in violation of the guidelines?

 

If, in this case, the player account is not a cache cop why is an ordinary person a cache cop if they report a guideline violation?

 

It's disrespectful to call someone a cache cop, and nobody is going to do it to a reviewer because they don't have the balls.

[+andyakashrek]

There are many other caches that I have found that I could report, such as screws in trees, holes drilled in power poles, etc., but I am sticking to holes dug in the ground, because I think that these are the most serious and most likely to get geocaching banned from State Parks, Division of Wildlife lands, State Highway ROWs, and other public lands.

 

Selective NA'ing. Surely a violation is a violation and if you are going to report one you will have to report all instances of non compliance.

 

Posted by a 15 year old who has been running amok since 2011. I like that, it's been a while since I was a pita kid. Might have it as my sig.

[+NanCycle]

There are many other caches that I have found that I could report, such as screws in trees, holes drilled in power poles, etc., but I am sticking to holes dug in the ground, because I think that these are the most serious and most likely to get geocaching banned from State Parks, Division of Wildlife lands, State Highway ROWs, and other public lands.

 

Selective NA'ing. Surely a violation is a violation and if you are going to report one you will have to report all instances of non compliance.

 

Posted by a 15 year old who has been running amok since 2011. I like that, it's been a while since I was a pita kid. Might have it as my sig.

 

I get your point, but I'm sticking to mine. Screws in trees don't really damage the trees anyway. There was a thread in these forums called "Hungry Trees" I think. Look at that, or watch an episode of Treehouse Masters on Animal Planet.

[Clan Riffster]

the one that had the best—absolutely unambiguous—pictures available.

Hi Nan. One thing I was wondering.

Did you personally visit all six of these caches?

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

My understanding from reviewers (yes plural) is if is is YOUR property, digging is fine....because YOU are the land manager.

 

You have mentioned that several times in previous posts. I would like to hear from a Reviewer (any Reviewer) that this is the case. This is not to be misinterpreted as me questioning what you posted. I would just like to hear it from one of them personally.

I don't think I was told in terms of a wide open acceptance. More of "we'll do it such on a case-by-case basis". I wouldn't hold your breath for a reviewer to post an affirmation. I'm not even gonna guarantee you will get an OK. I can't even confirm it because right now I am NOT an land owner.

[+NanCycle]

the one that had the best—absolutely unambiguous—pictures available.

Hi Nan. One thing I was wondering.

Did you personally visit all six of these caches?

 

Yes and I posted Found its on all of them.

[Clan Riffster]

the one that had the best—absolutely unambiguous—pictures available.

Hi Nan. One thing I was wondering.

Did you personally visit all six of these caches?

 

Yes and I posted Found its on all of them.

Thank you for doing the needful.

[+dprovan]

If, in this case, the player account is not a cache cop why is an ordinary person a cache cop if they report a guideline violation?

Did someone in this thread say that anyone that reports a guideline violation is a cache cop?

 

A reviewer finding a violation in their own area is an interesting problem. Since a violation essentially means the reviewer has been misled, either explicitly or through omission, then they're basically forced by the CO into the role of a true cache cop. I wouldn't want to be in that position, but I don't see that they have any choice but to come down hard on the perp.

[+NanCycle]

After reading this thread and thinking about it a bit.

 

I know a reviewer that when caching under their player name in their reviewing area and finding a guideline violation will take off their player hat and put on their reviewer hat and archive the cache. Is the reviewer or the player a cache cop?

 

This same reviewer when caching outside their reviewing area and finding a guideline violation will file a NA on the cache with their player account. Is reviewer under the guise of a player now a cache cop because they filed a NA on a cache that is in violation of the guidelines?

 

If, in this case, the player account is not a cache cop why is an ordinary person a cache cop if they report a guideline violation?

 

It's disrespectful to call someone a cache cop, and nobody is going to do it to a reviewer because they don't have the balls.

 

So, calling somebody a cache cop is essentially bullying--they do it to someone they perceive as weaker but not to someone they see as being in a position of authority. Nice.

 

@JH--thanks

[+T.D.M.22]

 

I get your point, but I'm sticking to mine. Screws in trees don't really damage the trees anyway. There was a thread in these forums called "Hungry Trees" I think. Look at that, or watch an episode of Treehouse Masters on Animal Planet.

 

No it probably will not hurt the tree-but not everyone knows that. The tree thing covers 2 issues-1 the perception that the tree is being hurt. 2-if one was to do that in a public park, or forest reserve or similar, it most likely does not have permission to be like that. That also counts as damaging in the sense of defacing property(Which would apply to a tree, fence, brick wall, or any other number of things.)

 

Of course there are exceptions-I have seen a cache attached with permission from the park (which helps maintain it)

 

The tree/defacing/buried guidelines are not only about permission-it's about what geocaching is perceived as. Take UFC for example-the fights are consensual, but people think they encourage violence so they are banned. Likewise a cache is buried/in a tree with permission, the city(for example) may not care there was permission granted. They may thinks that's how all caches are hid, and ban caches on city property-much like the not buried cache, that was said to be buried earlier in the thread.

Edited February 3, 2014 by T.D.M.22

[jholly]

If, in this case, the player account is not a cache cop why is an ordinary person a cache cop if they report a guideline violation?

Did someone in this thread say that anyone that reports a guideline violation is a cache cop?

 

A reviewer finding a violation in their own area is an interesting problem. Since a violation essentially means the reviewer has been misled, either explicitly or through omission, then they're basically forced by the CO into the role of a true cache cop. I wouldn't want to be in that position, but I don't see that they have any choice but to come down hard on the perp.

Let's see. Posts 3, 20, 33, 56, and 58 either called the OP a cache cop or made a very strong association.

 

Post 47 is interesting. Here the poster implies the OP goes out of their way to find caches to report to gain a position of power or just wants to make trouble. How about they found they caches as part of there normal caching activity? Naw, takes the drama and the innuendo out of the action.

[jholly]

 

@JH--thanks

Your welcome.

[+dprovan]

Let's see. Posts 3, 20, 33, 56, and 58 either called the OP a cache cop or made a very strong association.

 

Post 47 is interesting. Here the poster implies the OP goes out of their way to find caches to report to gain a position of power or just wants to make trouble. How about they found they caches as part of there normal caching activity? Naw, takes the drama and the innuendo out of the action.

Exactly. I very nearly called the OP a cache cop, myself, but because of how he's acting, not because he's reporting a violation. As far as I can see, of the posts you cite, #33 is the only one that seems to be objecting to the mere act of reporting a violation.

[jholly]

Let's see. Posts 3, 20, 33, 56, and 58 either called the OP a cache cop or made a very strong association.

 

Post 47 is interesting. Here the poster implies the OP goes out of their way to find caches to report to gain a position of power or just wants to make trouble. How about they found they caches as part of there normal caching activity? Naw, takes the drama and the innuendo out of the action.

Exactly. I very nearly called the OP a cache cop, myself, but because of how he's acting, not because he's reporting a violation. As far as I can see, of the posts you cite, #33 is the only one that seems to be objecting to the mere act of reporting a violation.

And what do you mean because how (s)he's acting? There was a thread a while back where the OP reported on finding these buried caches an writing the reviewer privately about them and then to HQ. The response (s)he received was to post a NA, forcing it public. (S)he reported this in this thread.

 

This thread was a follow up on the previous thread. I was glad to find out the results, although it is much easier for me find out the results than most.

 

And you really need to read posters sig lines. You would have discovered the he is really a she.

[+andyakashrek]

I know of a cache that is buried and is on local authority land. It was buried by the local authority, I will not give it's code or location but it's not hard to work it out, as part of a power trail. It was seen by the authority as a way of boosting tourism and thus the local economy. To find it a lot of caches have to be found in order to get the location of the buried cache. A lot of CO's and several reviewers were involved and still are. The cache is a concrete container concreted into the ground with part of it above ground. Thousands of people pass it every day and never see it as it is the same as hundreds of others nearby.

So, should it be archived and a lot of people involved with the planning and maintenance of the whole series be annoyed to say the least? What about the local authority? Maybe they may decide geocaching isn't worth the hassle and ban all caches in their jurisdiction. What about local businesses that have benefited from this series? Who's going to deny them the little extra business that may be the difference between being able to keep going or closing? So who is going to post a NA here?

Perhaps the benefits outweigh the finders dislike of buried caches. Then if the finder decides i will let this one go but the next buried cache i find is going to get it, how does that sit with them?

 

Discuss.

[+Geoscouts.eu]

Discuss.

 

A friend of ours finding a *very* buried cache which was hidden by the local tourist board!

 

 

And there are many more. Vive la France!

[+L0ne.R]

Discuss.

 

A friend of ours finding a *very* buried cache which was hidden by the local tourist board!

 

 

And there are many more. Vive la France!

 

Interesting. If someone posts an NA for guideline infraction, would the reviewer be obligated to archive it?

[+Yuma4]

Easy Fix, Add disclaimer "Cache Placement Approved by Property Manager." Note in Guidlines " Do what you want on your own property!!

[+andyakashrek]

But does the no digging override all other statements. I think a guideline rethink is needed.

[+dprovan]

And what do you mean because how (s)he's acting?

Oh, sorry, I thought that was pretty clear, but I guess not, so I'll go over it. First of all, the archive requests themselves were directed at the reviewer, just like a cop taking in a perp and dumping them in the jail. I'm not saying that's wrong, just that it's acting like a cop, so it's natural for people to react to her as if she's a cop. This is emphasized by the disappointment she expresses that the reviewer didn't do more to publicly declare the violation bad. Although she says her disappointment was because she wants other people to get the message, it comes off as if she's disappointed the CO wasn't punished for the crime.

 

As I've pointed out, the better approach is to direct the NA to the CO as a friend and adviser even though the purpose of the NA, of course, is to get the reviewer involved. So, for example, she could have presented, however briefly, the lesson about why such caches are prohibited that she seemed to expect the reviewer to post. This works best when this cache is used as a specific example of the possible problems the guidelines are trying to avoid. That might even improve the exchange with the CO, but the important thing is that it will make the NA a voice of reason for other potential hiders to hear, the very goal she claims to be pursuing.

 

The second thing that seemed cop-like was her attitude of watching the caches to make sure they were archived. Well, at least that's the impression I got for why she was watching them. I watch caches I suggest should be archived, too, but just to see how things turn out. I'm prepared for the situation to be fixed, or the archive request to be denied, or for nothing to happen, because I see my NA as input into a process that is now up to the reviewer and CO to work through. The attitude of the OP seems to suggest that only one result is possible. That's not uncommon, and it doesn't make the OP a bad person, it just seems cop-like.

 

The final straw, though, was post #63, where the OP responds to the fairly mild reactions in a way that makes it seem like she feels she's beyond even the slightest criticism, sure that her assessment of the situation is the only correct one, and any suggestions about how she might have done better amount to being chastised. This is the kind of reaction that makes people such as myself that support her actions against guideline violations wonder if she isn't being a bit of a cache cop even though her intentions are honorable.

 

And you really need to read posters sig lines. You would have discovered the he is really a she.

You let the system display sig lines?

[+dprovan]

I know of a cache that is buried and is on local authority land. It was buried by the local authority...

Until you mentioned it, I'd forgotten that some of the most obvious buried violations I've seen were executed by the U.S. Government itself. I was absolutely delighted by the caches, so I admit I did not consider calling attention to their faults.

[+T.D.M.22]

Easy Fix, Add disclaimer "Cache Placement Approved by Property Manager." Note in Guidlines " Do what you want on your own property!!

 

Again, no! It's not permission, it's about perception. See my previous post;

The tree/defacing/buried guidelines are not only about permission-it's about what geocaching is perceived as. Take UFC for example-the fights are consensual, but people think they encourage violence so they are banned. Likewise a cache is buried/in a tree with permission, the city(for example) may not care there was permission granted. They may thinks that's how all caches are hid, and ban caches on city property-much like the not buried cache, that was said to be buried earlier in the thread.

 

See 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.

 

Never means never, it does not mean it's ok if permission was granted.

[+T.D.M.22]

Let's see. Posts 3, 20, 33, 56, and 58 either called the OP a cache cop or made a very strong association.

 

Post 47 is interesting. Here the poster implies the OP goes out of their way to find caches to report to gain a position of power or just wants to make trouble. How about they found they caches as part of there normal caching activity? Naw, takes the drama and the innuendo out of the action.

Exactly. I very nearly called the OP a cache cop, myself, but because of how he's acting, not because he's reporting a violation. As far as I can see, of the posts you cite, #33 is the only one that seems to be objecting to the mere act of reporting a violation.

And what do you mean because how (s)he's acting?

 

Since I was post #47....My issue was not that the caches had been reported. I would not have done so myself, but I also agree the no buried rule is pretty simple, and the caches that are buried do violate the guidelines. But I also think it should have been left at a NA log. If the OP wanted to update the situation she could have posted on her previous thread. Since she didn't, that's why I thought there was some other purpose. Why? Well see my other posts here to see what the reason could have been.

 

I've posted my fair share of NA logs-I have not created a thread about them. Why would I?

Edited February 3, 2014 by T.D.M.22

[Clan Riffster]

Never means never, it does not mean it's ok if permission was granted.

Well, technically, in this case, "Never" means "usually not". One need only look at Mingo to see that sometimes, caches are, in fact, buried, with Groundspeak being aware of it. Granted, Mingo was placed before the particular guideline in question, and as such, is grandfathered, but it certainly demonstrates that the term, "Never", (which is an absolute), is an inaccurate term. As to buried caches on private property, I suspect they could be published, if explicit, verifiable consent was given to the Reviewer.

[+andyakashrek]

Never means never, it does not mean it's ok if permission was granted.

Well, technically, in this case, "Never" means "usually not". One need only look at Mingo to see that sometimes, caches are, in fact, buried, with Groundspeak being aware of it. Granted, Mingo was placed before the particular guideline in question, and as such, is grandfathered, but it certainly demonstrates that the term, "Never", (which is an absolute), is an inaccurate term. As to buried caches on private property, I suspect they could be published, if explicit, verifiable consent was given to the Reviewer.

 

But the problem is not whether a cache can be published or not, the problem is should it be archived or not. If the answer is yes it should be archived then all buried caches have to be archived. All or none.

Unless Groundspeak change the guidelines to allow buried caches provided full provable permission from the landowner is produced at time of review and posted on the cache page. Seems reasonable to me.

[+Don_J]

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".

 

What if I made the hole to keep my hiking stick from falling over, then decided it was good spot to stick my "nano attached to trash cache"? (Not I would ever do such a thing).

[+Manville Possum]

Discuss.

 

A friend of ours finding a *very* buried cache which was hidden by the local tourist board!

 

 

And there are many more. Vive la France!

I see Germany, I see France.......

[+Don_J]

 

<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.

 

I support the OP as well and I agree with her about her reviewer's actions. In this case, the reviewer does represent Groundspeak, and if I were a land manager, I would think a canned response saying, it looks like your cache is "under the weather", go fix it and get back to me, indicated that Groundspeak does not take burying a cache in the ground, (even if the top is exposed), to be a serious matter, especially if I was not versed on the efforts that Groundspeak has made over the years to balance the effect that game can have on the land.

 

When this comes up locally, our reviewer's also have a canned response, but it clearly states to the CO what the problem is, how to correct it, relevant links to the guidelines and contact info for the reviewer. Such a response not only sends a message to any land manager that might be looking in but to all future cache hiders as well.

 

From the long running original thread where the OP asked for the forum's advice, and of course, we only have one side of the story, it sounds like she has been trying for over a year to get her reviewer's attention about a set of specific caches, especially after she noticed that others were copying the hide techniques of those cache and that they clearly violated any interpretation of the guidelines. A picture speaks a thousand words.

 

It's really too bad that both threads have devolved into a discussion of, "what's buried", when it's more than clear the specific caches that she was concerned about, clearly were.

[+Don_J]

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.

 

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?

 

I agree with all of this Toz. I think that the "no pointy objects" was the best version of the guidelines. I have always been under the impression that the biggest concern from land owners is the "treasure hunting" idea of geocaching that has been portrayed in countless news articles over the years. The idea that a if a cache was hidden on my land and hoards of people showed up the next day with pick axes and shovels would be quite unsettling. "It's a Mad, Mad, World".

 

So, we've gone from that to the point where we can't glue a bison tube to a bottle cap and stuff it into soft Earth on the side of the road, not that I ever would. If we ever get to the point that we can't place a cache at ground level and cover it with the surrounding natural material, I guess I'm done as that is 90% of my caches.

[+Don_J]

From the point of view of a neutral third party such as the reviewers, this is a mere maintenance problem. A perfectly reasonable reaction by the owner would be to change the hide so that it no longer violates the guidelines.

 

And as I said in my first response, you are the one that missed the opportunity to make this a teachable moment. But instead of an NA expressing legitimate concern of a friendly associate shedding light on a real problem, you act as if you're only role here is to say, "Cuff 'em, Dano," to the reviewer. If you act like a cop, it's hard not to think of you as a cop even for someone like me that considers it quite reasonable to call for archiving these caches that violate the guidelines.

 

Exactly-I believe that is what more than one person was trying to say. I know that fits my opinion anyway.

 

I think the only mistake that the OP has made here was not referencing her previous thread. If I remember correctly, she contacted her reviewer privately on more than one occasion, then upon advice from this forum, contacted Groundspeak who told her to again contact the reviewer. She did so again and the reviewer told her to post NA logs. When she did so, the reviewer finally responded, but did so as if these were caches with wet logs or other similar minor problems.

 

I took this new thread as an update on the older thread from last year, not as a boast of her ability to be a cache cop. I admire her tenacity, despite the criticism here and her reviewer's apparent reluctance to archive caches that clearly violate the guidelines.

[+fizzymagic]

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?

 

Ah, the great argument from ignorance. I have found the cache in question, and I can assure you that the container is in no way buried. No pointy object or material had to be moved for the hide. It is fully in compliance with the guidelines.

[+fizzymagic]

If, in this case, the player account is not a cache cop why is an ordinary person a cache cop if they report a guideline violation?

Did someone in this thread say that anyone that reports a guideline violation is a cache cop?

 

A reviewer finding a violation in their own area is an interesting problem. Since a violation essentially means the reviewer has been misled, either explicitly or through omission, then they're basically forced by the CO into the role of a true cache cop. I wouldn't want to be in that position, but I don't see that they have any choice but to come down hard on the perp.

 

Posting a NA does not make one a cache cop.

 

Going out of your way to post NM and NA logs whenever possible -- that makes a cache cop. It's the attitude. In a recent thread, a cacher proclaimed proudly that she did her part to keep her local caching area violation-free by making multiple NM and NA logs. IMO, she is acting as a cache cop.

 

The impression that I got from the OP in this thread is that they were systematically seeking out and reporting caches that violated a specific guideline. If so, then IMO she is acting as a cache cop. As she said: "I am sticking to holes dug in the ground, because I think that these are the most serious." Maybe she means that she only reports those violations she happens across, but that was not how I interpreted her posts.

 

But maybe not. I don't know for sure; all I have to go on is the words that have been posted here. Maybe it's a teachable moment for how to distinguish between a responsible player and a cache cop.