Jump to content

Buried caches - Update


NanCycle

Recommended Posts

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.

 

I guess it's just going to revolve around just what definition is used for "buried". If someone takes a trowel and digs a 3" deep hole to hide a sandwich box that's all well and good but how many more holes are going to be dug by people looking for the sandwich box? If you work with the hider having a GPS inaccuracy of around 20 feet and finders having something comparable you potentially have a 40-foot radius splattered with holes as people hunt the buried treasure.

 

Even if the restriction is lifted for caches in custom-dug holes on private land with express written permission from the landowner it's only a question of time before someone finds a cache in a custom-dug hole, figures it's a cool idea, and digs up their local park to hide a cache. They don't bother with permission because, you know, you can do what you want in the park.

 

There's no point endlessly writing ever-stricter rules to attempt to rein in the least responsible (who typically ignore rules anyway) but at the same time there's little to be gained and much to be lost by allowing too much flexibility, given we already see caches all over the place that may or may not have suitable permission.

Link to comment

 

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.

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding. All the caches I reported were ones that I did happen upon in my normal caching activities. Most of them were found on trips where I mostly looked for Regular size caches and avoided micros; since all of the buried caches were of Regular size, that's why so many of them turned up on my search lists. There was only one that I knew, or suspected, was buried before I went out to look for it, and that one was in an area near home where we were going for several other caches as well.

 

The main reason that I am not reporting such violations as screws in trees and holes drilled in power poles is that I don't want "cache cop" to become my full-time job.

Link to comment

The main reason that I am not reporting such violations as screws in trees and holes drilled in power poles is that I don't want "cache cop" to become my full-time job.

It only take a minute to post an NA pointing out an obvious guideline violation, and half a minute more to add an explaination of why that guideline shouldn't be violated. After that, you should leave it up the people involved to resolve the issue. What's taking so much of your time is that you want to make sure something's done about it. That's not your responsibility and, as it happens, that's also what's making you seem a little cache cop-ish.

 

Not that I'm giving you a bad time for not reporting other violations: even as I support your attempts to bring guideline violations to light, I must admit that I wouldn't report any of these myself. Unless I thought there was an actual problem, I'd limit myself to a vailed criticism about the violation in my Found log.

Link to comment

All the caches I reported were ones that I did happen upon in my normal caching activities. Most of them were found on trips where I mostly looked for Regular size caches and avoided micros; since all of the buried caches were of Regular size, that's why so many of them turned up on my search lists. There was only one that I knew, or suspected, was buried before I went out to look for it, and that one was in an area near home where we were going for several other caches as well.

 

Fair enough. From what you are saying, you are not trying to be a cache cop.

 

IMO, the "no buried caches" rule is ill-formed. The incorrect idea some people initially had about caching was that you would have "buried treasure" where the finder would go to certain GPS coordinates and start digging with a shovel to find a fully buried cache.

 

The "no buried cache" rule has since been modified so that no earth can be disturbed in placing a cache. That's a very different thing. For example, last week I found a cache at a museum (placed by the museum on their property) that was embedded into the ground, but had plenty sticking up above the ground for finders to see. I would never consider reporting it as a "buried" cache, for several reasons:

 

  • The cache was not fully buried and did not violate the spirit of the "no buried caches" rule.
  • The cache was placed on private property by the property owners.
  • The partially-buried state of the cache made it more secure; a large cache could be placed in an area where it would otherwise have been impossible.

 

Had the cache been on public property, I might have considered reporting it if in my opinion it had resulted in damage to the public property. It would have been a judgment call on my part. I understand Groundspeak's (wait -- they are now Geocaching.com!) position that they are concerned that land managers will ban caches if they are buried, but I disagree with them about the extent of their ban. I use common sense in my determination of what is a reportable problem or not.

Link to comment

I use common sense in my determination of what is a reportable problem or not.

 

If everybody used common sense, this thread will never happen. ph34r.gif

 

I would have to agree and also point out that in the world today, common sense is a higly endangered species... That being said, I would agree that common sense should prevail on what to report or not. So far I have not come across anything that I would consider to be reportable, with one excpetion that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. The only cache I submitted a NA to was on the property I work for and the permission had changed and been revoked, so I had to move my cache as well as another CO I emailed to let them know. After a period of time, I had to log an NA and remove the container.

 

If I happen upon a cache that I know is in clear violation of a rule or is in a location where permission has changed, I will most likey try and contact the CO first, it is possible that someone else came along and burried it in an attempt to "hide it better" than how they found it. If after a resonable amount of time I happen to visit it again, if it large enough for a trackable item, and it is still burried, I would then log a NA log on the cache, gather any trackables that are in it, and move on leaving it to the reviewers to decide. Does this way of doing it make me cache copish, maybe to some, but I dont see it that way. I am not only going after those caches that upon detailed review of all logs and the cache page would lead one to believe within a reasonable amount of doubt that the cache was in violation of a rule. So far I have been lucky to not have come across any like that. I am sure as time goes on, I will encounter some, I just have yet to find any in my area.

Link to comment
If buried caches are outlawed, only outlaws will bury caches... :ph34r:

Or, not... :lol:

Bury the outlaws; they won't do it again.

 

Wasn't sure this was good advice so i went to the outlaws.com website to check it out. Sure enough, this is covered in their guidelines.

 

"Outlaws are never buried, neither partially nor completely. If one has to dig or create a hole in the ground when placing or finding an outlaw, it is not allowed." :blink:

Link to comment

Soooo.....

 

....I guess my cache that I will be buried with when I die won't be published. Was kinda looking forward to all the cacher's faces when they have to grab the container (and put it back) in my deadly grasp after digging me up.

 

:anibad:

 

Have your executors build you a cairn, a nice pile of rocks. No burying necessary. :laughing:

Link to comment

Soooo.....

 

....I guess my cache that I will be buried with when I die won't be published. Was kinda looking forward to all the cacher's faces when they have to grab the container (and put it back) in my deadly grasp after digging me up.

 

:anibad:

 

Have your executors build you a cairn, a nice pile of rocks. No burying necessary. :laughing:

 

Is it considered burying if they have to dig through the ashes in my urn to find the cache?

Link to comment
Is it considered burying if they have to dig through the ashes in my urn to find the cache?
The guidelines are concerned about things buried "in the ground", not about geocaches "buried" in an urn of ashes, or under an Unnatural Pile of Sticks/Stones, or in a large container full of dozens of film canisters.

 

But one of the cemeteries around here has a specific policy about items being left at the graves. Most families leave more typical items like flowers or photos or mementos, but at least one has left a geocache using a hide-a-key fake rock.

Link to comment
Is it considered burying if they have to dig through the ashes in my urn to find the cache?
The guidelines are concerned about things buried "in the ground", not about geocaches "buried" in an urn of ashes, or under an Unnatural Pile of Sticks/Stones, or in a large container full of dozens of film canisters.

 

But one of the cemeteries around here has a specific policy about items being left at the graves. Most families leave more typical items like flowers or photos or mementos, but at least one has left a geocache using a hide-a-key fake rock.

 

My comment wasn't really meant to be serious.

Link to comment
Is it considered burying if they have to dig through the ashes in my urn to find the cache?
The guidelines are concerned about things buried "in the ground", not about geocaches "buried" in an urn of ashes, or under an Unnatural Pile of Sticks/Stones, or in a large container full of dozens of film canisters.

 

But one of the cemeteries around here has a specific policy about items being left at the graves. Most families leave more typical items like flowers or photos or mementos, but at least one has left a geocache using a hide-a-key fake rock.

 

My comment wasn't really meant to be serious.

 

I don't think it was going to be a problem anyway. The FTF would have probably just dumped you on the ground lookin' for the swag, and replaced you with a broken McToy and a leaky container of bubble liquid.:ph34r:

Link to comment

I find it interesting that the National Parks are afraid of supporting geocaching on "their" land, but are quite willing to open it to surface mining and logging.

Ah, I think your confusing National Park Service and their Parks with Bureau of Land Management and National Forest Service. I don't believe any National Park has surface mining and logging. If your aware of one I would like the citation so I can write my congress critter.

Link to comment

I find it interesting that the National Parks are afraid of supporting geocaching on "their" land, but are quite willing to open it to surface mining and logging.

 

Where do you find surface mining, and/or logging in any National Park? I see both activities and more in National Forests,(where geocaching is often allowed) but never in a National Park.

Link to comment

Discuss.

 

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

 

a32389b5-e2f3-4fe7-beba-81b8e2f47eeb.jpg

 

And there are many more. Vive la France!

 

It is also very unlikely that the tourist board dug a narrow hole the width of someone's arm several feet deep the same size as a small animal as it is obvious that they did not create the hole.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

I find it interesting that the National Parks are afraid of supporting geocaching on "their" land, but are quite willing to open it to surface mining and logging.

 

Where do you find surface mining, and/or logging in any National Park? I see both activities and more in National Forests,(where geocaching is often allowed) but never in a National Park.

 

Google will show examples of areas that are under consideration.

Edited by edscott
Link to comment

Soooo.....

 

....I guess my cache that I will be buried with when I die won't be published. Was kinda looking forward to all the cacher's faces when they have to grab the container (and put it back) in my deadly grasp after digging me up.

 

:anibad:

 

Have your executors build you a cairn, a nice pile of rocks. No burying necessary. :laughing:

 

Is it considered burying if they have to dig through the ashes in my urn to find the cache?

 

Slight tangent, but we're veering anyway. This dude was buried riding his Harley.

 

buried-motorcycle.jpg

Link to comment

:drama:

 

Time to get some popcorn and move on to " tacks in trees " or " micro proliferation ".

I don't have my calendar handy, but I think the "Micro-Spew Hate" thread is scheduled for the second Wednesday of each month. :ph34r:

Right. You can set your watch by it.

 

Yes, and it goes on for a month each time.

Link to comment

Soooo.....

 

....I guess my cache that I will be buried with when I die won't be published. Was kinda looking forward to all the cacher's faces when they have to grab the container (and put it back) in my deadly grasp after digging me up.

 

:anibad:

 

Have your executors build you a cairn, a nice pile of rocks. No burying necessary. :laughing:

 

Yikes!

Link to comment

I find it interesting that the National Parks are afraid of supporting geocaching on "their" land, but are quite willing to open it to surface mining and logging.

 

Where do you find surface mining, and/or logging in any National Park? I see both activities and more in National Forests,(where geocaching is often allowed) but never in a National Park.

 

Google will show examples of areas that are under consideration.

 

Why don't you just be up front and show where surface mining on National Park land is being permitted?

Link to comment

I find it interesting that the National Parks are afraid of supporting geocaching on "their" land, but are quite willing to open it to surface mining and logging.

 

Where do you find surface mining, and/or logging in any National Park? I see both activities and more in National Forests,(where geocaching is often allowed) but never in a National Park.

 

Google will show examples of areas that are under consideration.

 

Why don't you just be up front and show where surface mining on National Park land is being permitted?

 

have fun reading from the NPS site... link

 

 

Mining operations on unpatented and patented claims can only take place in parks in accordance with an NPS permit and NPS regulations.

Link to comment

I find it interesting that the National Parks are afraid of supporting geocaching on "their" land, but are quite willing to open it to surface mining and logging.

 

Where do you find surface mining, and/or logging in any National Park? I see both activities and more in National Forests,(where geocaching is often allowed) but never in a National Park.

 

Google will show examples of areas that are under consideration.

 

Why don't you just be up front and show where surface mining on National Park land is being permitted?

 

have fun reading from the NPS site... link

 

 

Mining operations on unpatented and patented claims can only take place in parks in accordance with an NPS permit and NPS regulations.

Or the line just above that one

 

Many units of the National Park System contain unpatented and/or patented mining claims, which were either located before the park was established, or when the park was open to the location of new claims. Today, no new mining claims may be located within a unit of the National Park System.

 

So it appears that mining either existed before the park was established or at some period in the past whne the park was open to the ocation of new claims.

 

Unfortunately, the General Mining Law of 1872 doesn't apply caches (buried or not), so if you have a cache in someplace that later becomes a National Park, it seems likely that you will have to remove it. Don_J knows of an area adjacent to NPS administered land in the SMMNRA, where the caches in that area had to be removed after the land was transfered from the state to the NPS.

Link to comment

I find it interesting that the National Parks are afraid of supporting geocaching on "their" land, but are quite willing to open it to surface mining and logging.

 

Where do you find surface mining, and/or logging in any National Park? I see both activities and more in National Forests,(where geocaching is often allowed) but never in a National Park.

 

Google will show examples of areas that are under consideration.

 

Why don't you just be up front and show where surface mining on National Park land is being permitted?

 

have fun reading from the NPS site... link

 

 

Mining operations on unpatented and patented claims can only take place in parks in accordance with an NPS permit and NPS regulations.

Or the line just above that one

 

Many units of the National Park System contain unpatented and/or patented mining claims, which were either located before the park was established, or when the park was open to the location of new claims. Today, no new mining claims may be located within a unit of the National Park System.

 

So it appears that mining either existed before the park was established or at some period in the past whne the park was open to the ocation of new claims.

 

Unfortunately, the General Mining Law of 1872 doesn't apply caches (buried or not), so if you have a cache in someplace that later becomes a National Park, it seems likely that you will have to remove it. Don_J knows of an area adjacent to NPS administered land in the SMMNRA, where the caches in that area had to be removed after the land was transfered from the state to the NPS.

 

Also the logging is mostly salvage logging - the cutting of trees killed in wildfires, not quite the normal clear cut done for harvesting growing trees. Some of the parks are preparing to do selective thinning cutting to reduce the wildfire fuel and to improve the health of the ecosystem. Not your typical clear cut harvesting.

Link to comment
Post 83 posed some questions which I had hoped that the buried cache haters would reply to, disappointed that none have.

 

I don't consider myself a "buried cache hater", but I do consider myself a "guideline lover." After all, if the guidelines aren't followed, what's the sense of having them?

 

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.

- Was this hole digging done in making the cache, or was the hole there to begin with? Or the concrete around it was there, and the cache placed inside, with more concrete added? If reviewers are involved in the cache placement, I would hope they'd not be flouting the guidelines they're supposed to enforce.

 

- If it went against the guidelines at the time, then I think it should be archived or relocated in such a way to fit the guidelines. Sorry.

- I highly doubt that a local authority would think, "Oh, man! They don't want us burying caches! What a waste of time. No more caches for anyone!" :rolleyes:

- Please provide documentation of how much the "local businesses" have benefited from the series, and how many expect to close if the cache is relocated or archived. This sounds like exaggeration to me.

- I won't post the NA because I haven't found it. Share the GC number, and maybe if I'm in the area, I'll find it and post the NA for ya. ;)

- It isn't about the finders' dislike of buried caches. It's about the guidelines. Caches are NEVER buried, according to the guidelines. What part of that do people not understand? Tubes stuck in the ground are perhaps ambiguous and worthy of debate. If this cache's hole was pre-existent, that's an exception. But if the hole really WAS dug for the cache, it's pretty obvious that it violated the guidelines and should have been nixed long ago.

Link to comment
Post 83 posed some questions which I had hoped that the buried cache haters would reply to, disappointed that none have.

 

I don't consider myself a "buried cache hater", but I do consider myself a "guideline lover." After all, if the guidelines aren't followed, what's the sense of having them?

 

I always wonder about why people will blindly accept guidelines as rules and not question them.

 

Groundspeak has had a bury guildeline of one form or another for a long time. It is probably one of the earliest guidelines. However when first put in place there certainly seemed to be a number of exceptions that allow people to continue to hide cache in ways that involved some digging. When I started caching there were still a number of people who interpreted the guideline to apply only to hiding caches. You shouldn't need to dig to find the cache.

 

Shortly after I started the guideline was clarified that it applied to both hiding and finding caches. The digging was also defined to be the use of a shovel, trowel, or other pointy object.

 

In addition the guidelines at the time had a statement that they were only guidelines and that reviewers (or in some cases, restricted to Groundspeak HQ) could make exceptions. There was no guarantee that if an exception was made in the past that the same exception would be made for other caches. Exceptions were determined on a case by case basis.

 

Between the definition of digging and availability of exceptions, the guideline made a lot of sense. We knew that some segment of land managers had expressed concerned that geocaching would encourage digging, and that these land managers had seen problems with other "treasure hunting" types of activities that resulted in either in extensive damage or in the looting of artifacts from parks. And while buried caches never caused the kinds of problems the land managers were so concerned about, a guideline that efffectively discouraged digging made it easier to get land managers to accept geocaching.

 

Over time the wording of the guideline has been changed.

 

First the general statement about exceptions was removed. My understanding was that reviewers got tired of having to defend why they gave an exception in one case but denied in in another. Without the comment that exceptions could be made, there was less of effort by people whose cache was denied to make claims that their cache deserved an exception. My belief is that behind the scenes exceptions are still made; certainly Groundspeak HQ still makes exceptions for some guidelines.

 

Next the definition of digging changed. Tools are no longer mentioned and instead it got defined as creating any hole. I don't recall Groundspeak providing any rationale for this change, even thouugh this was asked for. I personally believe this goes far beyond any guideline needed to assure that caching doesn't cause the kinds of problems that have been seen with metal detecting and other hobbies.

 

Don't put me down as a "guidelines hater", just as a "guidelines questioner". When TPTB have taken the time to explain the rationale for a particular guideline, I may not have liked it, but I have accepted the explanation. Without an explanation, don't expect me to go around and report caches that violate some guideline that makes no sense. Others may wish to blindly accept rules foisted on them and for whatever reason feel compelled to report caches which, in their view, don't follow those rules.

Link to comment
Caches are NEVER buried, according to the guidelines. What part of that do people not understand?
It seems to me that the main thing people don't understand about this guideline is the meaning of "buried". Yes, I'm serious.

 

In the context of the guidelines, "buried" does not mean "underground" or "below grade". I've found a number of caches that have been underground or below grade, but the cache owner did not "dig or create a hole in the ground", and there was no guideline violation.

 

In the context of the guidelines, "buried" does not mean "completely covered" or "concealed". I've found a number of caches that have been completely covered or concealed (e.g., the ubiquitous UPS caches), but the cache owner did not "dig or create a hole in the ground", and there was no guideline violation.

Link to comment
Caches are NEVER buried, according to the guidelines. What part of that do people not understand?

It seems to me that the main thing people don't understand about this guideline is the meaning of "buried". Yes, I'm serious.

 

 

Yes, this is very true. People use their own definition of "buried" and decide their cache is not buried. Examples:

 

The geocache . . . was not/has not been covered with earth in any way, or form.

 

The cache was NOT buried. It is a camouflaged box that contains a plastic jar that has the log and swag in it. The lid to the box is ABOVE the ground.

 

it's partially underground not buried
Link to comment
It isn't about the finders' dislike of buried caches. It's about the guidelines. Caches are NEVER buried, according to the guidelines. What part of that do people not understand?

Well, in this case GC30, people delight in the thought of someday visiting, knowing full well it's partially buried.

Sure, it's grandfathered, but if guidelines really meant never, it would have been archived some time ago.

Link to comment
It isn't about the finders' dislike of buried caches. It's about the guidelines. Caches are NEVER buried, according to the guidelines. What part of that do people not understand?

Well, in this case GC30, people delight in the thought of someday visiting, knowing full well it's partially buried.

Sure, it's grandfathered, but if guidelines really meant never, it would have been archived some time ago.

Yes, the issue is complex...

Geocaching roots are in buried caches. It doesn't seem unreasonable that land managers in the early days became of this via a simple internet search and some may have aggressively pursued prohibiting the activity. The threat of prohibition was an early concern and at some point the anti-burying requirement was enacted on this site. Given the fear of prohibition as a driver for the restriction, it is not very logical that buried caches remain as evidence for current day land managers to discover and enact prohibition.

 

From this thread, which is also very easily found by inquiring land managers, it is evident that caches continue to be buried and also that there does not exist a predominant opinion that buried caches are bad. I think the latter point is interesting as that was not the case in the forum, I think, when I began caching 3 years ago. Maybe there are just so darn many caches and Geocaching has gotten so clean and urban that many feel the loss of caching in parks and forests is no longer catastrophic.

 

But there are cachers that think it would be catastrophic and therefore the guideline enforced. In good conscience, they can't just walk away. They see this just as important as running into a land owner who tells them they want a cache placed w/o permission to be removed. The finder goes straight to NA because anything else could delay an important archive. Most here would not blame them, I suppose. Reporting a buried cache for archive, however, will bring the cache cop crowd. This is a phenomenon that makes me think the issue is complex.

 

Maybe deep down, we love buried caches, and, I think, there would exist some psychological theory that we therefore love Geocaching. So we encounter this paradox which is to say we love buried caches which could lead to the end of Geocaching in some areas.

Link to comment
Caches are NEVER buried, according to the guidelines. What part of that do people not understand?

It seems to me that the main thing people don't understand about this guideline is the meaning of "buried". Yes, I'm serious.

 

 

Yes, this is very true. People use their own definition of "buried" and decide their cache is not buried. Examples:

 

The geocache . . . was not/has not been covered with earth in any way, or form.

 

The cache was NOT buried. It is a camouflaged box that contains a plastic jar that has the log and swag in it. The lid to the box is ABOVE the ground.

 

it's partially underground not buried

 

Nancy I agree with you. But what people seem to be overlooking is the Guidelines address half these "justifications".:

 

I. Placement Guidelines

 

1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines

 

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

 

People seem to be leaving the rest of that sentence off. And I never thought this Guideline nor this discussion pertained to any cache that was in place before the Guideline took effect.

 

I believe if GS did not have a logical reason for "adding, modifying, clarifying, ect." this Guideline... it would not read that way today. It does not matter what people think is ok, or people think is catastrophic. GS makes the rules. I do not agree with all of them... but hey, it's their sandbox.

Edited by NeecesandNephews
Link to comment

I always wonder about why people will blindly accept guidelines as rules and not question them.

Maybe folks like to have their caches published? :unsure:

When I create a hide, I could cut my way through a fence, ignore the "No Trespassing" signs, hot wire a backhoe, dig a 10' deep hole, then drop in my ammo can, and spend the next several months arguing about the guidelines. Or, I could follow the guidelines and spend those months reading "Found It!" logs.

Link to comment

I should be more clear about my position: whether I agree with a guideline or not, I always follow them all for my hides. I do not consider anything about them optional and I would consider lying to a reviewer about anything related to my hides unacceptable.

 

In fact, I take great care in ensuring that my hides would not give anyone acid reflux for any reason. I avoid lamp-posts, transformers, fake sprinklers, etc. assiduously.

 

What we are discussing here, however, is not about what I would hide, but what I would report. I consider that a different issue. It's one thing for me to hold myself to a high standard in my hides, but quite another for me to second-guess another cacher's interaction with a reviewer. Basically, if I report a cache as buried, I am implicitly making the claim that the hider lied to the reviewer about the cache placement. I am uncomfortable making such an accusation without further evidence. Maybe that is why I find cache cops so annoying: they seem happy to hurl that kind of accusation around.

Link to comment

What we are discussing here, however, is not about what I would hide, but what I would report. I consider that a different issue. It's one thing for me to hold myself to a high standard in my hides, but quite another for me to second-guess another cacher's interaction with a reviewer. Basically, if I report a cache as buried, I am implicitly making the claim that the hider lied to the reviewer about the cache placement. I am uncomfortable making such an accusation without further evidence. Maybe that is why I find cache cops so annoying: they seem happy to hurl that kind of accusation around.

 

So a private email to the reviewer, asking "Hey, this cache seems to violate the 'No Bury' rule <see picture attached>. Were you aware of this situation?" would be out of line?

Link to comment

I always wonder about why people will blindly accept guidelines as rules and not question them.

Maybe folks like to have their caches published? :unsure:

When I create a hide, I could cut my way through a fence, ignore the "No Trespassing" signs, hot wire a backhoe, dig a 10' deep hole, then drop in my ammo can, and spend the next several months arguing about the guidelines. Or, I could follow the guidelines and spend those months reading "Found It!" logs.

There's a difference between questioning guidelines and following guidelines. I agree that if you place a cache that appears to be in violation of a guideline that you run the risk someone will report it to the reviewer. If the reviewer has the same interpretation of the guidelines, he may archive your cache. Further, if you provided the reviewer with information contrary to how the cache turned out to be hidden, you're likely to go on the reviewer's watch list and have a much harder time getting caches published. I even agree that at least a few of the caches the OP reported seem to violate the no-bury guideline, so I have no issue with her reporting these.

 

I stated above that you shouldn't expect me to go around reporting caches that violate a guideline (or interpretation of a guideline) that I find questionable. But that's just me. Others may feel that you should report any guideline violation no matter how you feel about the guideline.

 

What bothers me is how people will support a guideline just because it is a guideline. The problem with the bury guideline is that people believe that park managers would ban geocaches if there was any chance that someone would dig in their park. I don't believe this is true and nobody has made an argument that convinces otherwise. While I accept that land managers have specific concerns about digging, I don't believe that you have to ban all buried caches without exception to address their concerns.

 

It may be that some particular land manager has stated to Groundspeak that without a total ban on digging they would not allow caches in their lands. It would be nice for Groundspeak to share this so the community can decide if it is so important to have caches in these areas, or perhaps instead for the local community to find a way to address that land manager's real concerns that doesn't involve a total ban.

Link to comment

I don't consider myself a "buried cache hater", but I do consider myself a "guideline lover." After all, if the guidelines aren't followed, what's the sense of having them?

 

Hi TriciaG, totally agree with your statement. Not everyone does though. For instance the OP dislikes buried caches and quite rightly reports them because she believes them to be against the guidelines as she sees them, but then states that other guideline infringements such as screws in trees are acceptable and therefore does not report it. All or nothing, we can't pick and choose.

 

I think that TPTB should come out with the official position with clear unambiguous wording and then either any and all caches in violation of the wording are removed or left as they are with new hides to be compliant. Then deal with screws etc afterwards in the same manner.

Or, leave as it is and the community will remain divided.

Link to comment

What we are discussing here, however, is not about what I would hide, but what I would report. I consider that a different issue. It's one thing for me to hold myself to a high standard in my hides, but quite another for me to second-guess another cacher's interaction with a reviewer. Basically, if I report a cache as buried, I am implicitly making the claim that the hider lied to the reviewer about the cache placement. I am uncomfortable making such an accusation without further evidence. Maybe that is why I find cache cops so annoying: they seem happy to hurl that kind of accusation around.

 

So a private email to the reviewer, asking "Hey, this cache seems to violate the 'No Bury' rule <see picture attached>. Were you aware of this situation?" would be out of line?

 

To some people it is. Hide whatever pleases you without any regard to silly "guidelines". If someone asks about it, angrily accuse them of being a cache cop, while implying that the hide "could" have explicit permission, although it is nobody's business whether it actually does or not. Unfortunately I've seen this occur more often than if the hide really had permission.

 

When simply communicating to a reviewer, nobody should ever have to be worried about being accused of being a cache cop. Intimidation to keep silent is always a bad idea.

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...