Jump to content

Buried caches - Update


NanCycle

Recommended Posts

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.

 

I think this is correct....as I said before, since no one can be 100% sure tools were used in making any of these hides why not just log a find and move on.....Good Grief !

I recently hid two regulars in a local large nature trail ( they love our caches and the traffic they bring to the park....we've held at least 3 events here as well )....it's a swamp area and believe me these caches are buried, one of the holes I found near the base of a tree was horizontal....I slipped in the container and covered the opening with a piece of log.

 

Again...IF YOU DON'T KNOW THAT TOOLS WERE USED IN MAKING THE HIDE , WHY REPORT IT ?

 

Edited by BAMBOOZLE
Link to comment

For instance the OP dislikes buried caches

 

To say that I "dislike" buried caches, is a misstatement; this has nothing to do with my personal likes and dislikes. Actually, I thought some of them were quite cool, but buried caches are against Groundspeak guidelines, and I think they would not be permitted by any State Park or most other land managers on their lands. Unfortunately, it seems that any buried cache that is allowed to remain will give some cacher the idea that it is acceptable and a good way to hide another cache. For example:

 

We have personally found several interesting caches that were partially underground and assumed this to be acceptable as these are caches that have been in place for some time (one since 2004).

 

What I "dislike" are micros in junipers.

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.

And it's not the only one.

 

Dave Ulmer's bucket: partially buried.

 

Oldest cache in Georgia (GC1D): partially buried.

 

First cache in Germany (GC77): partially 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.

And it's not the only one.

 

Dave Ulmer's bucket: partially buried.

 

Oldest cache in Georgia (GC1D): partially buried.

 

First cache in Germany (GC77): partially buried.

 

Exactly.

Almost ALL regular and small caches we've found were partially buried.

Should we have requested a NA on a few thousand caches......ridiculous !

Link to comment

For instance the OP dislikes buried caches

 

To say that I "dislike" buried caches, is a misstatement; this has nothing to do with my personal likes and dislikes. Actually, I thought some of them were quite cool, but buried caches are against Groundspeak guidelines, and I think they would not be permitted by any State Park or most other land managers on their lands. Unfortunately, it seems that any buried cache that is allowed to remain will give some cacher the idea that it is acceptable and a good way to hide another cache. For example:

 

We have personally found several interesting caches that were partially underground and assumed this to be acceptable as these are caches that have been in place for some time (one since 2004).

 

What I "dislike" are micros in junipers.

 

It's not a misstatement at all and has a lot to do with your personal likes and dislikes. You clearly stated that you report these caches because you think they're against your rules, but then you also stated you don't report hooks or screws in trees because while it's against the rules, you don't think it's hurting anything. That's picking and choosing what rules you want to follow based off personal opinion. If you're going to start reporting caches because they are against what guidelines say, start reporting all caches that go against guidelines. The problem here is that you don't stop at just reporting them, you do follow ups. The reviewers know what they're doing. Give it a rest.

Link to comment

What bothers me is how people will support a guideline just because it is a guideline.

Yup. We need more anarchy... :unsure::ph34r:

I guess you're right. The world would be a lot less violent if Egyptians stayed out of Tahrir Square, if Syrians would just respect their government, or if Ukrainians would just learn to love Mother Russia.

 

I understand the Groundspeak is a business and not a government, and that aside from perhaps canceling my premium membership I don't have a vote (but the people protesting in those countries don't have a vote either).

 

In recent years the guidelines have become more authoritarian. TPTB no longer rely on input from the community as the did in the past, and now make decision on what is best for geocaching from their office in Seattle without asking geocachers for input (or if they do, it isn't done publicly as it once was in these forums). Exceptions have become rarer - almost non-existent. While many may see loopholes being closed, others see guidelines creep. Changes simply appear in a site update with maybe a terse statement in the release notes; rarely with any explanation for the change. And then people make it there job to report every guidelines violation because "what good are guidelines if they are not enforced".

 

I shiver to think what the world would be if all people were to accept their totalitarian governments and turn in their neighbors for violation of an unjust law because "what good are laws if they are not enforced".

 

(Someone is bound to invoke Godwin's Law - what good is Godwin's Law if it isn't enforced :ph34r: )

Link to comment

There is a cache in this area that is buried in a meterbox. It is pretty obvious the meter box was put in just to hide the cache. However, the property manager of the site is the one that put the box there, so a cache could be hidden. I have no idea how Groundspeak feels about it, but I have been told they know and approved it. Be that as it may, I have no intention of reporting this cache. It seems everyone from the property managers to the finders like the cache. It has 32 favorites. I just wish there was someway to let seekers know one like this has an exception.

 

It would take a very obvious flaunting of the rules for me to post a needs archived.

Link to comment
Exactly.

Almost ALL regular and small caches we've found were partially buried.

Should we have requested a NA on a few thousand caches......ridiculous !

I've never found a buried cache. I've found caches under things (branches, logs, etc.) or with decomposed matter heaped up and over them, and one at the base of a signpost, but none have been "buried" as per the guidelines.

 

I'm sorry your experience has been different.

Link to comment

There is a cache in this area that is buried in a meterbox. It is pretty obvious the meter box was put in just to hide the cache. However, the property manager of the site is the one that put the box there, so a cache could be hidden. I have no idea how Groundspeak feels about it, but I have been told they know and approved it. Be that as it may, I have no intention of reporting this cache. It seems everyone from the property managers to the finders like the cache. It has 32 favorites. I just wish there was someway to let seekers know one like this has an exception.

 

It would take a very obvious flaunting of the rules for me to post a needs archived.

 

There is a way to let seekers know this one has an exception--it can be written up on the cache page that it has permission of the property manager and approval from TPTB.

Link to comment

There is a cache in this area that is buried in a meterbox. It is pretty obvious the meter box was put in just to hide the cache. However, the property manager of the site is the one that put the box there, so a cache could be hidden. I have no idea how Groundspeak feels about it, but I have been told they know and approved it. Be that as it may, I have no intention of reporting this cache. It seems everyone from the property managers to the finders like the cache. It has 32 favorites. I just wish there was someway to let seekers know one like this has an exception.

 

It would take a very obvious flaunting of the rules for me to post a needs archived.

 

There is a way to let seekers know this one has an exception--it can be written up on the cache page that it has permission of the property manager and approval from TPTB.

 

Yeah, I think I worded that wrong. I just wish it would be written on the cache page when there is an exception.

Link to comment
Exactly.

Almost ALL regular and small caches we've found were partially buried.

Should we have requested a NA on a few thousand caches......ridiculous !

I've never found a buried cache. I've found caches under things (branches, logs, etc.) or with decomposed matter heaped up and over them, and one at the base of a signpost, but none have been "buried" as per the guidelines.

 

I'm sorry your experience has been different.

 

What I said was " partially buried " ....according to this thread and the one that ran before it this is illegal according to the guidelines.

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.

 

I think this is correct....as I said before, since no one can be 100% sure tools were used in making any of these hides why not just log a find and move on.....Good Grief !

I recently hid two regulars in a local large nature trail ( they love our caches and the traffic they bring to the park....we've held at least 3 events here as well )....it's a swamp area and believe me these caches are buried, one of the holes I found near the base of a tree was horizontal....I slipped in the container and covered the opening with a piece of log.

 

Again...IF YOU DON'T KNOW THAT TOOLS WERE USED IN MAKING THE HIDE , WHY REPORT IT ?

 

 

If a cache is clearly 50 yards the other side of a fence with signs warning the land is private, presumably you shouldn't report the hide because you don't know for a fact that it didn't have permission?

Link to comment
What I said was " partially buried " ....according to this thread and the one that ran before it this is illegal according to the guidelines.

Edit my post to say "partially or fully buried as per the guidelines" instead of buried, and it is still accurate. No caches I have found have had to disturb the soil to be placed.

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.

 

I think this is correct....as I said before, since no one can be 100% sure tools were used in making any of these hides why not just log a find and move on.....Good Grief !

I recently hid two regulars in a local large nature trail ( they love our caches and the traffic they bring to the park....we've held at least 3 events here as well )....it's a swamp area and believe me these caches are buried, one of the holes I found near the base of a tree was horizontal....I slipped in the container and covered the opening with a piece of log.

 

Again...IF YOU DON'T KNOW THAT TOOLS WERE USED IN MAKING THE HIDE , WHY REPORT IT ?

 

 

People will communicate with each other one way or the other, and trying to stifle that is very bad form to say the least. Someone may mention it to the reviewer, and the reviewer will either know about it and provide an explanation, or contact the CO and ask them about it. In your case it sounds fine. If it isn't, so what? There are a thousand other ideas available to create, and obsessing about any one in particular is not healthy. Being emotionally vested that much over a cache is not recommended either. Some people just don't know the difference between their cache and a hole in the ground.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment
What I said was " partially buried " ....according to this thread and the one that ran before it this is illegal according to the guidelines.

Edit my post to say "partially or fully buried as per the guidelines" instead of buried, and it is still accurate. No caches I have found have had to disturb the soil to be placed.

I've found over 1500 traditional caches, and only a handful or so of them have been partially or fully buried (most of those were many years ago). It's not just regional, because I've found about 400 caches over 250 miles from home (35 states and 9 countries).

Link to comment

My turn to step on to the hot plate.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC547TX_gmmcj2-gravity-the-great-equalizer

 

Imagine a large U comprised of 5" PVC pipe. Bury it. Cover the openings with round sprinkler boxes, also buried. Fill the PVC with water. Place two floating containers, one on each side. The containers are sized so that they can't be fished out. You must press on one to force the other out via water pressure.

 

Figure that one used existing holes?

Link to comment

My turn to step on to the hot plate.

 

http://www.geocachin...great-equalizer

 

Imagine a large U comprised of 5" PVC pipe. Bury it. Cover the openings with round sprinkler boxes, also buried. Fill the PVC with water. Place two floating containers, one on each side. The containers are sized so that they can't be fished out. You must press on one to force the other out via water pressure.

 

Figure that one used existing holes?

 

You really have to love the other cacher who came to the CO relief, by calling you an a**. What are these folks thinking? Squirrel holes? Really?!?!

Don't fret Flushes... There is no such thing as a "cheap way to a favorite point" There are several of us "old timers" that are having quite a "discussion" on this "Soap Box" log... Just because you used the existing squirrel holes as an opportunity for a great cache doesn't mean you have done anything wrong.... Existing holes are AND have always been OK... by the design & placement of your cache (in squirrel central) this is completely obvious that was what was done.. taking advantage of an existing set of holes & tunnel.. Why do "people" always ASSume the worst?

 

I guess they think the guidelines are only for other, less creative types....

Link to comment

My turn to step on to the hot plate.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC547TX_gmmcj2-gravity-the-great-equalizer

 

Imagine a large U comprised of 5" PVC pipe. Bury it. Cover the openings with round sprinkler boxes, also buried. Fill the PVC with water. Place two floating containers, one on each side. The containers are sized so that they can't be fished out. You must press on one to force the other out via water pressure.

 

Figure that one used existing holes?

 

Interesting apparent mea cupla from the CO:

 

I do know that Groundspeak forbids digging; just thought it was a misdemeanor more than a felony.

Link to comment

My turn to step on to the hot plate.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC547TX_gmmcj2-gravity-the-great-equalizer

 

Imagine a large U comprised of 5" PVC pipe. Bury it. Cover the openings with round sprinkler boxes, also buried. Fill the PVC with water. Place two floating containers, one on each side. The containers are sized so that they can't be fished out. You must press on one to force the other out via water pressure.

 

Figure that one used existing holes?

 

Interesting apparent mea cupla from the CO:

 

I do know that Groundspeak forbids digging; just thought it was a misdemeanor more than a felony.

 

If people are really getting that impression (not sure why...seems pretty clear to me), then perhaps Groundspeak needs to amp up the language and make it more prominent.

 

I'm actually getting a little weary of holding my peace on a lot of these micros and nanos that a pushed into the soil. For a long time I just shrugged and didn't let it bother me. Now it seems like a "cheap" way of hiding a cache in a place where there might not otherwise be an obvious way to hide something.

 

As for the "squirrel hole" comment on that page...what? Sorry...just try explaining to the Park manager that you just happened to find a squirrel hole and then decided to shove a big PVC pipe through it. See how that flies.

Link to comment

My turn to step on to the hot plate.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC547TX_gmmcj2-gravity-the-great-equalizer

 

Imagine a large U comprised of 5" PVC pipe. Bury it. Cover the openings with round sprinkler boxes, also buried. Fill the PVC with water. Place two floating containers, one on each side. The containers are sized so that they can't be fished out. You must press on one to force the other out via water pressure.

 

Figure that one used existing holes?

 

Interesting apparent mea cupla from the CO:

 

I do know that Groundspeak forbids digging; just thought it was a misdemeanor more than a felony.

 

If people are really getting that impression (not sure why...seems pretty clear to me), then perhaps Groundspeak needs to amp up the language and make it more prominent.

 

 

How much stronger do they need to get? It is a capital crime, death penalty for the cache. But people have to report them first. How many finds did that cache have before someone said something?

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

It has at least 10 finds and just about everyone, except me, has given it a favorite point.

 

This CO has at least 3 or 4 other caches hidden in the same sprinkler box. As seen here: http://www.wholesale...-box-w-lid.html

 

I know they dug a hole and buried it. Where do you just come across one of these, that upon opening it, there is just empty space, not irrigation equipment? .. and to have happened upon these empty multiple times? I've even gone to one that was freshly hidden and could see the the signs of the dig still present.

 

I didn't say anything about those since I know the CO will just claim that they found it empty that way and the reviewer will have to side with them. In fact, with this current cache, I have to provide pictures before the reviewer will make a decision about it.

 

Even though the CO and the other helpful participant have admitted to the guilt in their round about way. The CO is the longest active cacher in the city and so I am surely going to catch a lot of flak about doing this. These sort of shenanigans are not uncommon around here. I welcome you to look up the caches of the person who made the squirrel hole comment. Now find their newest TB hotel and peruse the uploaded pictures. Do you see something that has been mounted into poured concrete on the side of the road? How many favorite points does it have (11)? Now look up this person's other caches. Find the cache with the most favorites (30). Imagine going out to the sidewalk next to the wall of a nice sub division. Here we have about a 4 ft wide strip of dirt and bushes. We dig a big hole. We then cover it with a concrete slab that we've mounted irrigation equipment into so that it looks like it belongs there. You have to pull on the beast and slide it over to get the cache out of the hole. Of course the CO just found that hole there.

Edited by fbingha
Link to comment

 

...

 

I didn't say anything about those since I know the CO will just claim that they found it empty that way and the reviewer will have to side with them.

 

...

 

The CO is the longest active cacher in the city and so I am surely going to catch a lot of flak about doing this.

 

...

 

First, you could not be further from the truth than saying we would claim we found it that way. If we had the slightest inkling that our caches were bothering anyone, we would have ceased these hides. We don't even know you, why do you assume you know what we would do? You have logged finds on these caches of ours and never even hinted that you were unhappy with them, why not? Maybe even send us a private message. We didn't even know there was an issue until you posted a snide comment about our cache on another cache's page.

 

Next, we enthusiastically DISCOURAGE any cacher for giving you flak about this, you are obviously passionate about this issue.

 

Finally, we enthusiastically ENCOURAGE you and others to let the CO know if you have a problem with a cache, its the polite thing to do. In general we are not ogres, and passionate about geocaching too.

Link to comment

It has at least 10 finds and just about everyone, except me, has given it a favorite point.

 

This CO has at least 3 or 4 other caches hidden in the same sprinkler box. As seen here: http://www.wholesale...-box-w-lid.html

 

I know they dug a hole and buried it. Where do you just come across one of these, that upon opening it, there is just empty space, not irrigation equipment? .. and to have happened upon these empty multiple times? I've even gone to one that was freshly hidden and could see the the signs of the dig still present.

 

I didn't say anything about those since I know the CO will just claim that they found it empty that way and the reviewer will have to side with them. In fact, with this current cache, I have to provide pictures before the reviewer will make a decision about it.

 

Even though the CO and the other helpful participant have admitted to the guilt in their round about way. The CO is the longest active cacher in the city and so I am surely going to catch a lot of flak about doing this. These sort of shenanigans are not uncommon around here. I welcome you to look up the caches of the person who made the squirrel hole comment. Now find their newest TB hotel and peruse the uploaded pictures. Do you see something that has been mounted into poured concrete on the side of the road? How many favorite points does it have (11)? Now look up this person's other caches. Find the cache with the most favorites (30). Imagine going out to the sidewalk next to the wall of a nice sub division. Here we have about a 4 ft wide strip of dirt and bushes. We dig a big hole. We then cover it with a concrete slab that we've mounted irrigation equipment into so that it looks like it belongs there. You have to pull on the beast and slide it over to get the cache out of the hole. Of course the CO just found that hole there.

Link to comment

Wow, try to make me out as the bad guy because I didn't report your other buried caches when I had the 'suspicion' about their origins.

 

Let's Play Two .. Okay, there could be an empty box there. <shrug>

Our Name is the Game v2 .. Again, there could be an empty box there but no reason to be where there is nothing being watered in a barren area but <shrug>

Cat & Mouse .. Okay, here I know you buried it because it wasn't there when I looked previously and I could see the fresh dirt. I didn't report it and therefore I am guilty, not you.

The Equilibrium cache .. okay now you've gone too far by burying two and connecting them underground, in a park.

 

.. but you are the victim here of my failure to report? my failure to let you know that I had a problem. My snide comment merely congratulated someone for not getting a cheap favorite by burying a cache. Your deal breaking cache, after all, was only planted as a favorite magnet seeing as how it is part of a favorites competition. I have a problem with people burying caches. If you are passionate about geocaching why are you so passionate about your hides being buried?

 

I have no agenda here as didn't attend that event and am not competing in this favorites competition.

Link to comment

See here is the problem Fbinga automatically assumes the worst... For instance: hereis the photo of the new TB hotel while in construction in my garage, The base concrete was POURED at MY house and the heavy block was placed ABOVE GROUND to hold the fabulous TB hotel up. Fbinga assumes I dug a hole and poured concrete, I know what the rules are AND I follow them. Like Fizzy said, To make accusations is saying the CO LIED about "I agree to GC coms guidelines while placing this cache" Bad form. I HATE HAVING TO POST A PHOTO OF MY CACHE TO PROVE MY INNOCENCE

 

http://imgcdn.geocaching.com/cache/log/23f9a7ba-aad1-4056-8906-77d4a17716b0.jpg

Edited by Handyman:)
Link to comment

I never said you dug a hole for that cache, just that you've poured concrete on the side of the road. I only mentioned you because you called me an a** for bringing http://www.geocachin...great-equalizer to everyone's attention. Squirrel holes? Really? Your response to me on that cache says all that needs to be said about what you think.

 

Did you not dig a hole for Heavy Camo?? Just found that huge hole already there in a place where the gardeners would have filled in any holes. Right. Maybe I'll take a picture of that the next time I am over there.

 

I'm going to take the pictures of the Equilibrium cache and send them to the reviewer. I am also going to archive all of my caches and bow out of this. Groundspeak heavily promotes digging as a very bad thing but whenever it is brought up, other cachers attack and reviewers are very hesitant to act. We're not talking about pushing a micro in the dirt, this involves shovels.

 

Ya guys can continue to go about Bakersfield burying things to find. Come on here to criticize me when you lot are the problem!

Edited by fbingha
Link to comment

Sometimes, being a responsible geocachers means bringing a reviewer's attention to a cache. This game is largely self-policing, and relies on the goodwill of land owners and land managers in order to continue. Negligent cache placements are a black eye on the game.

 

If your cache is placed according to the guidelines and with the proper permissions, there is no reason to be upset if someone mentions an issue to a reviewer. The reviewer will always give the cache owner a chance to explain the situation.

 

It is absolutely disgraceful to bully another geocacher for choosing to do the right thing.

Link to comment

So a squirrel dug a U shaped hole, and someone managed to recognize it, as well as installing a PVC pipe the entire length without digging? That's incredible.

 

The problem with these hides is not usually the cache, as the park system probably does not mind in this area. Its the reaction by the CO who gets upset, rather than explaining or apologizing. Then when the reviewer ignores the NA, it sends a clear signal that these are tolerated, and sets up a uncomfortable conflict between finders and hiders, especially when it gets copied in a more sensitive area.

Link to comment

The problem with these hides is not usually the cache, as the park system probably does not mind in this area. Its the reaction by the CO who gets upset, rather than explaining or apologizing. Then when the reviewer ignores the NA, it sends a clear signal that these are tolerated, and sets up a uncomfortable conflict between finders and hiders, especially when it gets copied in a more sensitive area.

That's that problem with a guideline that exists in a vacuum without a rationale. Rather than understanding that

  1. Some land managers have a misconception that caches are [often] buried and they need to be reassured that geocachers aren't about to descend on their park and dig up everything
  2. Some areas may be more sensitive to digging (archeological sites, underground cables, landscaping, etc.)
  3. Most land managers could live with some caches being buried, if not on their property then at least in places where the hider has permission to dig.

we have people who believe that this guideline should be absolute with not even tiny holes made to hide a cache. They fear that anyone who sees such a cache will feel this is such a good idea that it must be copied everywhere. They believe that since many caches are placed without explicit permission, if the guidelines allowed for burying caches with permission in appropriate locations, people would bury caches without permission in inappropriate places. I'm not convinced that this fear of someone burying a cache resulting in the mass banning caches justifies an absolute ban. Certainly some copycatting is avoided when there are fewer buried caches to begin with. However I believe a guideline that allows these caches but makes them hard to get published would still keep the numbers low, and would encourage more reporting of the ones that didn't get permission.

Link to comment
Then when the reviewer ignores the NA, it sends a clear signal that these are tolerated, and sets up a uncomfortable conflict between finders and hiders, especially when it gets copied in a more sensitive area.

One should not assume that a reviewer has ignored an NA log just because there has been no response, as yet, by a reviewer. As should be clear from this thread, the issues involved are not always black and white, multiple perspectives may exist, and it can take time to consider the situation.

Link to comment

The problem with these hides is not usually the cache, as the park system probably does not mind in this area. Its the reaction by the CO who gets upset, rather than explaining or apologizing. Then when the reviewer ignores the NA, it sends a clear signal that these are tolerated, and sets up a uncomfortable conflict between finders and hiders, especially when it gets copied in a more sensitive area.

That's that problem with a guideline that exists in a vacuum without a rationale. Rather than understanding that

  1. Some land managers have a misconception that caches are [often] buried and they need to be reassured that geocachers aren't about to descend on their park and dig up everything
  2. Some areas may be more sensitive to digging (archeological sites, underground cables, landscaping, etc.)
  3. Most land managers could live with some caches being buried, if not on their property then at least in places where the hider has permission to dig.

we have people who believe that this guideline should be absolute with not even tiny holes made to hide a cache. They fear that anyone who sees such a cache will feel this is such a good idea that it must be copied everywhere. They believe that since many caches are placed without explicit permission, if the guidelines allowed for burying caches with permission in appropriate locations, people would bury caches without permission in inappropriate places. I'm not convinced that this fear of someone burying a cache resulting in the mass banning caches justifies an absolute ban. Certainly some copycatting is avoided when there are fewer buried caches to begin with. However I believe a guideline that allows these caches but makes them hard to get published would still keep the numbers low, and would encourage more reporting of the ones that didn't get permission.

 

Yes, while I agree with most of that, the problem is that more detailed guidelines will only result in less people reading them. I suppose many just follow others by copying what they see rather than reading any of it. Then there are people who think that something as simple as a nano attached to the bottom of a bottle cap or penny is in gross violation. Its kinda vague about the type of ground penetration that is tolerated, even while trying to keep it simple.

 

Watching people interpret simple driving signage and signals could be used as an example. There is an intersection around here with a green arrow for left turns. The green arrow disappears and a few will sit through the solid green light with no other cars around until the next time it appears before they turn. Now if there was a red arrow they would be correct, but there isn't any. They simply don't understand that a green arrow is to give right of way, not to give the only instance of allowed left hand turns. At another intersection there is a sign that says No Turn on Red from 7AM to 9AM and 3PM to 5PM. This is enough to confuse people enough for them to sit at the light with their right turn signal on at all times of day, despite when there is no other cars on the road.

 

I'd like to see some buried hides officially sanctioned, but that would ultimately result in confusion.

Link to comment
Then when the reviewer ignores the NA, it sends a clear signal that these are tolerated, and sets up a uncomfortable conflict between finders and hiders, especially when it gets copied in a more sensitive area.

One should not assume that a reviewer has ignored an NA log just because there has been no response, as yet, by a reviewer. As should be clear from this thread, the issues involved are not always black and white, multiple perspectives may exist, and it can take time to consider the situation.

 

It's speculation because there is no other type of explanation available. Yes, we could imagine that there are intense discussions going on behind the scenes, but with complete silence following, that seems silly. Often it is said that it is a private matter, despite the hide being posted for all of the public to visit and discuss. Something like this should be archived if it is in direct conflict with what the reviewer has been led to believe, or the guidelines. Unarchival is always an option.

Link to comment
Then when the reviewer ignores the NA, it sends a clear signal that these are tolerated, and sets up a uncomfortable conflict between finders and hiders, especially when it gets copied in a more sensitive area.

One should not assume that a reviewer has ignored an NA log just because there has been no response, as yet, by a reviewer. As should be clear from this thread, the issues involved are not always black and white, multiple perspectives may exist, and it can take time to consider the situation.

 

It's speculation because there is no other type of explanation available. Yes, we could imagine that there are intense discussions going on behind the scenes, but with complete silence following, that seems silly. Often it is said that it is a private matter, despite the hide being posted for all of the public to visit and discuss. Something like this should be archived if it is in direct conflict with what the reviewer has been led to believe, or the guidelines. Unarchival is always an option.

 

It would have been appropriate that LavaLizard disclosed that they were offering their opinion from the perspective of the reviewer that will ultimately decide the fate of this cache. Until they do so, I'm giving them the benefit of doubt. What bothers me is the fact that we keep hearing that this is in a park. If it was out in the desert where only geocachers and illegal dumpers visit, I wouldn't be so concerned.

 

I personally think that the three Southern California reviewers are probably the most responsive in the entire world. If there is a lag in getting a cache archived, then I am certain that something is going on in the background.

Link to comment

I'm done .. The reviewer asked for proof and proof is given. I don't care what happens now as I am no longer going to geocache.

 

If I run across such caches while I am out running, physically running, then I will just alert the parks department.

Edited by fbingha
Link to comment

The cache has been archived but the reviewer made sure to let everyone know that "this cache is inventive and clever and it is clear that it is a popular cache as judged by the finders" and they archived it "with great reluctance".

 

Wow, all I can say is wow. That attitude really sends a message about what the reviewer thinks about this. Hey CO! You did an outstanding job there with this cache but look I'm sorry, this cache cop told on you so I have to do what I have to do because, well, you've been ratted out. Keep trying!

 

My suggestion to anyone who wishes to report a geocache. Just don't do it. The reviewers don't want to hear it about it.

Link to comment

I'm done .. The reviewer asked for proof and proof is given. I don't care what happens now as I am no longer going to geocache.

 

If I run across such caches while I am out running, physically running, then I will just alert the parks department.

 

Then go away....

Link to comment
I'm done .. The reviewer asked for proof and proof is given. I don't care what happens now as I am no longer going to geocache.
Thanks for your efforts to protect geocaching as a whole from a few bad apples.

 

It's unfortunate that such encounters have soured you to the hobby.

Link to comment

The cache has been archived but the reviewer made sure to let everyone know that "this cache is inventive and clever and it is clear that it is a popular cache as judged by the finders" and they archived it "with great reluctance".

 

Wow, all I can say is wow. That attitude really sends a message about what the reviewer thinks about this. Hey CO! You did an outstanding job there with this cache but look I'm sorry, this cache cop told on you so I have to do what I have to do because, well, you've been ratted out. Keep trying!

 

My suggestion to anyone who wishes to report a geocache. Just don't do it. The reviewers don't want to hear it about it.

 

Funny, I read the archival log and got the impression that the reviewer was putting out the message that even if a cache is inventive and clever, it still has to meet the guidelines.

Link to comment

The cache has been archived but the reviewer made sure to let everyone know that "this cache is inventive and clever and it is clear that it is a popular cache as judged by the finders" and they archived it "with great reluctance".

 

Wow, all I can say is wow. That attitude really sends a message about what the reviewer thinks about this. Hey CO! You did an outstanding job there with this cache but look I'm sorry, this cache cop told on you so I have to do what I have to do because, well, you've been ratted out. Keep trying!

 

My suggestion to anyone who wishes to report a geocache. Just don't do it. The reviewers don't want to hear it about it.

 

I didn't read it that way. I suppose you are more sensitive because you reported it, but the reviewer was just being nice to the hider because they put some effort into it.

Link to comment

The cache has been archived but the reviewer made sure to let everyone know that "this cache is inventive and clever and it is clear that it is a popular cache as judged by the finders" and they archived it "with great reluctance".

 

Wow, all I can say is wow. That attitude really sends a message about what the reviewer thinks about this. Hey CO! You did an outstanding job there with this cache but look I'm sorry, this cache cop told on you so I have to do what I have to do because, well, you've been ratted out. Keep trying!

 

My suggestion to anyone who wishes to report a geocache. Just don't do it. The reviewers don't want to hear it about it.

 

Good job on excerpting the parts of the reviewer's post that convey the impression you want to leave.

 

Reading the entire post gives a somewhat different message:

 

There is absolutely no question that this cache is inventive and clever and it is clear that it is a popular cache as judged by the finders. But it has been brought to my attention that it is buried and after reviewing the situation, I have reached the conclusion that it is partially buried within in the letter and spirit of the Geocaching Guidelines. I am, with great reluctance, archiving this cache.
Link to comment

I'm sorry to disagree with your assertion but there should never be "great reluctance" to archive such a cache. All I see is a message saying that the reviewer is just doing what he has to do even though he doesn't want to do it. The cache should not be called inventive or creative.

 

If you want to be creative, accomplish the same principle without having to completely bury a cache to do it.

 

Get back to me with your experience of reporting a buried cache. I had the same experience as the original poster of this thread. A real lack of feeling that burying a cache is frowned upon. I feel like a dupe for having reported it to begin with. I should have done what everyone else here would have done. Just logged it and moved on.

Link to comment

I'm sorry to disagree with your assertion but there should never be "great reluctance" to archive such a cache. All I see is a message saying that the reviewer is just doing what he has to do even though he doesn't want to do it. The cache should not be called inventive or creative.

Reviewers are, first and foremost, geocachers, and like most other geocachers they enjoy seeing clever and creative cache hides. Certainly this particular mechanism could have been done without digging. I've seen similar hides with the pipes attached to a fence and have heard of one that used an existing tunnel under a road. Of course by burying the connecting pipe, this adds the challenge of figuring out the two drains were somehow connected and cache could be retrieve by pushing on the other side.

 

IMO, nearly all the guidelines remove some ability of cachers to be creative. I find nothing at all wrong with a reviewer acknowledging that this was an inventive and creative hide.

 

I've already made my opinion known earlier in this thread that I believe an absolute no digging/no new holes policy goes far beyond what is required to deal with land manager concerns about digging. So probably I couldn't be a reviewer as I'd be looking for exceptions to save a cache like this. By archiving it the reviewer has in fact agreed with your view that digging to hide or find a cache is never allowed. I find it incomprehensible that you have a problem with the reviewer saying the hide was creative <_<

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

That contrasts my experience. Every fake sprinkler I have found was pushed into the hard ground. Now, if the intent of the rule is to prevent finders from digging a bunch of holes looking for the cache, Then these aren't a problem. However, the spirit of this rule could also be viewed as preventing finders from destroying every real sprinkler near GZ for all micro caches. Personaly, I think there should be a blanket ban on fake sprinkler caches.

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...