What is buried?

[skoldme]

Is buried considered being COMPLETELY buried under ground or if the lid of cache is sticking up above ground and covered with leaves, is that okay?

[+TriciaG]

"Buried" is making a hole at all, or breaking any ground. Even shoving something into the ground isn't allowed.

 

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.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

[+Bear and Ragged]

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=509

 

Don't Damage Property - Telephone poles and stop signs seem like they are public property because they are so familiar, but they are the property of the city or utility company. Don't damage things in the environment. Screwing or drilling into a live tree creates an inroad for insects and disease. Never bury a cache, even partway. If you have to make a hole in the ground, it's not OK.

[+niraD]

The "geocaches are never buried" rule is easier to understand if you think of it as a "no digging" rule.

 

As others have indicated, the key to determining whether a cache violates this rule is whether you have to dig or create a hole in the ground to hide the cache, or anyone else has to dig or create a hole in the ground to find the cache.

 

There are a lot of things that might be considered "buried" that are perfectly acceptable. Caches can be covered with leaves, rocks, branches, bark, or other camouflage without violating this rule. Caches can be below grade (that is, below ground level) without violating this rule, as long the owner used an existing hole, cave, tunnel, pipe, or whatever else. The first cache I found was a plastic footlocker lowered into a hollow redwood stump (below grade) with a pile of loose branches and bark over it (covered); nothing about that placement violated this rule.

[+J Grouchy]

Yeah...as I understand it, if the cache hider has to break the surface of the ground, it's considered "buried" and thus not allowed per the guidelines.

 

That being said, I see plenty of centrifuge tubes or other tiny cache containers pushed into the ground by signs or beside paved trails...I don't worry about those. They aren't that creative, but more often than not they are in a scenic area and do no noticeable harm. I would likely only make an issue if it is a new hide and a larger container.

[skoldme]

Okay, thanks so much guys. I'll be sure not to break ground or anything like that.

[+biggles1024]

There are a number of caches where I primarily cache where the CO has dug a hole and placed a large container in that hole, up to it's rim. We, cachers and reviewers are OK with that. Frankly, it's almost the only time we get large containers.

[+GeoLog81]

I've seen many caches that were underground installations, like tubes digged into the ground. The cache self was available without digging. I think this is the most important factor: an owner has made a single hole once, and no of the searches has done any digging.

 

Classical digged cache is some container hidden completely under the ground somewhere, and the terrain around looks after a few dozen logs as if some bomb exploded there

[skoldme]

See, I would think a buried cache would be okay so long as the searcher didn't have to dig themselves. Like if I dug a hole in the woods and put a cache in it, with the lid exposed, that would be fine. You don't really find drains in the wild and not all trees have a hole in it.

[+Ben0w]

Even if the landowner has given permission to dig your cache in this specific place, it still is against the guidelines.

 

For good reasons:

• other cachers may see this as example and reason to dig their caches in, allthough they don't ask the landowner there.

• other landowners may get the impression, burying a cache may be standard and fear they'll get holes in their ground if they ever allow a geocache placed.

 

I see it as very important to never ever let the impression arise that geocaching has something to do with digging holes, breaking things or otherwise damaging other's property - on both sides, finding AND hiding.

 

Please, if you think, you can't hide your geocache otherwise, then either think more creative or don't hide it there at all.

 

On this behalf I even consider "treasure hunt" a very bad description, especially when prominently displayed on the GC.com page.

[+biggles1024]

Even if the landowner has given permission to dig your cache in this specific place, it still is against the guidelines.

 

What people like you need to understand is that guidelines are not rules. If as I stated, those who are doing both the hiding and finding don't have a problem with caches being buried up to the rim, then no-one else should have a problem with it either.

 

By getting up on your 'high horse' you run the risk of falling off. Be careful, it's a long way down.

[+biggles1024]

See, I would think a buried cache would be okay so long as the searcher didn't have to dig themselves. Like if I dug a hole in the woods and put a cache in it, with the lid exposed, that would be fine. You don't really find drains in the wild and not all trees have a hole in it.

 

That's exactly right! Buried isn't an accurate description though because that implies that they have been interred in the ground which is not the case with the caches that I have found that have been hidden in this manner. In fact, I recently adopted a cache that is a 20 litre bucket that is sunk up to its rim in the ground. It's a TB hotel and I'm about to replace the bucket and re-enable the cache.

[+TriciaG]

What people like you need to understand is that guidelines are not rules. If as I stated, those who are doing both the hiding and finding don't have a problem with caches being buried up to the rim, then no-one else should have a problem with it either.

 

By getting up on your 'high horse' you run the risk of falling off. Be careful, it's a long way down.

smh

 

So if I want to break all the "guidelines," no one should have a problem with that? After all, they're only guidelines and not rules.

 

If the hiders and finders have no problem with it . . . what about the property managers? What about property managers one is seeking to get permission from, that have heard of partially buried caches elsewhere and say, "There are buried caches! No, you cannot hide any caches in any provincial park in X district or state! We don't want that kind of activity here."

 

Come on up onto the high horse. The view is great from here.

 

To the OP: Be straightforward with your reviewer and tell them how you'd like to hide the cache. If they allow it, then you have your answer.

Edited May 4, 2014 by TriciaG

[+dprovan]

What people like you need to understand is that guidelines are not rules. If as I stated, those who are doing both the hiding and finding don't have a problem with caches being buried up to the rim, then no-one else should have a problem with it either.

You're thinking about it like consensual sex: as long as the participants are willing, it should be allowed. Burying caches is forbidden more with the thinking that forbids pornography: the concern isn't what the participants think about it, it's what people seeing the participants think about it. Geocachers finding the cache might not be aware of that this is a specially negotiated case and decide it's OK to bury caches anywhere. Non-geocachers might learn about the cache and decide geocachers routinely dig holes to hide their caches.

 

By getting up on your 'high horse' you run the risk of falling off. Be careful, it's a long way down.

The only high horse I see here is someone complaining about helpful people trying to explain the rules to him.

[+terratin]

See, I would think a buried cache would be okay so long as the searcher didn't have to dig themselves. Like if I dug a hole in the woods and put a cache in it, with the lid exposed, that would be fine. You don't really find drains in the wild and not all trees have a hole in it.

 

Have you considered that a wild animal might step on such a cache, break a leg and die? Probably not the most common of accidents, but it did happen before. Also, are you sure you're not destroying the roots of a protected, special plant by digging a hole to hide your cache? And where do you draw the line? Keep in mind that people copy what they see, and try to be better. If a pill bottle is ok, then certainly a coffee can is as well, and what about a 1m high blue wastebin? As a land owner I would certainly not be amused!

 

I'm certainly against digging a hole to hide a cache. There's always alternative hiding possibilities.

 

Mrs. terratin

[+J Grouchy]

See, I would think a buried cache would be okay so long as the searcher didn't have to dig themselves. Like if I dug a hole in the woods and put a cache in it, with the lid exposed, that would be fine. You don't really find drains in the wild and not all trees have a hole in it.

 

Have you considered that a wild animal might step on such a cache, break a leg and die?

 

Okay...now that is a stretch.

On only one occasion have I found anything larger than a match tube in the ground - an ammo can that may or may not have been intentionally sunk into the ground up to the level of the lid. I did not report that one mainly because it was about seven years old and it is possible it was put into a natural depression in the ground and over time the earth and leaves just filled in around it. It does happen. Even on a smaller scale it has happened to one of mine over the course of less than a year. I've never actually pushed a cache into the ground, but nature happens.

Now, if I found a recently placed five gallon bucket in up to its lid, I would definitely report it. Or even an ammo can buried in a nicely landscaped area. I think we can all think logically about it and use our judgement. If it's 'borderline', snap a photo and send it to the reviewer. Maybe before that, write the CO an email and tell them nicely that it may get archived for being buried.

[+T.D.M.22]

See, I would think a buried cache would be okay so long as the searcher didn't have to dig themselves. Like if I dug a hole in the woods and put a cache in it, with the lid exposed, that would be fine. You don't really find drains in the wild and not all trees have a hole in it.

 

That's exactly right! Buried isn't an accurate description though because that implies that they have been interred in the ground which is not the case with the caches that I have found that have been hidden in this manner. In fact, I recently adopted a cache that is a 20 litre bucket that is sunk up to its rim in the ground. It's a TB hotel and I'm about to replace the bucket and re-enable the cache.

 

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.

 

That was taken from the guidelines. Now if it's OK for the hider to bury it, why did they include the part about hiding. It also says "or create a hole" and "it is not allowed." Those are very specific.

 

Let's put it this way- if you have to find a way around the guideline or have to be able to justify it,

you know it's not the right thing to do.

You have to ask yourself why this rule is in place- honestly it's less about permission and more about image. If people are allowed to bury caches regardless of permission, new cachers will bury cache because that's what they have seen. Land owners will ban cache because they will equate all cache with being buried, or will think people will dig to find them- when in fact the cache is in a tree, for example.

 

Then we could have national parks and national lands ban geocaching. Provincial/state parks, and even cities. There are already large areas of land off limits to us now- I believe NFS land, some state land in Arizona, and it's really hard to get caches in some parks in Alberta.

Edited May 4, 2014 by T.D.M.22

[+NanCycle]

There are a number of caches where I primarily cache where the CO has dug a hole and placed a large container in that hole, up to it's rim. We, cachers and reviewers are OK with that. Frankly, it's almost the only time we get large containers.

 

See, I would think a buried cache would be okay so long as the searcher didn't have to dig themselves. Like if I dug a hole in the woods and put a cache in it, with the lid exposed, that would be fine. You don't really find drains in the wild and not all trees have a hole in it.

 

Please, can we get a reviewer (preferably one from Australia) or lackey to comment on this line of thinking?

[+Harry Dolphin]

See, I would think a buried cache would be okay so long as the searcher didn't have to dig themselves. Like if I dug a hole in the woods and put a cache in it, with the lid exposed, that would be fine. You don't really find drains in the wild and not all trees have a hole in it.

 

That's exactly right! Buried isn't an accurate description though because that implies that they have been interred in the ground which is not the case with the caches that I have found that have been hidden in this manner. In fact, I recently adopted a cache that is a 20 litre bucket that is sunk up to its rim in the ground. It's a TB hotel and I'm about to replace the bucket and re-enable the cache.

 

It is sad that some geocachers have no concern for the guidelines. If I found that cache, I would put NA on it! And our reviewers would archive it immediately for guidelines violations.

[+biggles1024]

What people like you need to understand is that guidelines are not rules. If as I stated, those who are doing both the hiding and finding don't have a problem with caches being buried up to the rim, then no-one else should have a problem with it either.

 

By getting up on your 'high horse' you run the risk of falling off. Be careful, it's a long way down.

smh

 

So if I want to break all the "guidelines," no one should have a problem with that? After all, they're only guidelines and not rules.

 

If the hiders and finders have no problem with it . . . what about the property managers? What about property managers one is seeking to get permission from, that have heard of partially buried caches elsewhere and say, "There are buried caches! No, you cannot hide any caches in any provincial park in X district or state! We don't want that kind of activity here."

 

Come on up onto the high horse. The view is great from here.

 

To the OP: Be straightforward with your reviewer and tell them how you'd like to hide the cache. If they allow it, then you have your answer.

 

You can't 'break a guideline' because it's only a guideline and NOT a rule.

Who are these "property managers" that you refer to? No such thing for our state forests. We do not need permission to place caches there. Clearly, in your ignorance you are assuming that what ever bureaucracy exists in your country, exists in all other countries too.

 

You're the only one talking about "breaking ALL the guidelines". A real little Calamity Jane.

[+biggles1024]

See, I would think a buried cache would be okay so long as the searcher didn't have to dig themselves. Like if I dug a hole in the woods and put a cache in it, with the lid exposed, that would be fine. You don't really find drains in the wild and not all trees have a hole in it.

 

Have you considered that a wild animal might step on such a cache, break a leg and die? Probably not the most common of accidents, but it did happen before. Also, are you sure you're not destroying the roots of a protected, special plant by digging a hole to hide your cache? And where do you draw the line? Keep in mind that people copy what they see, and try to be better. If a pill bottle is ok, then certainly a coffee can is as well, and what about a 1m high blue wastebin? As a land owner I would certainly not be amused!

 

I'm certainly against digging a hole to hide a cache. There's always alternative hiding possibilities.

 

Mrs. terratin

 

Talk about drawing a long bow. What if I step in a hole dug by a wild animal? No doubt if that happened to you, you'd try to sue someone or something.....

As for destroying roots of special plants, don't dig near plants. Too easy!

[+biggles1024]

There are a number of caches where I primarily cache where the CO has dug a hole and placed a large container in that hole, up to it's rim. We, cachers and reviewers are OK with that. Frankly, it's almost the only time we get large containers.

 

See, I would think a buried cache would be okay so long as the searcher didn't have to dig themselves. Like if I dug a hole in the woods and put a cache in it, with the lid exposed, that would be fine. You don't really find drains in the wild and not all trees have a hole in it.

 

Please, can we get a reviewer (preferably one from Australia) or lackey to comment on this line of thinking?

 

Why? Unlike you, we think for ourselves and don't need others doing our thinking for us. You should try it, if you're capable of it of course.

[+biggles1024]

See, I would think a buried cache would be okay so long as the searcher didn't have to dig themselves. Like if I dug a hole in the woods and put a cache in it, with the lid exposed, that would be fine. You don't really find drains in the wild and not all trees have a hole in it.

 

That's exactly right! Buried isn't an accurate description though because that implies that they have been interred in the ground which is not the case with the caches that I have found that have been hidden in this manner. In fact, I recently adopted a cache that is a 20 litre bucket that is sunk up to its rim in the ground. It's a TB hotel and I'm about to replace the bucket and re-enable the cache.

 

It is sad that some geocachers have no concern for the guidelines. If I found that cache, I would put NA on it! And our reviewers would archive it immediately for guidelines violations.

 

If you did that, you'd quickly find yourself made very unwelcome here. You're wound much too tightly. Learn to relax....

[+T.D.M.22]

Why don't you just go away? All you're doing is trying to justify doing something wrong. You're another person who reminds me of a slinky.

[+TriciaG]

You're the only one talking about "breaking ALL the guidelines". A real little Calamity Jane.

If they're only guidelines and not rules, then they can be broken as easily as the "no burying" guideline. It follows logically. But thanks for the ad hominem.

[+WarNinjas]

The way I look at it is this is a game we are all playing together. This is one of the rules (guidelines). So why break it? It adds to the challenge to play this way.

[Keystone]

The "How do I?" question was answered accurately and helpfully in the first five posts.

 

Biggles1024, your view of the buried caches guideline is wrong, and the "How do I?" forum is NOT the place to express it. If you wish to debate the fine points, the Geocaching Topics forum is the right place. That said, give the subject a rest. I am closing this thread.