If we shouldn't bury them, why are burried ones approved??

April 1, 2002

I just ran across this one.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=18359

Granted its a Micro but by the owners admission burried 3" in the ground near a urban area no less.

I know that there is no hard fast rule against burying caches. but I have noticed on the forums A heavy dissaproval on burying a cache.

Just wondering if there is anything on this site that catches and flags references Burried to the approvers??

Side note relating back to my Poll of Should you have X finds before hidding??

This indivual(according to their profile) Has never even found a cahce.

James

"Big Dog"

-Clan Ferguson

April 1, 2002

I've lurked and cached and have not logged all of my finds.

Its the zen in me.

If a found cache is not logged, it's still a found cache.

BB

http://www.banzai-institute.com

6.5k · April 1, 2002

ok you seem to be bringing up why are buried caches the same time your asking other questions.

as for why buried caches are approved, i think can be ,at least in part, chalked up to the vast amount of materials the admins receive daily, they cant fine comb everthing that comes their way.

April 1, 2002

I think the term "buried" is frowned upon due to the images it evokes. The tree huggers hear that and think we are out in the woods with shovels, digging for buried treasure. I have no personal issue with a buried cache as long as it is clearly marked (so as to avoid digging a hole that should be dug). The area the cache is hidden make a huge difference in my last statement. If we are talking about a wooded strip of land 20 yards across between recreation areas in New York City....I think that burying is a bad idea. However, if you want to hide an ammo can out in Montana, 30 miles from the nearest town, and you leave a landmark set out where the hunter should dig... I see nothing wrong with that. It's all in the perception.

April 1, 2002

The standard for approval should be whether the placement of the cache could damage the location. If the cache is buried in sand on a beach (but not on sensitive sand dune, etc), what is the problem with that? Or if it is set in the ground in a way that would not require digging op the surrounding area? Or maybe it was buried with the permission of the land manager? We should be very cautious about burying caches, but that does not mean that all buried caches should be immediately sdisapproved

tdw

24.7k · April 1, 2002

Nothing wrong with a buried cache. It's a function of where it's burried. Sand in an old dry riverbed for example with an X marks the spot map from an offset cache for example. It's an individual thing. To be approved on an individual basis. Like every other cache.

3k · April 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
... It's an individual thing. To be approved on an individual basis. Like every other cache.

I wonder what percentage of submitted caches fail to be approved?

3k · April 2, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Pote:
every one placed in a National Park is not approved.

I wonder what percentage of submitted caches not placed in National Parks/Forests fail to be approved?

3k · April 2, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Pote:
every one placed in a National Park is not approved.

I wonder what percentage of submitted caches not placed in National Parks/Forests fail to be approved?

4.1k · April 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Clan Ferguson:
I know that there is no hard fast rule against burying caches. but I have noticed on the forums A heavy dissaproval on burying a cache.

It says in the page Guide to Creating and Hiding a Cache:

Please do not bury the container unless you have express permission of the landowner or manager. If the cache is far enough away from trafficked areas, your cache should be fine. An exception would be covering the cache with dead branches, bark, etc. to conceal the container.

-----

April 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Pote:
every one placed in a National Park is not approved.

Not true, unfortunately... The ones I know of that have been approved in the last few months are very obvious they are in National Parks.

Groover

2.6k · April 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by MissJenn:

It says in the page http://www.geocaching.com/articles/making.asp:

_Please do not bury the container unless you have express permission of the landowner or manager. If the cache is far enough away from trafficked areas, your cache should be fine. An exception would be covering the cache with dead branches, bark, etc. to conceal the container. _

-----

http://users.beanstalk.net/jsk/images/dartfrogsmall.jpg

I've seen some caches that are covered with enough leaves and branches that thier good as burried.

george

9.2k · April 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

I wonder what percentage of submitted caches not placed in National Parks/Forests fail to be approved?

From what I've seen, most disapproved caches are virtual caches. Usually the cache owners haven't provided any validation method, or the "cache" doesn't fall into the current definition of a virtual cache. For physical caches, most that get disapproved (besides those in NPs) are ones where the coordinates are clearly in error (the middle of the Atlantic, for example), and the cache owners don't respond to email to get it fixed.

9.2k · April 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

I wonder what percentage of submitted caches not placed in National Parks/Forests fail to be approved?

From what I've seen, most disapproved caches are virtual caches. Usually the cache owners haven't provided any validation method, or the "cache" doesn't fall into the current definition of a virtual cache. For physical caches, most that get disapproved (besides those in NPs) are ones where the coordinates are clearly in error (the middle of the Atlantic, for example), and the cache owners don't respond to email to get it fixed.

9.4k · April 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Clan Ferguson: I just ran across this one.
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=18359

You sure it is buried? Maybe it is just 3" deep in a groove next to a lamp post.

We now receive a *bunch* of caches every day, and the approval is done by a bunch of volunteers that try and do their best.

So 1) the obviously poorly placed and 2) the obvious violations are caught. As for NPS caches, if the owner has not indicated it is in an NPS land then it is most likely approved (and the *final* maps are much better than the tiger ones that are shown before the caches are approved). We rely a lot on all of you to notice if it is in a spot that is off limits and contact the site to have it removed from the site.

As for my own opinion of burying, if I bury it and use my GPS unit to mark it, then you use your GPS unit to find it, you would theoretically have a radius of 40 feet that you would have to dig up in order to find it. And if I marked it wrong you may have an even larger area. Not to mention the image of folks showing up to a park with shovels to scare the locals into a frenzy.

Don't do it. Why do it? And why defend burying?

Jeremy

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak Lackey and Geopuppet

5k · April 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:
Don't do it. Why do it? And why defend burying?

There you go.

Jamie

April 4, 2002

I have a cache "buried". Well most of it is. It is a 4 gallon bucket. Those are kinda hard to just hide. Especially in the Desert.

The top of the bucket is exposed. You just move the rocks off the top and there is the lid. So I think the question could be more accurate, "should a cache be totally buried?" Of course not.

My cache is just right. It is in sand and right were no one would just look. And I went to a lot of trouble to leave the area as natural as possible. The only thing you notice as you walk up is a pile of rocks. Hence the name, "Hey Rocky!"

nscaler

"Anyone not here, raise your hand!".

April 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by nscaler:
I have a cache "buried". Well most of it is. It is a 4 gallon bucket. Those are kinda hard to just hide. Especially in the Desert.

The top of the bucket is exposed. You just move the rocks off the top and there is the lid.

I believe that's called a 'recessed' cache. Where you dig a small hole that's the size of your container and stick it in the hole with the lid still in plain sight. Throw some twigs over the top of it and you're good to go.

April 4, 2002

That is it to a T.

nscaler

"Anyone not here, raise your hand!".

April 4, 2002

I've been thinking about a pirate theme. I wanted to bury a treasure chest at the end of a multicache. My intention was to make sure the cache was CLEARLY marked with some sort of sign such as a pair of boards nailed together in a X shape and laid overtop. The "buried" part would be only an inch or so of sand so a kids shovel or garden trowel would be enough.

Would something like this get approved?

Rob

Mobile Cache Command

April 5, 2002

again I appreciate the resoponse from our head Guru. and I fully agree.

But (as this is with human nature) I don't like the way everyone tries to find thier own interpation of the guidelines that have been requested of the community.

My opinion, if you DIG at all it's buried. if your going to leave part of it exposed then just leave the whole thing exposed. saying things like recessed (sp) just makes you sound like a little kid looking for a way out of getting in trouble. "But Mom, you didn't say I couldn't have it. You just said Not in the House."

Why does everyone try to find the grey?? it's this grey searching that is going to keep this sport from ever being allowed on to NPS, BLM, NFS or anywhere else that tells us "NO". I said this before and I will say it again. Unless we have a charter or set of guidelines and rules everyone is willing to follow and adhear to, we will just continue to be another "internet fad".

Sorry had to get that rant off my Chest.

Thanks again Jeremey and everyone else for thier postive feed back.

James

"Big Dog"

-Clan Ferguson

4.1k · April 5, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by mrcpu:
Would something like this get approved?

Please do not bury it. See above.

April 5, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by mrcpu:
I've been thinking about a pirate theme. I wanted to bury a treasure chest at the end of a multicache. My intention was to make sure the cache was CLEARLY marked with some sort of sign such as a pair of boards nailed together in a X shape and laid overtop. The "buried" part would be only an inch or so of sand so a kids shovel or garden trowel would be enough.

Would something like this get approved?

Rob

Mobile Cache Command

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/4525_1300.gif

I too was thinking about doing this. Just as the second part of a Multi-cache. The original coordinates leading to a cache with a treasure map inside. I know a place at the beach where it'd be very, very simple to make a nice map too, has a great view, and is all sand so there would be no need for any shovels or anything, just your hands. The cacher's themselves have the choice to either take the map and find the actual cache or to just find the first part and call it good. The actual 'treasure' would be somewhere were nobody else will barely ever be except a few kids running around the forest now and then, I know this because I spent my entire childhood there running around the various trails and stuff. It's in a place where people are supposed to go have fun and explore. A place that can in no way be harmed by a buried cache that's only covered by an inch of sand. I would give perfect and precise directions as to where it is to be found.

I personally would really enjoy going on a cache like this. Using your GPS for part of it, and a treasure map for the rest. The only thing is if a lot of people start doing it, then people will start burying them in bad places.

April 8, 2002

I am all for having a set of rules for geocaching. We should be very careful not to destroy or mame the landscape. But I also can see how difficult it would be to mostly hide a cache if you disallow any digging whatsoever. More to the point would be a rule that states... "Only dig where it's allowed or you have permission and doing so won't harm the land in any way." Plus... "never dig in an national park or reserve, and then only hide a cache with permission."

As I see it, there are some places that you just can't hide a cache without some digging. There are other places of course where there are so many natural hiding places that digging would be stupid.

By digging, I mean recessing, I can see NO REASON AT ALL to completely bury a cache.

There is one cache I went to that is in such a totally open and public area that I am shocked that it hasn't been plundered yet. I'm talking about the vererans memorial cache in B'ham AL. Standing where many many ppl probably stand daily, if you look in the right direction, you can't miss the cache. To me, it should be hidden well enough that you have to be practically standing over it to see it.

As a side note. we need to be especially causcious as we move into summer so as not the get bitten or disturb the fauna! Thanks

Ken

June 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:

As for my own opinion of burying, if I bury it and use my GPS unit to mark it, then you use your GPS unit to find it, you would theoretically have a radius of 40 feet that you would have to dig up in order to find it. And if I marked it wrong you may have an even larger area. Not to mention the image of folks showing up to a park with shovels to scare the locals into a frenzy.

Don't do it. Why do it? And why defend burying?

Jeremy

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak Lackey and Geopuppet

We ran into a buried cache this weekend. According to the cache owner, it was still there, but many people were having trouble finding it. We tried for an hour, but we not going to dig down 5 feet (like one cacher reported did). When we got to the location, it was secluded, but we also noticed alot of wildlife in the area (lizards and crabs). Under the canopy of trees, our GPS was giving us a 30 foot margin of error. Now, it we WERE right on top of it, we could have dug 60 ft in any direction and not known it (which some people obvliously did). This cache owner needs to be more responsible. That much digging is NOT good for the local environment or habitat of the local wildlife. If you are going to bury a cache. Give clues on just HOW deep it is. Mark the spot better, or say it is "10 feet from X". It has to be something more precise than the GPS coordinates. After all, I am not using YOUR GPS, I am using mine and mine just MIGHT have different tolerances and averaging under a canopy.

Geocachers don't NEED to ask for directions!

June 17, 2002

I'm working on a cache that will be buried in sand. The trick is that when you get to the GPS-marked location, you have to perform a little old-fashioned surveying (using on-site materials) to get the real location. I think the final surveyed location should be accurate to within inches, so it won't be a question of digging up a 40-foot circle. This cache should be a lot of fun, and it would be a shame if it was excluded by the no-burying rule.

June 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by jef:
I'm working on a cache that will be buried in sand. The trick is that when you get to the GPS-marked location, you have to perform a little old-fashioned surveying (using on-site materials) to get the real location. I think the final surveyed location should be accurate to within inches, so it won't be a question of digging up a 40-foot circle. This cache should be a lot of fun, and it would be a shame if it was excluded by the no-burying rule.

I agree with Jef here folks. Its should be left up to the cache hunter. If you are up to the challenge of finding a buried cache then go for it. We have to be certain that the cache owner clearly reports the exact location to a cache - maybe photos. Yes, you might have to bring a compass with you to find the buried ones. Maybe a tape measure, and patients SOme caches should be extremely hard - but clearly ranked. We are not restricted to our GPS's. What we enjoying here is navigation and surveying really. If your up to the challenge I way go for it. Maybe we should have a seperate area on the geocaching.com website for these types of caches so that they are more organized and easier to moderate yes?????

June 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Rockdoctors:

I agree with Jef here folks. Its should be left up to the cache hunter. If you are up to the challenge of finding a buried cache then go for it. We have to be certain that the cache owner clearly reports the exact location to a cache - maybe photos. Yes, you might have to bring a compass with you to find the buried ones. Maybe a tape measure, and patients SOme caches should be extremely hard - but clearly ranked. We are not restricted to our GPS's. What we enjoying here is navigation and surveying really. If your up to the challenge I way go for it. Maybe we should have a seperate area on the geocaching.com website for these types of caches so that they are more organized and easier to moderate yes?????

I am not disagreeing with either of you. I am saying that this cache was not well described and in doing so, placed a small part of the enviroment in danger. Surveying is fine. Mapping and measuring is fine, but state that those are your objectives IN the cache description. Recommend taking a shovel, a compass, a tape-measure, and/or anything else. Be responsible.

Geocachers don't NEED to ask for directions!

June 17, 2002

Bear and Ting I wasn't replying directly to your point, more like in general to the topic.

A few more comments: Buried caches would definitley be on the technical side of geocaching. There would have to be some strict guidelines would have to be followed in order to be controlled. Bearings from landmarks like trees etc., depth of burial(not deep, just out of sight). Then, the criteria would have to be reviewed and approved by our friendly neighbourhood www.geocaching.com friends. Ya more work for them I guess. A side note here - why not support this site by becoming chartered members (pay the $30) so they can administrate this kind of thing properly. Nothing is for free folks, and afterall this is a great site with tons of great info for everyone. Not trying to get off topic here, but you do get what you pay for - nothing is free.

June 17, 2002

Bear and Ting I wasn't replying directly to your point, more like in general to the topic.

A few more comments: Buried caches would definitley be on the technical side of geocaching. There would have to be some strict guidelines would have to be followed in order to be controlled. Bearings from landmarks like trees etc., depth of burial(not deep, just out of sight). Then, the criteria would have to be reviewed and approved by our friendly neighbourhood www.geocaching.com friends. Ya more work for them I guess. A side note here - why not support this site by becoming chartered members (pay the $30) so they can administrate this kind of thing properly. Nothing is for free folks, and afterall this is a great site with tons of great info for everyone. Not trying to get off topic here, but you do get what you pay for - nothing is free.

June 17, 2002

Here's our buried cache:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=19253

Though it is currently in our hands instead of under the sand, when it is in it's proper place, it doesn't hurt anything. It's a great location with an amazing view, and hey, how can you have a pirates treasure without it being buried? I think the ones buried in the sand are pretty much alright because you can't really hurt the sand that much. As long as it's basically clear where it is, which ours is (treasure map is pretty dang accurate). It all depends on where the buried cache is I guess, some should be alright to be approved, others are not good and shouldn't be approved. I think that the screeners do a pretty good job of deciding what's good and what's not.

I am the Rabbit King, I can do anything

2.6k · June 17, 2002

I have a cache buried in the sand and I went to it Sunday morning to place a bug in it. It was windy a few days ago and the sand had been blown glassy smooth. You could never tell that there was any activity in the area. In fact, my friend went to the cache later that day, looking for the bug I had placed, and the wind had already started to smooth over my footsteps from that morning.

In my opinion, buried in sand is an environmentally harmless way to bury a cache.

george

P.S... my hint narrows down the digging area to a couple square feet. It's only a couple inches down so poking with a hiking stick will eventually hit the cache.

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

24.7k · June 17, 2002

For every rule there is an exception and buried caches are a rule. Some people gave good examples of when a buried cache is ok. In general they are not. On the other hand if I want help digging up my front yard, I'll just bury a cache in it and post it. Where I own the land I do have the right to dig it up even if it damages my lawn.

June 18, 2002

WOW thanks for that great idea. I need my back yard lanscaped so about 4 or 5 buried caches in my yard should do the trick.

Why didn't I think of that.

June 18, 2002

WOW thanks for that great idea. I need my back yard lanscaped so about 4 or 5 buried caches in my yard should do the trick.

Why didn't I think of that.

June 18, 2002

Snifer if thats what you would like to do, go for it.

We need to use good discression in burying caches. If you go and dig up some lawn in a city park - not such a great idea. Hiding a cache in a city park probably isn't a good idea all together. Now if its your own back yard you want to dig up, well thats your problem, I personally don't like lawn anyways and should be dug up for flowers, but thats another story. If your out of the city ie, mountains, prairies, lake areas. I'm sure there are areas which would be suitable to dig up to hide a cache. If its the environment we are worried about, well concider this. I was recently at the Hobo Island Cache site 30 people have been to it. You should see how many shrubs and other undergrowth that have been trampled down to a hideous state - I couldn't help but notice.

So in summary we need to set out criteria for buried caches. Here's a start:

1 They shouldn't be buried too deep. 3-5 inches max??

2 They need to be clearly surveyed from obvious landmarks ie/ obvious trees/rocks/what ever that you have waypoints for, Then appropriate bearings and measurements need to be taken.

3 They should be buried in unprotected land. Not in the city, not in National parks, noton private land.

Buried caches will be rare. They will be technical to design, they will be technical to find, but frankly some of us probably like to be technical in doing this if it be hiding or finding buried caches. Buried caches should be within the parameters of geocaching. At what point are we restricted to using GPS's??

June 18, 2002

Snifer if thats what you would like to do, go for it.

We need to use good discression in burying caches. If you go and dig up some lawn in a city park - not such a great idea. Hiding a cache in a city park probably isn't a good idea all together. Now if its your own back yard you want to dig up, well thats your problem, I personally don't like lawn anyways and should be dug up for flowers, but thats another story. If your out of the city ie, mountains, prairies, lake areas. I'm sure there are areas which would be suitable to dig up to hide a cache. If its the environment we are worried about, well concider this. I was recently at the Hobo Island Cache site 30 people have been to it. You should see how many shrubs and other undergrowth that have been trampled down to a hideous state - I couldn't help but notice.

So in summary we need to set out criteria for buried caches. Here's a start:

1 They shouldn't be buried too deep. 3-5 inches max??

2 They need to be clearly surveyed from obvious landmarks ie/ obvious trees/rocks/what ever that you have waypoints for, Then appropriate bearings and measurements need to be taken.

3 They should be buried in unprotected land. Not in the city, not in National parks, noton private land.

Buried caches will be rare. They will be technical to design, they will be technical to find, but frankly some of us probably like to be technical in doing this if it be hiding or finding buried caches. Buried caches should be within the parameters of geocaching. At what point are we restricted to using GPS's??

June 18, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Rockdoctors:

Buried caches should be within the parameters of geocaching. At what point are we restricted to using GPS's??

I was thinking I should add a trench shovel and small pick to my cache pack. Maybe some dynamite and rock drill while I am at it. That should help make it real hard for people to find. we have to up the diffucilty scale to 7 or 8. Besides as long as its 'public' land what does it matter that after 15 finds it should be really hard to find, as it is the only spot of ground where NOTHING has grown and/or has an unusal amount of forest debris on it.

Seriously, I understand 'burying' under leaves and branches. But why must we insit on scaring the earth to hide? (scaring was used to make a point I know you're not out there with a back-hoe) I have found seveal caches with unique qualties that made them darn near impossible to find, when they were standing out right in the open. and these are in an area that has less then intresting geographical features. On a beach I can kinda understand as this soil type is always changing it layout. but anywhere else and you are severaly altering the ecology, digging up a plant that has just started to take root, unearthing animal tunnels or ant hills, exposing tree roots, etc, etc, etc. And the argument of "does just as much damge as people walking in to hunt/hide a cache" doesn't mean you should amplify it by ripping a hole in the ground of any depth. (once again 'ripping a hole' is for effect)

P.S. had anyone bothered to look the cache that started this thread was archived by Admin after reviewing the fact that it was indeed 1)buried and 2)on private land.

Thank you for your time

Cache On!!

James

"Big Dog"

-Clan Ferguson

June 18, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Rockdoctors:

Buried caches should be within the parameters of geocaching. At what point are we restricted to using GPS's??

I was thinking I should add a trench shovel and small pick to my cache pack. Maybe some dynamite and rock drill while I am at it. That should help make it real hard for people to find. we have to up the diffucilty scale to 7 or 8. Besides as long as its 'public' land what does it matter that after 15 finds it should be really hard to find, as it is the only spot of ground where NOTHING has grown and/or has an unusal amount of forest debris on it.

Seriously, I understand 'burying' under leaves and branches. But why must we insit on scaring the earth to hide? (scaring was used to make a point I know you're not out there with a back-hoe) I have found seveal caches with unique qualties that made them darn near impossible to find, when they were standing out right in the open. and these are in an area that has less then intresting geographical features. On a beach I can kinda understand as this soil type is always changing it layout. but anywhere else and you are severaly altering the ecology, digging up a plant that has just started to take root, unearthing animal tunnels or ant hills, exposing tree roots, etc, etc, etc. And the argument of "does just as much damge as people walking in to hunt/hide a cache" doesn't mean you should amplify it by ripping a hole in the ground of any depth. (once again 'ripping a hole' is for effect)

P.S. had anyone bothered to look the cache that started this thread was archived by Admin after reviewing the fact that it was indeed 1)buried and 2)on private land.

Thank you for your time

Cache On!!

James

"Big Dog"

-Clan Ferguson

June 18, 2002

All sarcasm aside (even though I did find it rather entertaining) I agree with many of your points. Yes, I did read the initial post to the thread and know the 2 conditions given for removing the cache. But, it has initiated a discussion here. Maybe we should start a new topic "Should caches be allowed to be buried". I am dead against disrupting ecology as well. But, some areas may be suitable for caches. The one here was in quite a rediculous place really. But, I'm the outdoorsy type and know of many places that would be suitable to bury a cache. There are many reasons for burying a cache really. Sometimes you cannot place a cache because it would be out in the open, and do not want unwanted individuals to find it(obvious reason) but secondly and most strongly I think buried caches would add a new interesting dynamic in navigation and surveying to geocaching. A very technical aspect. If I placed a cache 50.63ft. bearing due North from a tree X, and 5.63 ft. at a bearing of N98 degrees from rock Z (with clues) you would need to know 2 things from me, one being the lat. long. to the tree, and 2 the lat long to the rock, and you would have to proceed from there to measure your bearings with a compass, and measure with a tape. Then here's where your backhoe comes in haha. Actually you wouldn't need one cause it should only be buried 3-5cm for gosh sakes. Anyone who would dig a 5ft. hole has way too much energy!!! hahaa

In all seriousness though, if this doesn't sound fun to you don't come find my buried cache(you don't have to) but, if you are up to the task and think your really good then go for it - take up the challenge. I would enjoy going through the rigamarole of surveying the site after I found my key bearing points. ahhhh????

June 18, 2002

All sarcasm aside (even though I did find it rather entertaining) I agree with many of your points. Yes, I did read the initial post to the thread and know the 2 conditions given for removing the cache. But, it has initiated a discussion here. Maybe we should start a new topic "Should caches be allowed to be buried". I am dead against disrupting ecology as well. But, some areas may be suitable for caches. The one here was in quite a rediculous place really. But, I'm the outdoorsy type and know of many places that would be suitable to bury a cache. There are many reasons for burying a cache really. Sometimes you cannot place a cache because it would be out in the open, and do not want unwanted individuals to find it(obvious reason) but secondly and most strongly I think buried caches would add a new interesting dynamic in navigation and surveying to geocaching. A very technical aspect. If I placed a cache 50.63ft. bearing due North from a tree X, and 5.63 ft. at a bearing of N98 degrees from rock Z (with clues) you would need to know 2 things from me, one being the lat. long. to the tree, and 2 the lat long to the rock, and you would have to proceed from there to measure your bearings with a compass, and measure with a tape. Then here's where your backhoe comes in haha. Actually you wouldn't need one cause it should only be buried 3-5cm for gosh sakes. Anyone who would dig a 5ft. hole has way too much energy!!! hahaa

In all seriousness though, if this doesn't sound fun to you don't come find my buried cache(you don't have to) but, if you are up to the task and think your really good then go for it - take up the challenge. I would enjoy going through the rigamarole of surveying the site after I found my key bearing points. ahhhh????

June 18, 2002

There are a number of examples in this thread of buried caches which would cause no environmental harm and probably should be allowed. A cache buried shallow in beach sand with unequivocal detailed and accurate directions pinpointing its location should be of no concern.

Presumably such a cache would be allowed under the general posted guidelines which say in part:

"There are always exceptions. If your cache fits within these areas, please explain in the description (or hints) of the cache."

That statement obviously allows for some discretion on the part of the approvers. I would like to think that if a cache were placed in manner that on its face breaks the basic rule against "burying", but it was demonstrated that it was placed in such a manner that there would be no unreasonable harm to the environment, then it could be approved as one of the "exceptions". The onus of demonstrating no harm would of course be on the one proposing the cache.

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)

June 19, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Rockdoctors:
Actually you wouldn't need one cause it should only be buried 3-5cm for gosh sakes.

Here is exactly why I can't understand the buring thing. 3-5cm?? thats less then 2 inches so why bother digging? 2 inches of twigs and ground debris would be less then noticable(I am assuming the cache container is about this height)

and if you have a tree to measure from aren't there grasses or other surrounding low shurbbery (Nee!) I have hunted caches that were hidden in tall grasses they were harder then those hidden in tree stumps.

As for the tape measure/survey thing thing, I am all for offset caches (hunted a few of those too, in fact i used it in one of my caches, check 2nd stage ) but unless you supply the extra tools required I am afraid that some people (particluary neocachers) would just start rooting around till they found it or until they got fustrated. either way a big impact on the terrain. I have read log entries of people who banged around an area, way too long, searching for a virtual cache because they didn't quite get the concept. I don't always chose a cache to hunt based on the challenge it provides I ussaly go after the one closest to me, this was diffently true for my first cache hunt (tried to do it on my Lunch break June 18, 2001 )

I think most new people are the same.

Last question, other then a beach where is there nothing to hide things near/under that would be not so bad to dig???

p.s. I think I just figured out what is bothering me the most about your statements. The phrase "Unprotected land". not to sound like a overprotective tree hugger but As a geocacher and the 'outdoorsy type' with our 'cache in, trash out' motto, isn't up to us to try and protect all thoses lands in anyway we can?

p.p.s. believe it or not I am enjoying our disscussion and am not sitting here screaming at the monitor as I type. Hope to meet you on the trail someday.

Cache On!!

James

"Big Dog"

-Clan Ferguson

[This message was edited by Clan Ferguson on June 19, 2002 at 06:59 AM.]

June 19, 2002

Did I say centimeters. I meant inches - 2-5cm is clearly not deep enough.

Your post is too spacific and you are not concidering exceptional circumstances. I don't think a beach is the only suitable place to bury a cache(maybe where youlive). There are many different terrain types. Lets see we have areas with glacial till(pebbles, cobbles, gravel, plain old dirt with no vegitation), modern beaches, abandoned glacial lake beach sands, alluvial plains with sands, gravels etc.. You name it all kinds of areas to bury things without disrupting the ecology. Maybe the geomorphology and population where you live are not suitable for such things but where I live things are different. Afterall this is a global game. We are not talking about burying ammo boxes or other large types of cache containers - the container would be small as not to create too much of a fuss.

Your comment about asking individuals to carry all that gear with them to go out and find such a cache, well that is up to the idividual isn't it???? Thats your problem if you don't want to - don't come to my cache then. But if someone out there wants to go through all the hassle thats there problem too! It would and should be clearly stated in the cache description what type of cache it would be and what equiptment they would need to find it. Its not up to me to supply equiptment!!! Are you going to lend me your boots so I can go and find one of your caches?? No, I use common sense and if I left my boots at home - thats my problem. If some beginer reads my buried cache, goes out to find it without the equiptment they clearly cannot read and are clearly beginners and will learn I guess. Common sense is a big part of this and you know we don't all have it do we. These caches I guess should be Members only caches because only serious geocachers should venture out to take the challenge. Real geocachers make sure they know what they are getting themselves into.

I am the outdoorsy type, but definitely not a tree hugger. I'm a geologist. I get paid to pillage the planet!!! hahahahahaha evil laugh!!!

Your statement:

"I don't always chose a cache to hunt based on the challenge it provides I ussaly go after the one closest to me, this was diffently true for my first cache hunt (tried to do it on my Lunch break June 18, 2001 )

I think most new people are the same."

I guess one of these wouldn't be for you then would it??? Advise don't do one of my future caches on your lunch hour. pss. I'm enjoying this topic too cause I'm going to defend it strongly. Geocaching should be wide open - I'm excercising my "Right to Cache" anyway I want to!!!! But safely and with concern for the environment.

June 19, 2002

Did I say centimeters. I meant inches - 2-5cm is clearly not deep enough.

Your post is too spacific and you are not concidering exceptional circumstances. I don't think a beach is the only suitable place to bury a cache(maybe where youlive). There are many different terrain types. Lets see we have areas with glacial till(pebbles, cobbles, gravel, plain old dirt with no vegitation), modern beaches, abandoned glacial lake beach sands, alluvial plains with sands, gravels etc.. You name it all kinds of areas to bury things without disrupting the ecology. Maybe the geomorphology and population where you live are not suitable for such things but where I live things are different. Afterall this is a global game. We are not talking about burying ammo boxes or other large types of cache containers - the container would be small as not to create too much of a fuss.

Your comment about asking individuals to carry all that gear with them to go out and find such a cache, well that is up to the idividual isn't it???? Thats your problem if you don't want to - don't come to my cache then. But if someone out there wants to go through all the hassle thats there problem too! It would and should be clearly stated in the cache description what type of cache it would be and what equiptment they would need to find it. Its not up to me to supply equiptment!!! Are you going to lend me your boots so I can go and find one of your caches?? No, I use common sense and if I left my boots at home - thats my problem. If some beginer reads my buried cache, goes out to find it without the equiptment they clearly cannot read and are clearly beginners and will learn I guess. Common sense is a big part of this and you know we don't all have it do we. These caches I guess should be Members only caches because only serious geocachers should venture out to take the challenge. Real geocachers make sure they know what they are getting themselves into.

I am the outdoorsy type, but definitely not a tree hugger. I'm a geologist. I get paid to pillage the planet!!! hahahahahaha evil laugh!!!

Your statement:

"I don't always chose a cache to hunt based on the challenge it provides I ussaly go after the one closest to me, this was diffently true for my first cache hunt (tried to do it on my Lunch break June 18, 2001 )

I think most new people are the same."

I guess one of these wouldn't be for you then would it??? Advise don't do one of my future caches on your lunch hour. pss. I'm enjoying this topic too cause I'm going to defend it strongly. Geocaching should be wide open - I'm excercising my "Right to Cache" anyway I want to!!!! But safely and with concern for the environment.

June 19, 2002

Still 2-5 inches is not enough to justify buring in my book. my standard cache container is 5 inches in diameter.

All those areas sound just like beaches. (with much larger grains) so I guess you have a point there.

quote:
If some beginer reads my buried cache, goes out to find it without the equiptment they clearly cannot read and are clearly beginners and will learn I guess.

No, beginners are just very ethuistic. and Yes they will learn like we all have, but not before leaving behind the possibility of tarnising the rep of this 'sport' or just opting not to come back to this 'sport (I know, thier loss)

I wasn't refeing to leaving surveying equipment. but most people (including some experienced ones) are unfimilar with how to use the offset feature of thier GPSR.

I wouldn't necessarly wield the 'paid to pillage' statement but I undrstand it's in jest.

I've learned that Geocaching is not necessarly a 'on-my-way to the meeting' thing (done that too). i have since established a good deal of equipment that goes with me every hunt.(none of which are digging equpiment)

so in conclusion

Me - Don't bury at all, not friendly

You - Buring okay, under certain circumstances

Apperently We agree to disagree so maybe we should end it with that.

Cache On!!

James

"Big Dog"

-Clan Ferguson

June 19, 2002

Yes, your right your caches are too big to bury, so you shouldn't do it. 5inch containers aren't necessarily the standard. We are not trying to campare to your standards.

Yes, we've bantered enough and have expressed our differences. I choose not to end the thread here though. If anyone else has any further comments please reply. I think this is an important topic.

2.6k · June 19, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Rockdoctors:
Yes, your right your caches are too big to bury, so you shouldn't do it. 5inch containers aren't necessarily the standard. We are not trying to campare to your standards.

Yes, we've bantered enough and have expressed our differences. I choose not to end the thread here though. If anyone else has any further comments please reply. I think this is an important topic.

Why is a 5 inch cache to big to bury? I buried an ammo can on my buried cache? I purposely buried it on it's side as to give the biggest possible cross section so that you could find it by poking through the sand.

As to why bury when you could cover it with sticks? For one. The place I selected is just a big chuck of sand. There are no sticks, or grasses or rocks. When you zero in on the coords. You placed in the middle of nothing for 50 ft around. Usually it's been blown smooth.

That's what makes it such a great spot for a buried cache.

george

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

June 20, 2002

George I was being subjective and contovercial suggesting that a 5inch container was too large. It depends on the cache site and the amount of disturbance you want to create. In some cases you might want to only bury a 35mm film case. In your cache situation I'd say it would be safe to bury a larger container, not worried too much about the disturbance. We have to use discression thats all. Enjoy!!!!!

June 20, 2002

George I was being subjective and contovercial suggesting that a 5inch container was too large. It depends on the cache site and the amount of disturbance you want to create. In some cases you might want to only bury a 35mm film case. In your cache situation I'd say it would be safe to bury a larger container, not worried too much about the disturbance. We have to use discression thats all. Enjoy!!!!!

If we shouldn't bury them, why are burried ones approved??

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment