Buried Treasures

[umc]

No one answered the question posted earlier. What if the pipe the owner placed the cache in was all ready buried? What if he was just using the pipe as a hiding spot and didn't actually dig. No one posted a link to the cache in question. If you could I would appreciate it, I would like to see the page for it.

 

Also, 'buried' can mean a few different things. Buried in the dirt, buried under some dead leaves, buried in a natural depression and covered with sticks...etc.

 

Are you sure the cache owner actually meant it was buried in the ground, completely covered?

 

Just askin'

If the pipe was there already then I would say no, its not burried in the sense that (I think) we are talking about here.

 

With that said, I think it should also be said that the pipe should have been placed by someone other than the cacher or anyone the cacher knows and had been there for some time.

 

Again, I think we're talking about the kind of burying that requires digging in the earth.

[+JMBella]

However, I take issue with the blanket statement of "there is no at all to bury a cache."

 

Yes, that's a blanket statement, I'll give you that. I would have to actually see the site to use my own judgment as to weather there was an alternative. I'll tell you what, fly me out there and I'll let you know what I think? But as was said maybe if there's no way to hide a cache without burying it it's not a good place for a cache. Even with the land managers expressed permission I'm not sure it's a good idea. As with anything there will be variables. I'm willing to be open minded enough to concede that there MAY be that 1 in 10,000 cache that absolutely has to be buried a bit for it to work. As long as you, as a responsible person can guarantee that it will cause no more damage than if the cache was not placed. Also if a park has no specific geocaching policy, that is to say, normally you would not be required to ask to place a cache, burying one might not be the best way to introduce the park to geocaching.

[adampierson]

NO ONE that I have seen, except you people getting apoplectic about the displacement of an insignificant amount of dirt, is talking about having to dig to find the cache.

 

Not the example in the thread parent

Not the first cache

Not the cache I did

Not any one that I propose

 

This business of people digging up the land to find a cache is a straw man.

Sam,

 

Buried caches, per geocaching.com guidelines are quite clear. You seem to know this, so I don't see the problem. Buried caches are allowed provided permission is given by land owner.

 

As far as the relevence of people's post to the parent thread, they pretty much seem reasonable to me. So stop beating yourself over it. If someone wants to bury a cache, that is their business. Any issues will be handled by the finders and the admins of the website.

[+TEAM 360]

Hey team360 it was when you turned the thread into an idiot fest with your overexaggerated post that things get out of hand.  Did you need to post that?  NO.  so why?  As far as buried caches we should go ahead and give the local admins a "headsup" if the word "report" is too official and rigid to you.  Heck you don't even log your finds.  Why do you even care?? 

Bla bla bla bla.....Now you are telling me what I can and can't post? LMAO!

Edited February 24, 2004 by TEAM 360

[SBPhishy]

What's your deal?

 

For such an accomplished cacher, and person, why do you act this way?

Edited February 24, 2004 by SBPhishy

[+TEAM 360]

What's your deal?

 

For such an accomplished cacher, and person, why do you act this way?

You mean I am supposed to LIKE having BS tell me what I should care about and how to think? I think not! I espouse freedom in geocaching, that I am being outcast here is a direct result of my independence and strong will to do my own thing. To have some stranger tell me that he has the power to MAKE me think or act a certain way is offensive. Anyone who disagrees with that line of thinking should go live in a dictatorship, I highly recommend China, North Korea or Libya.

 

No one likes being told what to do. Period. Now, I will egress from this thread in order to allow it to resume its course on-topic.

[+harleycache]

What an ego! LMAO@your "Cache Cop" attitude! Keep fooling yourself.

I'm just curious. Your profiles shows:

 

List of items found

 

Name Count

 

Travel Bug Dog Tags 36

 

USA Geocoins 1

 

*Total Caches Found 0

 

Are you searching for caches with a team? Do you hide yours under one name, and log your finds under another?

 

Looks like you've been around the sport for awhile, but I don't understand the stats.

[SBPhishy]

Don't egress yet!

 

Of course no one likes being told what to do. In my opinion, you are not an outcast as a result of being independent, it's more because your independence comes with a sense of elitism, and saying things that are not helpful or nice.

 

I follow the GC.com rules because I think they are fair, not because I don't want to get in trouble. Doing your own thing is very comendable, but, for example, when people WANT to get drunk, then drive a car, it can cause problems. (not that what is happening here can be compared to drinking and driving, but you get my point.)

 

Okay thread. I'm done. Get back on topic.

 

Are you searching for caches with a team? Do you hide yours under one name, and log your finds under another?

 

Looks like you've been around the sport for awhile, but I don't understand the stats.

 

He doesn't log his finds, which I actually think is kind of cool. He is definitely accomplished though in that he has met Dave Ulmer, helped place the tribute to the original. And has been a hell of a lot more placed in this world than I ever hope to visit.

Edited February 24, 2004 by SBPhishy

[+bons]

[ignoring most of the posts since the first (for obvious reasons)]

 

There are a number of cache types that are planted "in the ground" that don't need a digging tool. The fake lawn sprinkler trick leaps to mind on this cache. There may already be a abandoned hole or enclosure that led itself to caching.

 

Since it seems to be a 5 star cache, I wouldn't be surprised that you haven't found it yet. (How many hours search is a 5 star anyway?)

Edited February 24, 2004 by bons

[SBPhishy]

On this topic, which I havent brought myself to post yet on, I actually think caches would be cool if they were partially buried. As long as there was a part sticking out of the ground, I think it would be interesting. Obviously though, there are definitely problems that I agree with, like the parks, and all that. If they are out in the middle of nowhere, I dont see the big deal though.

[+JMBella]

that I am being outcast here is a direct result of my independence and strong will to do my own thing.

 

You're not being outcast because nobody cares enough to outcast you. We are simply disagreeing with you. Don't make it more than it is. You're not the "rebel" you think you are.

[umc]

You're not being outcast because nobody cares enough to outcast you.

Not true actually.

 

360 come on over to the "what is flaming?" thread, I could use you as an example.

 

Hehe, j/k bud.

 

Thanks everyone for not letting things get out of control and for staying on topic.

[mufasa1023]

One of the better caches I've done was a gallon jar that was buried up to perhaps 3 inches sticking out of the ground....these three inches were covered by the perfectly shaped piece of bark.......I stood directly above it three different times before finding it....i can understand why a 35 gallon garbage can shouldnt be buried though

[+CO Admin]

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

Keep on topic: Responses to a particular thread should be on-topic and pertain to the discussion. Users should use the New Topic button to start a new discussion which would otherwise be off-topic in the current thread. Threads that are off topic may be closed by the moderator.

 

Second notice. There wont be a third. play nice its a big sandbox or this playground will have to be closed.

Edited February 24, 2004 by CO Admin

[+SamLowrey]

On this topic, which I havent brought myself to post yet on, I actually think caches would be cool if they were partially buried. As long as there was a part sticking out of the ground, I think it would be interesting. Obviously though, there are definitely problems that I agree with, like the parks, and all that. If they are out in the middle of nowhere, I dont see the big deal though.

My feelings, too. It would look more like it belongs there and is less likely to creep to a new location than some ammo box sitting at the base of a tree.

[+Renegade Knight]

I'm with Criminal on this one. Don't take time out of your day to second guess the cache owner. Leave it alone and enjoy the cache. It's buried. Big deal.

 

In honor of people taking time to question a cache owners motivation and permission I'm going to move my 'rule breaker' cache up the list.

 

I've got burial, knives and a few other things covered. It should be approvable and it should make people laugh when they find it. Laughing is fun and fun is what this fricking hobby is about.

[martmann]

Hey team360 it was when you turned the thread into an idiot fest with your overexaggerated post that things get out of hand.  Did you need to post that?  NO.  so why?  As far as buried caches we should go ahead and give the local admins a "headsup" if the word "report" is too official and rigid to you.  Heck you don't even log your finds.  Why do you even care?? 

Bla bla bla bla.....Now you are telling me what I can and can't post? LMAO!

I believe he was QUESTIONING you as to why you would post such an openly hostile post, for no real reason, but of course you read whatever you wanted into that.

 

Just like your read BrianSnat's statement "Maybe you don't care..."

as him telling you that you absolutely don't care, instead of answering that, "yes I do care, here is the reason I said that."

 

You do a great job of getting angry for no reason. If you are this easily bothered by people disagreeing with you, MAYBE the forums aren't for you .

 

Read whatever you want into that, not that I'm telling you what to do, that would be wrong wouldn't it?

Edited February 24, 2004 by martmann

[BassoonPilot]

Are you sure the cache owner actually meant it was buried in the ground, completely covered?

I know nothing about the specific cache that led to this thread, but it must be pointed out that, as is the case with every other cache that is 'not in compliance' with the current guidelines, if the cache had been placed prior to the creation/evolutuion of the specific guideline, it would be exempt from the guideline because of "grandfathering."

[+mtn-man]

The guideline reads slightly different.

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches.  This means that the past approval of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the approval of a new cache.  If a cache has been posted and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be “grandfathered” and allowed to stand as is.

[BassoonPilot]

The guideline reads slightly different.

Could you please provide us an example or two of caches that were not grandfathered because of a rule change?

 

I interpreted that "likely" to mean "will be" grandfathered, much in the same way that some approvers apparently interpret the words "may not be approved" to mean "are not permitted." (I am referring specifically to something Keystone said in a thread about "Timed Caches" [a guideline pertaining to "cache permanence" had been cited], but there have been similar declarations by several of the approvers.)

Edited February 24, 2004 by BassoonPilot

[+Mopar]

Could you please provide us an example or two of caches that were not grandfathered because of a rule change?

No specifics, but I would think a guideline change that involved legal issues might fit that. Like caches placed on railroad right of ways. I bet most of those that might have been grandfathered are still archived if they are brought to attention. Same with caches in National Parks. I would guess very few to none of those are afforded any "grandfathered cache" protection.

Edited February 24, 2004 by Mopar

[+Frolickin]

Same with caches in National Parks. I would guess very few to none of those are afforded any "grandfathered cache" protection.

It's interesting. There was a recently placed cache in a National Wildlife Refuge. It was archived almost immediately, even though absolutely no scrounging around was needed to find it. Nevertheless, it was archived for being in a National Wildlife Refuge.

 

There are still three (some say four, but I cannot confirm the fourth) active caches in the same National Wildlife Refuge. That would seem to support BassoonPilot's position, unless of course, they were archived.

[+CO Admin]

Same with caches in National Parks. I would guess very few to none of those are afforded any "grandfathered cache" protection.

It's interesting. There was a recently placed cache in a National Wildlife Refuge. It was archived almost immediately, even though absolutely no scrounging around was needed to find it. Nevertheless, it was archived for being in a National Wildlife Refuge.

 

There are still three (some say four, but I cannot confirm the fourth) active caches in the same National Wildlife Refuge. That would seem to support BassoonPilot's position, unless of course, they were archived.

After doing some checking it looks like the cache he is refering to was archived because it was approved in error, after the guideline had changed. Some others in the area have been archived by the owners as a result of the NWR ruling. The admin in question was reactive, not proactive. If and when the park rangers ask that the others be delisted they would be archived at that point.

[BassoonPilot]

I think Mopar's points were very good, especially concerning legal issues. I do, however, know of several old caches that had been hidden in National Parks and 'survived' none-the-less until:

 

1. A cache owner removed the cache and archived the page of their own volition.

 

2. An owner was contacted by an NPS Ranger who had discovered the cache or cache listing and ordered the cache to be removed.

 

3. A cache-seeker was caught 'red-handed' by a Ranger and ordered to remove the cache and/or contact the cache owner to remove the cache.

[+sledgehampster]

I vote we put all the pocket knives and multi-tools (and a few cachers not to be mentioned) in a cache and bury it here. N43 20.640 W087 01.138

[+mtn-man]

Could you please provide us an example or two of caches that were not grandfathered because of a rule change?

Island Hopper II

 

This cache was located on an area that was previously OK. It was recently deemed to be unsuitable. Since the GGA is working very closely with our SE regional US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), we graciously archived the cache per their request. We are working to keep (from having) an all out ban, (and) recently they have changed their regulations regarding acceptable cache locations. The cache above was archived.

 

This is going off topic. My post was an exact quote of the guidelines to simply clarify a post made to this topic. It was not made to skew the subject of the topic in any way. If you want to discuss grandfathered caches or grandfathering in general please feel free to search the forums to find similar topics or start one of your own.

Edited February 24, 2004 by mtn-man

[BassoonPilot]

This is going way off topic. My post was an exact quote of the guidelines to simply clarify a post made to this topic.

 

Then it was totally appropriate to "clarify" that, in practical application, the guidelines are not necessarily, by any party, interpreted or applied as conceived.

 

My point was that plenty of caches exist that are not in compliance with the current guidelines. Some of them are the result of "grandfathering." No doubt some might also be the result of cache owner deception or approver error. Such is life.

Edited February 24, 2004 by BassoonPilot

[+Frolickin]

After doing some checking it looks like the cache he is refering to was archived because it was approved in error, after the guideline had changed. Some others in the area have been archived by the owners as a result of the NWR ruling. The admin in question was reactive, not proactive. If and when the park rangers ask that the others be delisted they would be archived at that point.

Is it permissable to place a cache in a National Wildlife Refuge?

 

If not, then the presence of caches in a NWR listed on GC.com demonstrates that those caches have been grandfathered.

 

I am not aware of caches in that area that have been archived by the owners as a result of the NWR ruling. Is there one you can point to? Perhaps I missed something.

 

Thanks,

Fro.

[+mtn-man]

Fro, the topic pinned at the top of this forum where these questions would be better addressed.

[+DemonicAngel]

Ok, I'm not going to get into the argument about if it's "legal" or not, but I do want to clarify a few things because I'm from around the area where the particular cache in question is and have, myself, found this cache and talked to the owner as well as the originator of this thread.

The particular rule that's in question is this one: Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate. This is listed in the off-limits (physical) cache area of the guidlines. He is just basically asking for clarification on this, as in, would the particular cache he is talking about fall into this catagory.

Also, the cache that is being talked about is this: Eurkea

I just wanted to add this so you know better what is being asked and which cache is being talked about when you are discussing it.

[+bons]

So since you've found it and talked to the owner, was a "pointy" object used to dig, either to place it or to find it or was it hidden and found in some other manner?

[+DemonicAngel]

A round cylindrical tube was used to hollow out a place in the ground for the holder to be placed in. The holder is similar to, but not exactly, like a sprinkler system would be. It has a screw on top that is basically flush with the ground with the hollow part being underground. Then the cache itself was placed into that holder and the top screwed back on so that only the top cap is above ground. I'm not sure how it would fall into the "pointy object" catagory, but it was one heck of a hide that's for sure.

[Ranger One]

A round cylindrical tube was used to hollow out a place in the ground for the holder to be placed in. The holder is similar to, but not exactly, like a sprinkler system would be.

 

Probably like a carpenter ant bait station. Its a hollow tube with a cap and a pointy end. You don't even have to dig. You can just push it into the ground if its soft enough. You can find it at Home Depot.

[+woodsters]

Going on what demonicanangel and Ranger One just posted, I would say it was in violation. But technically, maybe not. Technically one could argue I guess that a pointy object was not used, if it was no point. Now I have heard that you could use your hands to move stuff to the side like sand or loam.

[+briansnat]

Going on what demonicanangel and Ranger One just posted, I would say it was in violation. But technically, maybe not. Technically one could argue I guess that a pointy object was not used, if it was no point. Now I have heard that you could use your hands to move stuff to the side like sand or loam.

 

Technically it might be in violation, but its not like someone took a pick and shovel to the ground. Sounds like a wickedly clever hide. I don't think I'd sqawk about it if I found one like this. Now a buried ammo box, or bucket would be a whole different story.

[+DemonicAngel]

It is a very clever hide!! It's one of the ones that has you praying for good clues because without them you don't have much of a chance of finding it. Also, less chance of being muggled. I have to admit that it's one of my biggest achievements... just finding it.

[+SamLowrey]

Going on what demonicanangel and Ranger One just posted, I would say it was in violation. But technically, maybe not. Technically one could argue I guess that a pointy object was not used, if it was no point. ...

What harm is it causing?