Interpretation Of The Guidelines

[Lactodorum]

There has been a question raised as to what constitutes a "buried" cache. This also raises a wider question that I'd like to get your thoughts on.

 

Starting with the "buried" question, the guidelines clearly state "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". Easy you might imagine but what about the situation where there's an existing hole that is just the wrong shape to take your container? Can you enlarge it by hand slightly so as to make the box fit? What if the hole is big enough so that the cache is at or below ground level and is covered by stones - is this buried? We've all come across situations where things are not clear cut.

 

My take on the "buried" ruling is that something qualifies as "being buried" if a hole was dug specifically to hide a cache which is then covered with soil. If a cache is placed in an existing hole and covered with stones, twigs, grass etc. then that's not buried. Then again what about the hole that's been "extended" by hand to make the box fit. In my book this falls on the accepted side of the line. If the hole was dug specifically to take the cache then that's NOT acceptable.

 

So we're dealing with an interpretation of the rules where there is no clear yes/no answer. This then raises the question of WHO is going to do the interpretation?

 

I don't know how many active cachers there are in the UK at the moment but I would guess there must be 2-300 at least. I would suggest that if you could ask every one of them to "judge" one of these "problem" caches you would get many different answers.

 

What to do? I would argue that reviewers should take on responsibility for making a definitive decision in such caches. It really boils down to opinions as to what's acceptable and what isn't. Geocaching CANNOT work if it subject to potentially 2-300 different opinions. After all, new caches are subject to reviewers' interpretation now rather than peer approval and I believe the system generally works quite well.

 

Eckington and I would like to start a discussion on what YOU think so please let us know your thoughts.

Edited March 15, 2004 by Lactodorum

[+S&G.Davison]

My take on the "buried" ruling is that something qualifies as "being buried" if a hole was dug specifically to hide a cache which is then covered with soil. If a cache is placed in an existing hole and covered with stones, twigs, grass etc. then that's not buried. Then again what about the hole that's been "extended" by hand to make the box fit. In my book this falls on the accepted side of the line. If the hole was dug specifically to take the cache then that's NOT acceptable.

IMHO this summaries exactly an exceptable guideline

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

Well here's my pennies worth. As long as you have not used any form of instrument, even a twig. A hole in the ground is fair game, even if you use your hand to tweak it slightly,as you are not going to remove a lot of material by hand just to hide a cache.! If you specifically dig a hole, you are going to leave evidence behind, which defeats the aim of the cache in the first place.

Dave.

[+Firth of Forth]

The difficulty for you would seem that you may not necessarily know exactly how the cache has been placed. I have come across a set of caches that appear to have a hole specifically cut out for them, as the holes are just the right size for the caches and the caches are placed below the level surface of the ground. There is no way of knowing this from the cache webpage, only from having visited the cache itself.

[+John Stead]

My take on the "buried" ruling is that something qualifies as "being buried" if a hole was dug specifically to hide a cache which is then covered with soil. If a cache is placed in an existing hole and covered with stones, twigs, grass etc. then that's not buried. Then again what about the hole that's been "extended" by hand to make the box fit. In my book this falls on the accepted side of the line. If the hole was dug specifically to take the cache then that's NOT acceptable.

IMHO this summaries exactly an exceptable guideline

I too agree with this summary and have certainly hidden in existing holes. Surely the important thing is to cause no damage and not change the environment. I confess too that I have dug a hole specifically to make a hiding place (now long archived) but justified it to myself as it was in sand dunes and part under a man made structure (viewing platform) and in such a position that it did not jeopodise the structure or be likely to be exposed by blowing sand - in fact in its initial incarnation it survived the destruction by fire of the platform! On the other hand I have found a cache within a mile of that one which was actually on top of a dune - it may be a stable position but I thought it a bit dodgy.

Edited March 15, 2004 by jstead

[+Hi-Tek]

My take on the "buried" ruling is that something qualifies as "being buried" if a hole was dug specifically to hide a cache which is then covered with soil. If a cache is placed in an existing hole and covered with stones, twigs, grass etc. then that's not buried. Then again what about the hole that's been "extended" by hand to make the box fit. In my book this falls on the accepted side of the line. If the hole was dug specifically to take the cache then that's NOT acceptable.

I agree with your interpretation - it seems a sensible way of resolving the issue.

[+mongoose39uk]

My take on the "buried" ruling is that something qualifies as "being buried" if a hole was dug specifically to hide a cache which is then covered with soil. If a cache is placed in an existing hole and covered with stones, twigs, grass etc. then that's not buried. Then again what about the hole that's been "extended" by hand to make the box fit. In my book this falls on the accepted side of the line. If the hole was dug specifically to take the cache then that's NOT acceptable.

 

I agree with the interpretation.

 

A few comments though.

 

First. They are guidlines not rules and as such the place the cache is in should have some bearing. In my view burying it in sand on a beach would be unlikely to cause much damage. Digging a hole in someones lawn would cause damage and severely bring the "game" into disrepute. Unless it was my lawn and you promised to cover the rest of the lawn in concrete so I didn't have to mow it!

 

The reason why the cache is buried could a smaller cache have solved the need to bury it?

 

Who cares anyway as long as as it does not bring the game into disrepute, after all it is just a game. Unless your called John and then it's a way of life (What you gonna do after the 1000 Seasider-more beer? have one for me).

 

Cheers

 

Tony

[+THE BRAMBLERS]

My take on the "buried" ruling is that something qualifies as "being buried" if a hole was dug specifically to hide a cache which is then covered with soil. If a cache is placed in an existing hole and covered with stones, twigs, grass etc. then that's not buried. Then again what about the hole that's been "extended" by hand to make the box fit. In my book this falls on the accepted side of the line. If the hole was dug specifically to take the cache then that's NOT acceptable.

 

We agree in part with what you say, providing the existing hole is not an animal hole. These should never be used to place a cache in.

 

As for animal scrapes, it would be very difficult to know if one existed in the first place or whether a cacher has just stated this as an excuse for burying a cache. (Some people will always try to find loop-holes). Either way, if some sort of digging implement had been used to place the cache and soil had been removed, then the guidelines should apply.

 

Working in the area of conservation, I know that some of the land owners that have already granted permission for geocaching, i.e. FC, NT, HCC would certainly not condone the enlarging of animal scrapes or digging of any kind.

 

It is obviously very difficult for approvers to know exactly how and where a cache has been placed, so we believe that it would then fall to the first few finders to report any concerns. After all they would be able to see first hand how the cache had been placed.

Edited March 15, 2004 by THE BRAMBLERS

[Rangers of Ithilien]

If a cache is placed in an existing hole and covered with stones, twigs, grass etc. then that's not buried. Then again what about the hole that's been "extended" by hand to make the box fit. In my book this falls on the accepted side of the line. If the hole was dug specifically to take the cache then that's NOT acceptable.

 

 

I agree with your comment here Lactordorum and as you say, enlarging the hole with your hand will limit the amount you could do it without tools. Personally I think you could put a limit onto that amount though as there will always be someone out there who decides to excavate a cave by hand!

 

So, you could use the cache container which will be hidden there as a guide. For example, you could say that the hole could be enlarged up to 20% of the containers size. If you need to enlarge the hole any more than that percentage, then the hole obviously wasnt designed by mother nature to take a cache!

 

I dont know if this helps? For some reason my brain went fuggy as soon as I began writing this!

 

Tiffany

[+Lance Ambu]

There has been a question raised as to what constitutes a "buried" cache. This also raises a wider question that I'd like to get your thoughts on...

 

What to do? I would argue that reviewers should take on responsibility for making a definitive decision in such caches. It really boils down to opinions as to what's acceptable and what isn't.

I kinda think you weren't asking about buried treasure but about who makes the decisions.

 

You described an interpretation of buried I would submit that buried requires to be dug up - not by hand - I don't dig my garden with my hands. Brushing off soil, twigs, grass etc is uncovering not digging up.

 

So who makes the decision? The reviewer is in a position to get information and ask for more - to enter into a dialogue with the setter and ensure they can apply relevant guidelines. So far so good.

 

If I, as a setter, say I have buried the cache then don't approve the cache and ask for it to be unburied.

If I don't mention whether it is buried or not - What do you do? Ask me to swear an affadavit that it isn't buried, I am not on holiday, that I have permission of the landowner ....? In short that I have adhered to all guidelines.

 

I think we have had this question before, Are the jobs of cache approval and guideline (however defined) enforcer the same thing?

 

I certainly don't want to restart that argument and I have no problem with you making an interpretation. In any contentious case I'm sure the opinions of other cachers and reviewers will inevitably be expressed.

[+Martyn B & April A]

We have recently obtained permission, after negotiations with the 'Nature Police' of our local council, to place our first cache in a local nature reserve. The first question I was asked was whether or not I was intending to dig anywhere in order to conceal the cache. I have the distinct impression that if I had even remotely hinted that I might be disturbing anything then permission would have been refused point blank. My philosophy on this is as follows : surely, if you find a decent place for a cache, then you obtain a suitably-sized container to fit that place, without having to resort to modifying the location. After all, there are thousands of different types of container available, of all shapes and sizes. For me, the essence of our pastime is that we can go about it without having any detrimental impact on the areas where we are placing our caches, whether it be in towns, alongside canals, in woods, or in remote moorland areas.

 

That's my view, for what it's worth......

[+Chris n Maria]

We have recently obtained permission, after negotiations with the 'Nature Police' of our local council, to place our first cache in a local nature reserve. The first question I was asked was whether or not I was intending to dig anywhere in order to conceal the cache. I have the distinct impression that if I had even remotely hinted that I might be disturbing anything then permission would have been refused point blank.

Strange when I explained caching to our local ranger he assumed that it was buried - yet still thought it was a good thing. Perhaps that was because they often ruin "buried treasure" games on open days. Different strokes for different folks I assume.

 

Chris

[wing-co]

May I add a further dimension?

 

One or two caches I've come across I have considered to be buried. BUT - they probably weren't when set. Consider placing a cache in a neat dpression under a fallen tree stump which, over time, rots. At some point the tree stump becomes the ground, if you get what I mean!

 

Not too bad in Hampshire, where caches get found on the hour, every hour, I'll admit

 

I suppose this should simply get mentioned in posts and then the owner will re-locate (or whatever is appropriate). Any thoughts?

[MCL]

When I first read the guidelines about burying caches, (long long ago, in a forest far, far away...) I immediately thought of two good reasons for having such a guideline:

 

- Firstly, if you bury a cache, as in "digging a hole and pouring the soil back on top of it", (which was my first interpretation of "burying") then in order to find it you are going to need a digging tool to get it back out again. Since it would be stupid to expect cachers to carry a spade around the world with them, then this seemed to me a good reason to stop people burying their caches. Thoughts of fluffy animals and wrecking the countryside didn't even cross my mind.

 

- Secondly, if you bury a cache (same meaning as above) then it is likely to become almost impossible to find once the soil above it has been tamped down by rain/feet/animals etc. Since the object of this game is to find the box, then it seemed sensible to advise people against hiding in such a way as to make discovery virtually impossible.

 

Following on from that, you then come to the situation where such a guideline *is* now in place. At this point another issue comes into play....

 

- A cacher, knowing the prohibition on buried caches, will not now even bother looking for evidence of burying, so any cacher who subsequently buries his cache and expects people to find it is likely to get a lot of no-finds on his logpage. This seems to me to be defeating the object.

 

Early on in my caching career, I did do a cache that was, as far as I interpreted it, pretty much buried. This explains why it took me several trips back to the area to locate the thing and when I eventually did find it, rather than feeling triumphant, I simply felt cheated in that I was told by the rules (well I thought of them as rules back then, being young and innocent...) not to look in the very place where the dadgum thing was in fact hidden.

 

It went against my natural sense of justice and probably deeply scarred me, mentally, for the rest of my life. I have subsequently had to spend eight weeks in therapy just to get over it....

 

Anyway, all this means that I interpret "burying" as meaning "needs to be dug up". If the hole already exists and is simply covered over with moss/rocks/logs/candyfloss or whatever, then I don't call that "buried", just "covered", implying that it only needs to be "uncovered" to find it.

 

The whole point about the "last ten feet" scenario, is that after a few caches we should be able to spot telltale clues as to the final resting place of the target. That conveniently positioned log, or the small pile of twigs, which would go unnoticed to a non-cacher, is enough to make the cacher's nose twitch. Concealing below ground in an impossible-to-spot hole is just plain daft.

 

Finally we come to the use of animal holes and the like. No. Absolutely not. I and many other people have a phobia about putting our arms into deep holes for fear of what might be in there. Putting a cache in such a place is not funny and its not clever. Just ask yourself, as the cache owner, *do* you want people to find this thing or not? Its as simple as that.

[nobby.nobbs]

well said. i'm happy to look for caches which have been covered. the other trouble with buried is everyone could end up digging three or four holes before getting location right. not likely to impress the land owner.

 

if the location is such that hiding a cache is difficult then use your imagination or just don't put one there. plenty of ways to hide something that require some thought. too easy to cop out and dig a hole.

[+paul.blitz]

Lactodorum: the way you interpreted it is how I have always thought about it.

 

In the Netherlands (where the ground tends to be quite soft) many of the caches are, to some degree, "burried".

 

Example #1: tuppaware box in a tuppaware box-sized hole, top level with ground, and a convenient "log slice" put on top. Whilst the placer may have used a tool to make the hole, at least the location was obvious to a cacher.

 

Example #2: end of a multi, the cache was a large bucket-sized container, sunk into the ground. The lid is covered with maybe 1 cm of "forest peat". Without the picture (which for once, I vividly remembered) we would have been looking for ages, and probably not found it.

 

Personally, I would probably just about accept #1, but I think #2 was out of line.

 

Paul

[+THE BRAMBLERS]

We are sorry to have to reiterate this, but as most cachers are thinking along the lines of whether the cache can be found relatively easily (without having to dig numerous holes to find it), few seem to be aware of the implications of digging from the landowners point of view.

 

Digging of any sort in order to hide or find a cache would be totally unacceptable to most landowners, including the National Trust who, as we have been informed by the GAGB, will be monitoring geocaching over the next few months.

____________________________________________________________________

QUOTE FROM GAGB FORUM BY THE WOMBLES

 

"GAGB has been negotiating with the National Trust Headquarters over the last few months following an approach from one of their people in the South East. We have made some progress and they have agreed to allow Geocaching to continue on their property for the foreseeable future. They would like cachers to follow GAGB guidelines.

 

We requested a national agreement but they have decided to continue to monitor Geocaching to gain experience of it and consider it's impact on their land for the moment. Therefore cachers should request placement permission with the relevant local NT warden. GAGB will remain in contact with NT HQ and therefore requests that any issues with NT cache placement are reported to the committee.

 

Discussions with NT have been positive throughout and GAGB hopes that cachers will observe the guidelines to ensure that this relationship can be enhanced in the future.

 

Dave on behalf of the committee "

___________________________________________________________________

 

As we all enjoy this pastime and don't want to see caches being lifted, we really need to be thinking about this FROM THE LANDOWNERS PERSPECTIVE AS WELL.

[+washboy]

On a few occasions I've had to log a NF because I felt unable to search the cache area thoroughly enough without doing damage to the environment, e.g. trampling down areas of long grass or nettles or turning a sodden area into a muddy bog by repeatedly walking around in it. I try to abide by the "leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but photographs" principle, while in the countryside. I think it's a good code, albeit slightly at odds with the whole idea of caching!

 

I assume that no cache will be buried nor placed in such a way that might encourage a cacher to cause damage or disturbance to anything or anyone in order to find it. That's why dry-stone walls, animal holes, environmentally sensitive areas, etc., are all "no-no"s.

 

If I can't reveal the cache using my eyes and hands (and for hands, read also stick/probe/toe) and/or if I won't be able to leave things the way I found them (not just at the exact hiding place but the general area) then I abort the search.

 

If it were to be assumed that any cache might be buried (and by buried I mean covered by more than a shallow layer of natural debris) then cachers might be encouraged to disturb more ground than by simply poking and probing with a stick or the toe of a boot. Utilising a natural depression or fissure is acceptable but doing so must not risk it being enlarged either in the placing or removing of the cache.

 

If Nederlanders wish to bury pots in ploughed fields, that's their affair but it doesn't justify doing the same here. Most UK landowners would not react well to folks digging holes in their land (ploughed or otherwise) so we simply shouldn't do so.

 

Perhaps I'm too cautious and overly considerate of wildlife, landowners and other land users. Just my 2p.