Jump to content

Buried Cache Containers


Gaddiel

Recommended Posts

I know this has been discussed a few times, but I've never really seen an approver or GC admin give their opinion. Markwell, maybe you could help me with that? :lol:

 

The GC guidelines page states: "Caches will be quickly archived if we see the following:" One of the things in the list is:

 

"- 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."

 

My questions: Would a fake sprinkler head fall into this category? How about a cache buried in the sand (no "pointy" object is needed)? Or, what if the hole is already there, and you just put the container in it and cover it with dirt? Or leaves?

 

I guess what I'm looking for is a little clearer definition of the guideline. I'd like to hear from everyone, but especially approvers or GC admin, if any of you happen to read this. We have a cache that would fall into this category, and rather than risk an archival, figured we should just simply ask. I'm sure our local approver has an opinion (we haven't asked yet), but I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks, too.

Link to comment

Existing hole is fine, but it may be a good idea to note that fact on the cache page so people don't accuse you of burying it. The sand burial issue seems to be changing. For a long time it was considered OK, but I've heard of caches rejected recently that were buried on a beach.

 

For a fake sprinkler head or similar item, if you have to dig up the ground to install it, then it's against the rules. If just involves pushing a pointy end of a stake into the ground, then its probably OK.

Link to comment

I would have thought that all caches that are in a hole in the ground created by digging with a "shovel, trowel, or other pointy object" wouldn't be allowed (such as a fake sprinkler head or fake drain). From what I've learned, however, exceptions are made... therefore, I guess this issue is considered on a cache-by-cache basis??

 

The cache in the existing hole in the ground and the cache buried in sand would be okay, I'm thinking, because no tool is used in placing them.

 

Good topic... I too, am curious.

Link to comment
My questions: Would a fake sprinkler head fall into this category? How about a cache buried in the sand (no "pointy" object is needed)? Or, what if the hole is already there, and you just put the container in it and cover it with dirt? Or leaves?

Since you asked for anyone, heres my understaning:

No, because you don't need a shovel to get the cache out. Of course this probably ignores how the sprinker head got there.

 

Again no, but check with YOUR approver to be sure, and be clear where and why its buried. It may also help if you give clues/markers to finding the cache. Otherwise people could be randomly poking their fingers into the sand in a 30' or better circle.

 

Holes happen, dirt would be edgy since it could get wet or dry and pack in, meaning you have to pry the cache out... Leaves won't do that as bad so quickly, and probably ok. Again this ignores how the hole got there (ie. I 'found' the hole my brother jim bob dug and since it was there i used it :lol: ), but thats not in the guildelines.

Link to comment

I'm no approver but I'll chime in anyway.

 

Sprinkler head: Should be find and it's been done plenty of times before. I did one of these a while back and fooled no one. The way I did it is I attached the sprinkler head to a 3/4 inch pipe and just stuck the pipe in the ground a few inches. No point tools need. If you need to dig a whole in the ground to place it, it probably won't fly.

 

Sand: I wouldn't. Check the area, use common sense and run it by the approver but chances are you'll get a big fat NO. Check the area for nesting birds like the endangered Piping Plover. If that's the case don't even bother asking.

 

Natural depression: No problem. Just don't dump a foot of dirt on top of it. Place the cache in the depression and cover it leaves and/or a branch or log.

 

edit: :lol: I said don't dump a foot on top of it instead of don't dump a foot of dirt on top of it. That's funny. BTW: Don't dump a foot or any other body part on top of your caches.

Edited by JMBella
Link to comment

Things like false sprinkler heads and fence post tops are BAD ideas. All that kind of stuff is promote take things apart in the field to see if it's a cache. We don't want to give geocaching a bad rep.

On another note tho I had was searching for a false post top and it took me 7 times back to the same spot before I thought of trying it. Best hide I've ever seen.

Link to comment
Things like false sprinkler heads and fence post tops are BAD ideas. All that kind of stuff is promote take things apart in the field to see if it's a cache. We don't want to give geocaching a bad rep.

On another note tho I had was searching for a false post top and it took me 7 times back to the same spot before I thought of trying it. Best hide I've ever seen.

I don't see any problem with sprinkler heads, in fact a co-worker of mine has gotten quite a bit of kudos for creating such a cache. As long as it doesn't require a a bit of force or tools to reveal the cache, it should be fine.

Link to comment
Things like false sprinkler heads and fence post tops are BAD ideas. All that kind of stuff is promote take things apart in the field to see if it's a cache. We don't want to give geocaching a bad rep.

On another note tho I had was searching for a false post top and it took me 7 times back to the same spot before I thought of trying it. Best hide I've ever seen.

I don't see any problem with sprinkler heads, in fact a co-worker of mine has gotten quite a bit of kudos for creating such a cache. As long as it doesn't require a a bit of force or tools to reveal the cache, it should be fine.

Because ya it's neat the first time you see it, but once there are a few in your area cachers are in local parks unscrewing sprinkler heads just in case and I think a few of us are thinking we don't need to promote people doing that.

Link to comment

I found two caches in Utah this month, that I'm not sure would pass the "buried cache" test.

 

Southern Utah Travel Bug Trading Post is just that. A post of PVC, four inches wide, imbedded in the ground about a foot. The top three inches of the cache is above the ground, with a threaded cap closing the cache. It's actually very clever and fits in with the surrounding landscape quite well, with the PVC pipe making it look like it's part of the irrigation system.

 

The same goes for The Best of the Western. It's the same kind of deal, only if we hadn't found the other one first, I don't think I would have come up with this one. It was very well done with no hint to indicate that it was the PVC pipe, whereas the first one, the hint gave it away.

 

So what constitutes burial? Most of the cache, in both instances, was in the ground, yet the top was above ground and you didn't have to dig to get to the cache and it was a clever hide. Where do you draw the line?

Link to comment
I found two caches in Utah this month, that I'm not sure would pass the "buried cache" test.

 

Southern Utah Travel Bug Trading Post is just that.  A post of PVC, four inches wide, imbedded in the ground about a foot.  The top three inches of the cache is above the ground, with a threaded cap closing the cache.  It's actually very clever and fits in with the surrounding landscape quite well, with the PVC pipe making it look like it's part of the irrigation system.

 

The same goes for The Best of the Western.  It's the same kind of deal, only if we hadn't found the other one first, I don't think I would have come up with this one.  It was very well done with no hint to indicate that it was the PVC pipe, whereas the first one, the hint gave it away.

 

So what constitutes burial? Most of the cache, in both instances, was in the ground, yet the top was above ground and you didn't have to dig to get to the cache and it was a clever hide.  Where do you draw the line?

 

ya, but someone had to dig a hole to put it in - can't use a tool to find it nor hide it.

 

I found one this weekend also -1' x 3" pipe - dropped into a hole - top 3" had a piece of 3" wooden 'stump'' glued to it. Nice job - walked up to it and bumped it with my cane and it moved !!!! GOTCHA!

 

this would not pass muster either -- they dug the hole to drop the pipe into.

 

I found a sprinkler the other day looking for a cache - put it in my bag. Now me thinks I'll just toss it.

Edited by CompuCash
Link to comment
... This would definately be a bad idea in an area with sprinklers.

The problem is, the searcher doesn't know whether it is a fake sprinkler head cache or not. This results in searchers disassembling sprinler heads when the micro is under a bench twenty feet away.

I solved that problem by placed several sprinkler heads in an area that had none. One of them was the cache. Still didn't fool anyone. :) There eventually all went missing.

Link to comment
... This would definately be a bad idea in an area with sprinklers.

The problem is, the searcher doesn't know whether it is a fake sprinkler head cache or not. This results in searchers disassembling sprinler heads when the micro is under a bench twenty feet away.

I solved that problem by placed several sprinkler heads in an area that had none. One of them was the cache. Still didn't fool anyone. :) There eventually all went missing.

well that is definately all wet -

 

{ ooooh sorry about that ! }

 

no I'm not!.

 

:lol::lol::)

Link to comment
... This would definately be a bad idea in an area with sprinklers.

The problem is, the searcher doesn't know whether it is a fake sprinkler head cache or not. This results in searchers disassembling sprinler heads when the micro is under a bench twenty feet away.

I solved that problem by placed several sprinkler heads in an area that had none. One of them was the cache. Still didn't fool anyone. :) There eventually all went missing.

That's still a problem. Once people find them in a sprinkler head once, as it was already pointed out, they will now always check sprinklers close to coords for a micro cache.

Link to comment
I found two caches in Utah this month, that I'm not sure would pass the "buried cache" test.

 

Southern Utah Travel Bug Trading Post is just that.  A post of PVC, four inches wide, imbedded in the ground about a foot.  The top three inches of the cache is above the ground, with a threaded cap closing the cache.  It's actually very clever and fits in with the surrounding landscape quite well, with the PVC pipe making it look like it's part of the irrigation system.

 

The same goes for The Best of the Western.  It's the same kind of deal, only if we hadn't found the other one first, I don't think I would have come up with this one.  It was very well done with no hint to indicate that it was the PVC pipe, whereas the first one, the hint gave it away.

 

So what constitutes burial? Most of the cache, in both instances, was in the ground, yet the top was above ground and you didn't have to dig to get to the cache and it was a clever hide.  Where do you draw the line?

 

ya, but someone had to dig a hole to put it in - can't use a tool to find it nor hide it.

Then I guess my next question would be, why did either of these get approved?

 

Grandfathered is the most likely scenario. Or maybe they have a flexible approver who could see that this might make for an interesting cache in an area that probably wouldn't have a cache other wise.

Link to comment
I found two caches in Utah this month, that I'm not sure would pass the "buried cache" test.

 

Southern Utah Travel Bug Trading Post is just that.  A post of PVC, four inches wide, imbedded in the ground about a foot.  The top three inches of the cache is above the ground, with a threaded cap closing the cache.  It's actually very clever and fits in with the surrounding landscape quite well, with the PVC pipe making it look like it's part of the irrigation system.

 

The same goes for The Best of the Western.  It's the same kind of deal, only if we hadn't found the other one first, I don't think I would have come up with this one.  It was very well done with no hint to indicate that it was the PVC pipe, whereas the first one, the hint gave it away.

 

So what constitutes burial? Most of the cache, in both instances, was in the ground, yet the top was above ground and you didn't have to dig to get to the cache and it was a clever hide.  Where do you draw the line?

 

ya, but someone had to dig a hole to put it in - can't use a tool to find it nor hide it.

Then I guess my next question would be, why did either of these get approved?

 

Grandfathered is the most likely scenario. Or maybe they have a flexible approver who could see that this might make for an interesting cache in an area that probably wouldn't have a cache other wise.

It would have to be very old to be grandfathered. The no burial rule was in effect by the time I started this in 2001. More like the approver just didn't know it was buried.

Link to comment
Then I guess my next question would be, why did either of these get approved?

 

Grandfathered is the most likely scenario. Or maybe they have a flexible approver who could see that this might make for an interesting cache in an area that probably wouldn't have a cache other wise.

Pretend you are a cache reviewer. Looking at the information available on the cache page, including the encrypted hint, but NOT any of the visitor logs, exactly how do you tell from your office desk that the cache is buried?

 

Ahhh, perhaps there are private notes to the reviewer. I checked for that. One cache had no note at all. The other one had this helpful note:

 

This is a fun cache, it is hidden in a not so normal cache container, they will really have to look.

 

I will put the question back to you. How could these caches NOT be listed, on the basis of the information available to the reviewer, and the cache owner's certification that they have complied with all of the geocache listing requirements, including the requirement that the cache not be buried?

Link to comment
Then I guess my next question would be, why did either of these get approved?

 

Grandfathered is the most likely scenario.  Or maybe they have a flexible approver who could see that this might make for an interesting cache in an area that probably wouldn't have a cache other wise.

Pretend you are a cache reviewer. Looking at the information available on the cache page, including the encrypted hint, but NOT any of the visitor logs, exactly how do you tell from your office desk that the cache is buried?

 

Ahhh, perhaps there are private notes to the reviewer. I checked for that. One cache had no note at all. The other one had this helpful note:

 

This is a fun cache, it is hidden in a not so normal cache container, they will really have to look.

 

I will put the question back to you. How could these caches NOT be listed, on the basis of the information available to the reviewer, and the cache owner's certification that they have complied with all of the geocache listing requirements, including the requirement that the cache not be buried?

I'm not trying to split hairs here, just want some discussion. I actually think the cache container not be buried rule should be a little gray anyway. Both of these caches are excellent hides, just happen to be buried halfway. Their tops are out of ground. Part of these caches' appeal is they look like something else and need to be the way they are, otherwise they would be too easy and not nearly as fun as they are.

 

So it's not ok to dig a hole to put a cache there, but if a hole already exists it is ok?

 

Just something else to think about. :P

 

And I don't for a minute expect a reviewer to be able to see all the nuances of all caches from where they sit. That's physically impossible. I just hadn't thought about that before you pointed it out.

Link to comment

So, what is the proper protocol when finding a cache that has been buried? Is a SBA note appropriate or is there some other mechanism that should be used?

 

For instance, there are a couple caches listed here that are now known to be buried. Are they left alone or will something be done about them?

 

Just curious . . .

Link to comment
...or instance, there are a couple caches listed here that are now known to be buried....

I guess the question is 'what does buried mean?' The caches mentioned earlier, the PVC pipes in the ground, might not have required that someone take a pick or shovel to open a hole. Rather, they may have been hammered into the ground like a stake. So if you hammer a pole, pipe, stake, or something similar into the ground, is that considered burying?

 

First we have to consider what TPTB were thinking of when they implemented the rule. Being unable to read Jeremy's mind, I bet he realized that if we started digging holes in parks to hide caches, the sport would quickly become very unwelcome (I believe the NPS ban came from one cache that was found buried). So is hammering a stake, or similar object into the ground the same thing?

 

I must say no. There are many LNT advocates who camp and would never dream of digging a hole at their campsite, but have no problem with hammering a tent stake or pole into the ground. I think it's obvious to most of us that there is a big difference between hammering an object into the ground, vs. excavating a hole.

 

I'm sure some of the admins are looking at the caches mentioned earlier and thinking "maybe we should archive them". If they indeed are caches that were hammered into the ground then I don't think so. The guidelines say "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.

 

I know caches buried under the sand on beaches have recently been rejected, which I think is a misinterpretation of the guidelines. Not log ago, they were acceptable. Is the next step disallowing stakes in the ground, or caches placed in an existing hole and buried with leaves and duff? I hope we don't take a walk down this slippery slope..

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I had hoped there would be a response from TPTB regarding my question. What is the proper protocol should I find a cache that is buried?

 

Suppose there is a cache that is not in a natural hole, does not require an instrument to retrieve the cache, but was obviously dug to place . . . what would GC.com have us do with such a cache?

Link to comment
I had hoped there would be a response from TPTB regarding my question. What is the proper protocol should I find a cache that is buried?

 

Suppose there is a cache that is not in a natural hole, does not require an instrument to retrieve the cache, but was obviously dug to place . . . what would GC.com have us do with such a cache?

I think if you posted an SBA, that would get their attention, but might make an enemy of the cache owner. You can start with a polite e-mail to the owner reminding him that buried caches are not allowed. If you get a rude response, contact your admin, or go the SBA route. Its then out of your hands, unless you want to play cache vigilante and steal it.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...