New Cache Category?

[+Yerocrg]

There should be a new cache type for 'magnetic caches'. These are caches which are either made of metal or contain something metal. The posted coordinates would lead the cacher close to where the cache is buried. The cacher would then search, using a metal detector to find the cache. The cache is found, dug up, logbook is signed, items are traded, and the cache is re-buried. There could be another way to find it for people without metal detectors, i.e. go to the these coordinates, turn South-Southeast and walk 21 ft. or something like that.

 

 

Yerocrg

[+The Leprechauns]

Yeah, I'd call them "gardening caches."

 

This is Geocaching.com, not metaldetecting.com, so I'll ignore that part of your suggestion and deal just with GPS use.

 

Were all of the five caches you've found EXACTLY at ground zero, according to your GPS? If so, you're lucky... you must geocache in an area with a clear view of the sky all around. Most of us are lucky if the GPS gets us within 20 to 30 feet of the cache. Combine a 20 foot error by the hider and a 20 foot error by the finder on any given day, and you get yourself a nice big circle to search in.

 

If somebody wants a new garden turned over, this is a great idea. Other than that, I don't think it'll work.

 

Since the beginning of geocaching, we've been fighting the unfair rap that the caches are "buried." That's because of the association with "buried treasure." It's what got geocaching banned in National Parks. (In fact, some early caches *were* buried... containers sunk into the ground with just the lid accessible from the surface.) It is nice to tell land managers that we don't do that, and this helps them decide to allow geocaching. In my own conversations with land managers, it's one of the top three concerns expressed (together with illegal items in caches and social trails/environmental impact).

 

This is why the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines specifically prohibit buried caches; i.e., those which require a pointy object to hide or find the cache.

[+Yerocrg]

You could put hints, like "within 5 ft of the boulder next to the big pine tree"?

 

 

Yerocrg

[+Mopar]

You could put hints, like "within 5 ft of the boulder next to the big pine tree"?

 

Uhm, did you actually read the guidelines when you hid your cache, or just check off the box that asked you if you did?

 

We don't bury caches!

 

For the reasons already told to you. If cachers started digging up all the parks, it would be banned everywhere in a heartbeat.

[+Yerocrg]

I haven't actually hidden the cache yet, and besides, the guidelines can be changed

 

Yerocrg

[Deego]

Edited December 10, 2004 by Deego

[+The Leprechauns]

You could put hints, like "within 5 ft of the boulder next to the big pine tree"?

 

 

Yerocrg

Oh. Welcome to letterboxing, then.

 

Me, I'd rather use my GPS to get to the area, and then my instincts to find the geocache. If I wanted to dig in the woods, I'd go visit my ex-wife (may she rest in pieces).

 

EDIT: This post shouldn't be interpreted as a knock against letterboxing. Boxers often construct elaborate clues and lots of them look very challenging. I'm too stupid at math and puzzles to find them, just like I avoid most puzzle caches.

Edited December 10, 2004 by The Leprechauns

[+NoLemon]

I haven't actually hidden the cache yet, and besides, the guidelines can be changed

 

Yerocrg

Odd. According to your profile you hid a cache on 12/3 and it has been found twice.

 

As for caches that require someone to dig something up -- very bad idea. After a few dig up/bury cycles the ground surrounding the hide is going to be torn up. There isn't a park manager out there likely to support this idea.

[Mushtang]

besides, the guidelines can be changed

Yes, they CAN be changed, but this one won't be. This is one of the guidelines that everyone that has found more than a few caches will agree on.

 

Buried caches are bad, mmmkay?

[CoyoteRed]

Buried caches are bad...?

I really love these blanket statements.

Edited December 10, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[+NJ Admin]

I haven't actually hidden the cache yet, and besides, the guidelines can be changed

 

Yerocrg

Odd. According to your profile you hid a cache on 12/3 and it has been found twice.

Since the cache owner states he has not placed the actual cache yet, I've unapproved the cache page. Please email me through the site when the cache is actually in place and I will review it again. I'll also email the 2 people that logged finds on it, since if you haven't placed the cache yet, they must not have really found it.

[Mushtang]

Buried caches are bad...?

I really love these blanket statements.

Blanket statements are bad, mmmkay?

[CoyoteRed]

I haven't actually hidden the cache yet, and besides, the guidelines can be changed

 

Yerocrg

Odd. According to your profile you hid a cache on 12/3 and it has been found twice.

Since the cache owner states he has not placed the actual cache yet, I've unapproved the cache page. Please email me through the site when the cache is actually in place and I will review it again. I'll also email the 2 people that logged finds on it, since if you haven't placed the cache yet, they must not have really found it.

WOW! That's a major leap.

 

He hasn't hidden the cache he has a query about and he has a cache approved, so they must be one and the same?

 

I don't follow the logic.

[Keystone]

The cache that NJ Admin was looking at has a clue that matches what was posted in this thread... "near big rock by pine tree." Perhaps it is a buried cache, perhaps it isn't. If it isn't, a quick note from the cache owner to NJ Admin confirming that the cache is actually in place -- but not buried -- ought to clear up the matter.

 

It might also help to know that the same cache owner submitted a virtual for the North Pole. Off-the-wall submissions like that tend to make the cache reviewers a bit cautious.

Edited December 10, 2004 by Keystone Approver

[+Jamie Z]

a virtual for the North Pole.

What're the coordinates to the north pole?

 

Jamie

[Jeremy]

What're the coordinates to the north pole?

Only Santa knows.

[+Yerocrg]

When I was talking about a buried cache that I haven't placed yet, I didn't mean Stony Mountain Cache. That cache is there and is not buried. Me using the same hint for that cache as Stony Mountain Cache is just coincidence

 

 

Yerocrg

[+hikemeister]

Please note that there recently have been issues about geocaching raised by land managers, especially those in the federal government. I think the general idea (a sound one) is that they do not want the natural areas trashed. Most geocachers take care to mimize their impacts to the environment while caching, and in fact, some support development of a 'code of ethics' that formalizes this approach to caching. Digging holes definately is not consistent with that approach -- even if it was allowed. If you want to use a metal detector, perhaps go to the beach and hunt for coins or something.

[CoyoteRed]

Actually, it not that "buried" is bad. It's the potential for disturbing areas where the land owner doesn't want you digging, the potential for destruction of an area trying to find the cache, and leaving the area exactly like you found it.

 

Let's just take the "potential for destruction of an area trying to find the cache." Sure you could use a metal detector, but how are you going to restrict the hunt to those who have a metal detector? What happens when a person comes along and just digs a bunch of holes looking? Not, good.

 

Second, "leaving the area exactly like you found it." We can't even get everyone to put the cache back. How are you going to ensure the cache is reburied so it looks like the area was never disturbed?

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the blanket rule of no buried caches, but just look at the potential of bad press, bad relations, and generally bad attitudes against geocaching without some restraints.

 

I'd like a good guideline written that allowed buried cache in restrictly controlled situations. Written owner approval, not have to dig it up unless buried under easily removed cover like sand, stuff like that. I haven't made an effort to come up with something because it would probably never go anywhere.

 

So, in short, the easy thing to do is to say, "No buried caches. Period."

 

Hope this helps a bit in understanding.

 

PS: I do know of some excellent caches that are in essence buried, but are in a found stump hole with a cover over it. I actually stepped on it several times until I noticed part of the ground moving that wasn't supposed to.

[Mushtang]

Actually, it not that "buried" is bad. It's the potential for disturbing areas where the land owner doesn't want you digging, the potential for destruction of an area trying to find the cache, and leaving the area exactly like you found it.

Actually, it's not that "drinking poison" is bad. It's the potential for your heart to stop beating, the potential for you to stop breathing, and the lack of oxygen to your brain that's is the problem.

[+hikemeister]

Hey Yerocrg -- check out the information on the geocaching site about how to deal with travel bugs. You posted a note on a New Jersey cache page (the very last posting on that page) that you dropped a bug, but it appears you did not log the bug onto that cache page. Also -- it is strange that you picked up a travel bug from the same cache where you left it -- at least this is what seems to be the case, since your stats show just one bug found.

 

PS -- have you ever heard the term 'sock puppet?"

[CoyoteRed]

Actually, it not that "buried" is bad.  It's the potential for disturbing areas where the land owner doesn't want you digging, the potential for destruction of an area trying to find the cache, and leaving the area exactly like you found it.

Actually, it's not that "drinking poison" is bad. It's the potential for your heart to stop beating, the potential for you to stop breathing, and the lack of oxygen to your brain that's is the problem.

It's not that sky diving without a parachute is bad, it's the landing.

 

Okay, and your point?

 

The point of my post was there are perfectly good situations that aren't allowed because of the blanket rule established by gc.com.

 

A recent post about a newly landscaped spot with the owner's blessing not being allowed because the cache ended up being below grade and the placers dug a hole to accomodate it.

 

There are interesting caches buried in a sand with clues for using certain length strings to find the exact spot to dig.

 

Both of the above satisified my requirements.

 

If a landowner wants to dig a hole on his own property to sink a container almost completely into the ground then he should be able to do it and get it approved here if it weren't for this blanket rule.

 

That's my point.

 

Yours?

[Mushtang]

I thought my point was clear. Your post just stated the obvious.

 

Of course it's not the burying of the cache that is the problem, it's all the destruction that would likely be caused around it while people are trying to find it.

 

That's my point.

[CoyoteRed]

Oh. DOH!

 

Sorry.

[+Yerocrg]

Hey Yerocrg -- check out the information on the geocaching site about how to deal with travel bugs. You posted a note on a New Jersey cache page (the very last posting on that page) that you dropped a bug, but it appears you did not log the bug onto that cache page. Also -- it is strange that you picked up a travel bug from the same cache where you left it -- at least this is what seems to be the case, since your stats show just one bug found.

 

PS -- have you ever heard the term 'sock puppet?"

The reason I logged it into a cache and picked it up is because I grabbed it from another cacher who hadn't dropped it off. Then, to log the miles, I dropped it off and picked it up again.

 

 

Yerocrg