Buried vs. Underground

[Redtwin2]

I have thought about making a cache out of a bucket with a screw on lid. the bucket would be buried up to the rim, and then a fake bush or rock or something would be attached to the lid. To open the cache, you would have to unscrew the "bush"

 

Would something like this be allowed?

[+MartyBartfast]

Only my opinion but a resounding "No".

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I have thought about making a cache out of a bucket with a screw on lid. the bucket would be buried up to the rim, and then a fake bush or rock or something would be attached to the lid. To open the cache, you would have to unscrew the "bush"

 

Would something like this be allowed?

 

From the placement guidelines.

 

Geocaches are never buried.

 

If one has to dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache, then the cache is not permitted.

 

Unless you can find a bucket shaped hole you're going to have to dig a hole to hide the bucket.

[+niraD]

According to the guidelines, "Geocaches are never buried. If one has to dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache, then the cache is not permitted."

 

So the only way such a cache would be permitted is if you can manage to hide it (and others can find it) without digging or breaking ground, which sounds unlikely.

[+the4dirtydogs]

Not a good idea, but I have found a few dozen(if not more) caches just like this.

 

You can if the cache is on your own property.

Edited September 19, 2012 by the4dirtydogs

[knowschad]

No. NoNoNoNoNo. Uh-uh. Nope. Not on your life.

[Redtwin2]

I was thinking about this on my own property and blending it into the landscape. I guess I don't know why it wouldn't work since it is not fully buried with dirt on all sides. How would it be different from a cache that is placed in a hole, thus being underground??

[+CanadianRockies]

I was thinking about this on my own property and blending it into the landscape. I guess I don't know why it wouldn't work since it is not fully buried with dirt on all sides. How would it be different from a cache that is placed in a hole, thus being underground??

The problem with buried (and partially buried) caches is that public landowners (like park managers) get upset if they think geocaching involves buried treasure. They don't want people coming on their land with shovels and pick axes, so they might end up banning geocaching.

 

Thus, Groundspeak forbids buried (and partially buried) caches that involve either the hider or the seekers having to dig. Although using an existing hole or burying a cache on your own property technically gets around the guidelines, it's still generally frowned upon by the geocaching community since it could encourage copycat hiders who don't fully understand the guidelines and head off to dig holes on public property.

Edited September 19, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Not a good idea, but I have found a few dozen(if not more) caches just like this.

 

You can if the cache is on your own property.

 

I'm guessing that a reviewer might grant an exception if it's one your own property but the guidelines don't say that you can bury a cache if it's on your own property.

 

The problem that I see with allowing buried caches on ones own property is that the CO is not required to divulge the fact that a cache is on their own property. Someone that hasn't read the No buried Caches rule (which has recently had a language change) might assume that it's okay to dig a hole in order to bury a bucket up to the rim for a cache hidden in a city park, a location they may assume has adequate permission if there are already several other caches in the park.

[knowschad]

I was thinking about this on my own property and blending it into the landscape. I guess I don't know why it wouldn't work since it is not fully buried with dirt on all sides. How would it be different from a cache that is placed in a hole, thus being underground??

 

The keyword in "Geocaches are never buried" is "never".

 

[Edited to remove the "r" from "Geocachers are never buried" Oops!! )

Edited September 19, 2012 by knowschad

[+niraD]

I have found a number of below-grade caches that have been fine, but they have been placed in existing holes. (The first cache I found was a plastic footlocker lowered into a hollow redwood stump.)

 

Land managers don't want people digging up their parks and open spaces looking for buried treasure. That's the reason for the "no digging" guideline. And it really doesn't matter if the cache is on your own property. To be listed here, it needs to comply with the "no digging" guideline.

 

So it's okay to place a cache in an existing hole, but it is not okay to "dig or break ground" to hide the cache.

[+the4dirtydogs]

I was thinking about this on my own property and blending it into the landscape. I guess I don't know why it wouldn't work since it is not fully buried with dirt on all sides. How would it be different from a cache that is placed in a hole, thus being underground??

If the cache is on your own property then go for it. Say so on the cache page and all is good. Good luck.

[+the4dirtydogs]

Not a good idea, but I have found a few dozen(if not more) caches just like this.

 

You can if the cache is on your own property.

 

I'm guessing that a reviewer might grant an exception if it's one your own property but the guidelines don't say that you can bury a cache if it's on your own property.

 

The problem that I see with allowing buried caches on ones own property is that the CO is not required to divulge the fact that a cache is on their own property. Someone that hasn't read the No buried Caches rule (which has recently had a language change) might assume that it's okay to dig a hole in order to bury a bucket up to the rim for a cache hidden in a city park, a location they may assume has adequate permission if there are already several other caches in the park.

Thats why you dont assume anything and ask for permission like you're suppose to. Like I said I've found buried(up to the lid) caches all over the place.

Edited September 19, 2012 by the4dirtydogs

[Redtwin2]

Thank you all for your input. I thought this may have been what I would come up against, but wanted to be sure. It would still be a fun find, though

[+the4dirtydogs]

Thank you all for your input. I thought this may have been what I would come up against, but wanted to be sure. It would still be a fun find, though

Some of the ones I have found have been really fun. One was at a church and was like a water valve box and had an ammocan hidden inside under false valves. I almost didnt find that one.

[+dprovan]

Sounds like a cool idea, so maybe you could do something above ground. Although I think you want a cache that's bigger than expected, I'm guessing that the main reason for burial is to hold the container in place while the huge "top" is unscrewed. If it's on your property, perhaps you could attach the bottom to the ground or a platform to keep it from moving. Unscrewing a bush and finding that its center is a bucket is not quite as cool as unscrewing a bush and discovering a missle silo under it, but perhaps it would be good enough.

[knowschad]

Thank you all for your input. I thought this may have been what I would come up against, but wanted to be sure. It would still be a fun find, though

 

I will add, though, that you're in good company:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocaching#History

 

According to Dave Ulmer's message, the original stash was a black plastic bucket buried most of the way in the ground and contained software, videos, books, food, money, and a slingshot.

[+Understandblue]

 

[Edited to remove the "r" from "Geocachers are never buried" Oops!! )

 

Bwahah!

[GPS-Hermit]

I have seen drywall buckets in the ground and with part sticking up and no one had been digging up the woods looking for it. No body considers a GeoCache a buried treasure and I believe Not one would ever be approved. If anyone saw a buried treasure cache, the approver would be Crucified. Buried means covered up with Dirt. requiring one to uncover the dirt to find it and none of us would seek such a cache. We would all raise a ruckus and support Groundspeak on the no digging rule. Now to me placing a hole to place a cache does not mean anyone would dig to find it. So if no one is going to do that then why discuss the possiblility. Finding the container, open the container, trade with the container, and close the container is what we do. I have very little concern about the hole unless you plan to bury a car, and use people for trade items. We bushwack, we gather sticks to cover caches, We move leaves, logs, bark, and limbs around to see whats there, we scare away poor little animals that are minding there own business. We disturb things, birds fly away from us, snakes slither away, animals run like the wind. But nobody comes to dig up the forest to find a cache that is partly stuck in a hole man made or natural. It is a moot point. It ain't gonna happen.

 

Now if a cache can be placed in a hole and not cause a problem, then we can place a bush on top of it and call it a wicked hide. Nothing bad will happen! The hole is harmless, the cache is fun, the finders know who they are and can't wait to see if someone is clever enough to find it as well.

Edited September 19, 2012 by GPS-Hermit

[+CanadianRockies]

I have seen drywall buckets in the ground and with part sticking up and no one had been digging up the woods looking for it.

That's because buried caches are fairly rare. If there were a lot more of them, then there would be a lot more digging up the woods looking for them.

 

If anyone saw a buried treasure cache, the approver would be Crucified.

Some of the older buried caches were grandfathered when the rule was established. Other buried caches are on private property. Other buried caches don't mention that they are buried on the cache page, and the owner probably didn't mention it in a Reviewer Note.

 

Buried means covered up with Dirt. requiring one to uncover the dirt to find it and none of us would seek such a cache. We would all raise a ruckus and support Groundspeak on the no digging rule.

I have found several caches that were buried and covered up with dirt.

 

Now to me placing a hole to place a cache does not mean anyone would dig to find it.

Again, that's because caches that are buried and covered with dirt are fairly rare. What you will find, however, are cachers who come across a partially buried container (perhaps on private property) and then dig holes in parks to partially bury their own caches (without realizing this is against the guidelines).

[GPS-Hermit]

I have seen drywall buckets in the ground and with part sticking up and no one had been digging up the woods looking for it.

That's because buried caches are fairly rare. If there were a lot more of them, then there would be a lot more digging up the woods looking for them.

 

If anyone saw a buried treasure cache, the approver would be Crucified.

Some of the older buried caches were grandfathered when the rule was established. Other buried caches are on private property. Other buried caches don't mention that they are buried on the cache page, and the owner probably didn't mention it in a Reviewer Note.

 

Buried means covered up with Dirt. requiring one to uncover the dirt to find it and none of us would seek such a cache. We would all raise a ruckus and support Groundspeak on the no digging rule.

I have found several caches that were buried and covered up with dirt.

 

Now to me placing a hole to place a cache does not mean anyone would dig to find it.

Again, that's because caches that are buried and covered with dirt are fairly rare. What you will find, however, are cachers who come across a partially buried container (perhaps on private property) and then dig holes in parks to partially bury their own caches (without realizing this is against the guidelines).

 

Where are the examples of armies of people coming to dig up the cache with picks and axes - park officials are NOT going to allow that and that is not happening now. Nobody is wanting to dig for a cache. Most caches are small and would disturb little ground and merely would hold the cache in place while it is being opened - nothing more than that. I am not crazy about the idea and agree with no digging policy but at the same time I don't see it as a problem if all the digging that gets done is to hold a Geocache in place or help define its place to live. I think, what we are trying to avoid is attempting to find Blackbeards stash with 20 backhoes. I know of no buried caches and never even heard of one being placed or anyone digging to find one. The OP wants to place it low to the ground, hold it in place, just above ground level and secure a bush to the top of it. He may have to dig a little but not very much, we may be talking a large coffee can full of dirt. This is not a major earth moving project and would of course be done as not to be noticed when finished. I believe any partially buried cache would be done in exactly the same way for the same reason. If permission is granted wheres the harm. The ones I have seen (only 3) sticking out of the ground certainly did not cause any problem or secure a host of complaints. And Again noone who came to find it did any digging - that is the main point!

Edited September 19, 2012 by GPS-Hermit

[+the4dirtydogs]

I have seen drywall buckets in the ground and with part sticking up and no one had been digging up the woods looking for it.

That's because buried caches are fairly rare. If there were a lot more of them, then there would be a lot more digging up the woods looking for them.

 

If anyone saw a buried treasure cache, the approver would be Crucified.

Some of the older buried caches were grandfathered when the rule was established. Other buried caches are on private property. Other buried caches don't mention that they are buried on the cache page, and the owner probably didn't mention it in a Reviewer Note.

 

Buried means covered up with Dirt. requiring one to uncover the dirt to find it and none of us would seek such a cache. We would all raise a ruckus and support Groundspeak on the no digging rule.

I have found several caches that were buried and covered up with dirt.

 

Now to me placing a hole to place a cache does not mean anyone would dig to find it.

Again, that's because caches that are buried and covered with dirt are fairly rare. What you will find, however, are cachers who come across a partially buried container (perhaps on private property) and then dig holes in parks to partially bury their own caches (without realizing this is against the guidelines).

I'm sorry I find it funny that you say buried caches are rare yet you have found several that are buried.

[+CanadianRockies]

If permission is granted wheres the harm.

The harm occurs when a geocacher finds a cache that has been partially buried with permission, decides this is a good idea to copy, goes to a park, and partially buries a cache without permission. You might not think this does much harm, but plenty of land managers do, and some have banned geocaching on their lands over a lot less than people coming and digging holes.

 

Groundspeak's guideline against digging to hide or seek a cache is there for a reason.

[+CanadianRockies]

I have seen drywall buckets in the ground and with part sticking up and no one had been digging up the woods looking for it.

That's because buried caches are fairly rare.

I'm sorry I find it funny that you say buried caches are rare yet you have found several that are buried.

I said fairly rare. I've probably found 5 buried caches out of 7000+ finds. I'd say that's fairly rare.

[+the4dirtydogs]

If permission is granted wheres the harm.

The harm occurs when a geocacher finds a cache that has been partially buried with permission, decides this is a good idea to copy, goes to a park, and partially buries a cache without permission. You might not think this does much harm, but plenty of land managers do, and some have banned geocaching on their lands over a lot less than people coming and digging holes.

 

Groundspeak's guideline against digging to hide or seek a cache is there for a reason.

That's part of the problem with placing caches without permission, buried or not.

[+the4dirtydogs]

I have seen drywall buckets in the ground and with part sticking up and no one had been digging up the woods looking for it.

That's because buried caches are fairly rare.

I'm sorry I find it funny that you say buried caches are rare yet you have found several that are buried.

I said fairly rare. I've probably found 5 buried caches out of 7000+ finds. I'd say that's fairly rare.

I still think its funny. Sorry.

[+niraD]

The harm occurs when a geocacher finds a cache that has been partially buried with permission, decides this is a good idea to copy, goes to a park, and partially buries a cache without permission. You might not think this does much harm, but plenty of land managers do, and some have banned geocaching on their lands over a lot less than people coming and digging holes.

 

Groundspeak's guideline against digging to hide or seek a cache is there for a reason.

The harm also occurs when geocachers get the idea that caches can be buried, and start digging whenever it takes them more than a couple minutes to find a well-hidden (but not buried) cache.

[+the4dirtydogs]

The harm occurs when a geocacher finds a cache that has been partially buried with permission, decides this is a good idea to copy, goes to a park, and partially buries a cache without permission. You might not think this does much harm, but plenty of land managers do, and some have banned geocaching on their lands over a lot less than people coming and digging holes.

 

Groundspeak's guideline against digging to hide or seek a cache is there for a reason.

The harm also occurs when geocachers get the idea that caches can be buried, and start digging whenever it takes them more than a couple minutes to find a well-hidden (but not buried) cache.

Oh man you guys are killing me over here. Really, I have never heard of any geocacher digging for a cache. Must be the treasure hunt part

[+CanadianRockies]

If permission is granted wheres the harm.

The harm occurs when a geocacher finds a cache that has been partially buried with permission, decides this is a good idea to copy, goes to a park, and partially buries a cache without permission. You might not think this does much harm, but plenty of land managers do, and some have banned geocaching on their lands over a lot less than people coming and digging holes.

 

Groundspeak's guideline against digging to hide or seek a cache is there for a reason.

That's part of the problem with placing caches without permission, buried or not.

But certain types of caches that are placed without permission are likely to cause bigger problems than others. A nano cache placed under a bench in front of your local hardware store without permission is unlikely to cause as many headaches for Groundspeak as an ammo can buried in a state park without permission.

[+CanadianRockies]

The harm occurs when a geocacher finds a cache that has been partially buried with permission, decides this is a good idea to copy, goes to a park, and partially buries a cache without permission. You might not think this does much harm, but plenty of land managers do, and some have banned geocaching on their lands over a lot less than people coming and digging holes.

 

Groundspeak's guideline against digging to hide or seek a cache is there for a reason.

The harm also occurs when geocachers get the idea that caches can be buried, and start digging whenever it takes them more than a couple minutes to find a well-hidden (but not buried) cache.

Oh man you guys are killing me over here. Really, I have never heard of any geocacher digging for a cache. Must be the treasure hunt part

That's because buried caches are fairly rare. If there were a lot more buried caches, then you'd hear of a lot more geocachers digging for caches.

[AZcachemeister]

So, to get around the 'Caches are never buried' issue, don't bury the cache!

Make it a multi-cache.

Create your fake bush, and put the true location of the cache on the underside of the base. Doesn't even have to be co-ordinates...'In the box on the west end of the porch'.

 

But PLEASE, if you are going to hide a cache on your property make it absolutely clear (in the write-up) which house is your house!!

In rural areas there may be little doubt, but in sub-urban areas it may not be clear who's yard we should be in.

[+wimseyguy]

If permission is granted wheres the harm.

The harm occurs when a geocacher finds a cache that has been partially buried with permission, decides this is a good idea to copy, goes to a park, and partially buries a cache without permission. You might not think this does much harm, but plenty of land managers do, and some have banned geocaching on their lands over a lot less than people coming and digging holes.

 

Groundspeak's guideline against digging to hide or seek a cache is there for a reason.

That's part of the problem with placing caches without permission, buried or not.

But certain types of caches that are placed without permission are likely to cause bigger problems than others. A nano cache placed under a bench in front of your local hardware store without permission is unlikely to cause as many headaches for Groundspeak as an ammo can buried in a state park without permission.

 

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner-some of the first caches placed within NC State Parks were done without permission, in holes, and up trees. Fast Forward 10+ years and we still have a de-facto ban in place with an overly restrictive permit system and many park superintendents who just refuse to issue permits when they are applied for.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I have seen drywall buckets in the ground and with part sticking up and no one had been digging up the woods looking for it. No body considers a GeoCache a buried treasure and I believe Not one would ever be approved. If anyone saw a buried treasure cache, the approver would be Crucified. Buried means covered up with Dirt. requiring one to uncover the dirt to find it and none of us would seek such a cache. We would all raise a ruckus and support Groundspeak on the no digging rule. Now to me placing a hole to place a cache does not mean anyone would dig to find it. So if no one is going to do that then why discuss the possiblility. Finding the container, open the container, trade with the container, and close the container is what we do. I have very little concern about the hole unless you plan to bury a car, and use people for trade items. We bushwack, we gather sticks to cover caches, We move leaves, logs, bark, and limbs around to see whats there, we scare away poor little animals that are minding there own business. We disturb things, birds fly away from us, snakes slither away, animals run like the wind. But nobody comes to dig up the forest to find a cache that is partly stuck in a hole man made or natural. It is a moot point. It ain't gonna happen.

 

Now if a cache can be placed in a hole and not cause a problem, then we can place a bush on top of it and call it a wicked hide. Nothing bad will happen! The hole is harmless, the cache is fun, the finders know who they are and can't wait to see if someone is clever enough to find it as well.

Nice opinion, but it's wrong. Not much else to say.

[+MtnMutt-ProDuckShins]

How About a PVC Tube set-up in a Rockery where it is curved to the point you stick your arm in and as you move your arm for the bend you come across something Furry?

 

Once you hit that Furry item you are not sure to keeping going or pull out.

 

Someone had placed Rabbit fur within the Cache set-up. the actually cache was located beyond the fur.

 

This way an exciting cache...........

 

Does this count??

[+The_Incredibles_]

A very creative idea, but unfortunately totally against the guidelines.

 

I understand the confusion about the term 'buried'. To most people, this would mean that the object is totally underground. That's why I think a line was added to the guidelines to be more specific. i.e. if you dig or break ground it is not allowed.

 

There is a loophole in this in that if you can find an existing hole and the cache is partly above ground, technically, it is OK. However, the big problem with this is copycats. Not everybody finding your cache will know this is a pre-existing hole and may then proceed to dig a hole in their local park.

[+The_Incredibles_]

But PLEASE, if you are going to hide a cache on your property make it absolutely clear (in the write-up) which house is your house!!

In rural areas there may be little doubt, but in sub-urban areas it may not be clear who's yard we should be in.

 

+1 I once made a mistake in the math for a multi and went into someone's yard searching for the final cache. There was a birdhouse on the front porch and I went right up to it and grabbed it thinking it was the cache.

[+Ma & Pa]

So this one would not be allowed?

 

 

[+Glimmereyes]

So this one would not be allowed?

 

 

Depends why the pipe is there. If its purpose predates the cache, it's fine. If it was put in for the cache, it's against the rules.

[+tozainamboku]

Nice opinion, but it's wrong. Not much else to say.

It's amazing how so many opinions can be wrong on both sides of this issue.

 

This is what happens when Groundspeak provides guidelines without stating the rationale. If the rationale is just to prevent damage in form of unwanted holes being dug, you could certainly allow exceptions when the land owner/manager grants permission. If the rationale is to foster the perception that geocachers don't alter the environment by digging holes, or otherwise defacing property, then perhaps you'd want to limit exceptions further.

[+the4dirtydogs]

So this one would not be allowed?

Depends on if thats the COs property or he had permission for that type of hide from the land owner. Or like someone else said, the pipe was already there.

[knowschad]

Oh man you guys are killing me over here. Really, I have never heard of any geocacher digging for a cache. Must be the treasure hunt part

I guess the guidelines are working, then.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

It's funny (sort of...), how people see things different.

 

Take the thread title for example:

Buried vs. Underground

 

I view "Buried" as somebody digging to place a geocache; to which I would say is a "no go" -- private property/permission or partial burials included (period). The guidelines do not provide a private property/permission exclusion, or even one for "partial" burial.

 

I view "Underground" as a pre-existing manner or method of introducing a geocache below ground level. As such, I do not believe the intent of the guidelines would be to prevent such hides. A sewer hide, a cave hide, an abandoned mine hide (bad idea -- regardless) or even a well hide. As in any other case, most if not all of these locations will be owned/administered by somebody and permission would be required.

 

My 2¢, for whatever that is worth.....

[+the4dirtydogs]

Oh man you guys are killing me over here. Really, I have never heard of any geocacher digging for a cache. Must be the treasure hunt part

I guess the guidelines are working, then.

For the digging up the cache part, but I still find lots of caches buried up to the lid as the OP states she wanted to do. I dont see anything wrong with that if you have permission. I've also called out a few cachers for hiding like this because I know they didnt have permission and they've archived the caches.

[+The A-Team]

So this one would not be allowed?

Depends on if thats the COs property or he had permission for that type of hide from the land owner. Or like someone else said, the pipe was already there.

Permission has nothing to do with the 'buried' guideline (see above posts discussing copycats and the guideline itself that doesn't list any exceptions). The only way that hide would be acceptable would be if the pipe was pre-existing.

[+the4dirtydogs]

So this one would not be allowed?

Depends on if thats the COs property or he had permission for that type of hide from the land owner. Or like someone else said, the pipe was already there.

Permission has nothing to do with the 'buried' guideline (see above posts discussing copycats and the guideline itself that doesn't list any exceptions). The only way that hide would be acceptable would be if the pipe was pre-existing.

Of course permission has everything to do with a buried cache. If I want to bury a cache to the lid on my property I will and the cache will be approved(thats the only way around that guideline and I've seen this done many times). As for copycats thats on them to obtain permission too, I can't control what other cachers do.

[+dprovan]

The only way that hide would be acceptable would be if the pipe was pre-existing.

I'm kinda interesting in this detail. The guideline quoted is, "Geocaches are never buried. If one has to dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache, then the cache is not permitted." In our hypothetical case, they didn't break ground to hide the cache: they broke ground to install the pipe. Yeah, they installed the pipe to hide the cache in, and they hid the cache in the pipe. But the guideline only address hiding.

 

And I don't think I'm rationalizing to skirt the guidelines. Why would the guidelines care if I did improvements on my property in order to hide a cache? You've already implicitly admitted that there's no copycat problem here, since you're OK with the hide if the pipe was already there. Why would installing this pipe be any different than, say, building a gazebo for the sole purposes of hiding a cache in it? If we interpret the guidelines as you are suggesting, my gazebo cache would be prohibited because I broke ground to install the pilings.

[knowschad]

Oh man you guys are killing me over here. Really, I have never heard of any geocacher digging for a cache. Must be the treasure hunt part

I guess the guidelines are working, then.

For the digging up the cache part, but I still find lots of caches buried up to the lid as the OP states she wanted to do. I dont see anything wrong with that if you have permission. I've also called out a few cachers for hiding like this because I know they didnt have permission and they've archived the caches.

 

At one time, I would have agree with you. That was before the official "Geocaches are never buried" change. To me, "never" does include private property. You can bury what you want on your own property... just don't list it as a geocache on this site.

[+the4dirtydogs]

Oh man you guys are killing me over here. Really, I have never heard of any geocacher digging for a cache. Must be the treasure hunt part

I guess the guidelines are working, then.

For the digging up the cache part, but I still find lots of caches buried up to the lid as the OP states she wanted to do. I dont see anything wrong with that if you have permission. I've also called out a few cachers for hiding like this because I know they didnt have permission and they've archived the caches.

 

At one time, I would have agree with you. That was before the official "Geocaches are never buried" change. To me, "never" does include private property. You can bury what you want on your own property... just don't list it as a geocache on this site.

There is nothing wrong with listing a cache like this on this site as long as you have permission too. Especially if it's on your own property and the cache will be published.

[+niraD]

Enforcement of the "no digging" guideline may be inconsistent. There have been recent threads here about caches that were dug into the ground on the CO's property, and the listings were archived when the situation was reported to the volunteer reviewers.

 

On the other hand, I've seen below-grade caches that didn't require digging, because they were placed in an existing hole, utility box, or whatever. But the cache was not the existing hole, utility box, or whatever. The cache was some other container. It was merely hidden (without digging) in the existing hole, utility box, or whatever.

 

And of course, the guidelines don't prevent Groundspeak from granting an exception for a specific cache, without granting an exception for similar caches. As the saying goes, "there is no precedent for placing geocaches."

[+the4dirtydogs]

Enforcement of the "no digging" guideline may be inconsistent. There have been recent threads here about caches that were dug into the ground on the CO's property, and the listings were archived when the situation was reported to the volunteer reviewers.

 

On the other hand, I've seen below-grade caches that didn't require digging, because they were placed in an existing hole, utility box, or whatever. But the cache was not the existing hole, utility box, or whatever. The cache was some other container. It was merely hidden (without digging) in the existing hole, utility box, or whatever.

 

And of course, the guidelines don't prevent Groundspeak from granting an exception for a specific cache, without granting an exception for similar caches. As the saying goes, "there is no precedent for placing geocaches."

I know of 5 caches that are active and are on the COs property that have been dug in the ground to hide the cache. A couple utility boxes, sprinkler boxes, and one fire hydrant and they all have double digit favorites. Like I said before I will report a cache that has been buried if I know that permission hasnt been granted.