Jump to content

Buried vs. Underground


Redtwin2

Recommended Posts

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.

****My opinion only****

 

This latest post is an example of taking two statements (in this case, guidelines) and combining the two.

 

In reading of rules, laws, guidelines and the like, one should read to the end of the sentence. The period indicates "end of sentence".

To add something from another sentence, is merely "reading into" what that particular sentence had meant to convey.

 

From what I see of the guidelines regarding digging and permission, they are separate and distinctly different portions of those guidelines. There is no indication that these two portions should overlap or be inclusive to the other.

 

Not only are they separated by a period, but they are in separate numbered sections of those guidelines. Those two items are distinctly separate and unrelated to one another by any means.

 

****My opinion only****

 

Not throwing stones here.... it's just the way I had been taught (long, long ago -- but still within this galaxy) to read laws, instructions, rules and the like.

Link to comment

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.

****My opinion only****

 

This latest post is an example of taking two statements (in this case, guidelines) and combining the two.

 

In reading of rules, laws, guidelines and the like, one should read to the end of the sentence. The period indicates "end of sentence".

To add something from another sentence, is merely "reading into" what that particular sentence had meant to convey.

 

From what I see of the guidelines regarding digging and permission, they are separate and distinctly different portions of those guidelines. There is no indication that these two portions should overlap or be inclusive to the other.

 

Not only are they separated by a period, but they are in separate numbered sections of those guidelines. Those two items are distinctly separate and unrelated to one another by any means.

 

****My opinion only****

 

Not throwing stones here.... it's just the way I had been taught (long, long ago -- but still within this galaxy) to read laws, instructions, rules and the like.

You know what they say about opinions...they're like A-holes and they all stink. :laughing: I understand what you're saying and you're entitled to your own opinion. I'm just saying you can get away with placing a cache like this on your own property and with permission. I've seen this done before.

Link to comment

So if someone would place a 5 gallon bucket on the ground in a low depression and then bring some dirt and build up the ground around it to be level with the area around the top of the bucket that would be legal? There was no hole digging (if fact you added dirt to the area) but it appears that a hole may have been dug. What about caches that are in sandy area that haven't been found where the sand has shifted to cover said cache. Since I may have to move sand away from the top of the cache is that a violation of having to dig for cache?

Edited by snow_rules
Link to comment

So if someone would place a 5 gallon bucket on the ground in a low depression and then bring some dirt and build up the ground around it to be level with the area around the top of the bucket that would be legal? There was no hole digging (if fact you added dirt to the area) but it appears that a hole may have been dug. What about caches that are in sandy area that haven't been found where the sand has shifted to cover said cache. Since I may have to move sand away from the top of the cache is that a violation of having to dig for cache?

I dont see why it would not be legal but you're going to get the copycat response that the cachers finding the cache wouldnt know that you didnt dig the hole. :rolleyes:

Edited by the4dirtydogs
Link to comment

Wow. It's a simply NOT ALLOWED Of course with all the rules and guidelines here there are always exceptions, weather it's on private property or not. or even if the reviewer knew it's buried.

 

So let's clear this up Keystone? Briansnat? any moderator or Lackey have a (Final/definite) answer for this nice OP?

Link to comment
I'm just saying you can get away with placing a cache like this on your own property and with permission. I've seen this done before.

You can also get away with burying a cache without permission on private property, as long as the reviewer doesn't know that's how it's hidden. In both scenarios, however, a reviewer will likely archive the cache if they find out it's buried, permission or not. The buried caches you've seen are probably unknown to the reviewer.

Link to comment

You can also get away with burying a cache without permission on private property, as long as the reviewer doesn't know that's how it's hidden. In both scenarios, however, a reviewer will likely archive the cache if they find out it's buried, permission or not. The buried caches you've seen are probably unknown to the reviewer.

How odd that Mingo is still active.

Link to comment
I'm just saying you can get away with placing a cache like this on your own property and with permission. I've seen this done before.

You can also get away with burying a cache without permission on private property, as long as the reviewer doesn't know that's how it's hidden. In both scenarios, however, a reviewer will likely archive the cache if they find out it's buried, permission or not. The buried caches you've seen are probably unknown to the reviewer.

The caches were published with the knowledge of how they were hidden. Believe me I was the same way on this issue. The ones I find I report if I know permission wasn't granted or not the COs property. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Can one (or more) of the reviewers that frequent the forums comment on this? As the guidelines are written, buried caches aren't allowed, permission or not. There seem to be examples, though, of caches being published with the full knowledge that it is buried. Is this a case of reviewers reviewing inconsistently and permission doesn't matter, or do the guidelines need to be rewritten to reflect reality (ie. permission can allow a buried cache)? This seems to be a source of confusion in this discussion.

Link to comment
Can one (or more) of the reviewers that frequent the forums comment on this? As the guidelines are written, buried caches aren't allowed, permission or not. There seem to be examples, though, of caches being published with the full knowledge that it is buried. Is this a case of reviewers reviewing inconsistently and permission doesn't matter, or do the guidelines need to be rewritten to reflect reality (ie. permission can allow a buried cache)? This seems to be a source of confusion in this discussion.
And in cases like Mingo, it may also be an example of grandfathering older caches that don't meet the current guidelines.
Link to comment

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

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.

 

I'd be curious to see what would happen if you buried a cache on your property, someone posted a Needs Archive log on it because it was buried to see what a reviewer would do.

 

Yes, there *are* caches that are buried but anyone that has read the guidelines beyond the fourth sentence would have read that there is no precedent for hiding a cache. Just because you can find a published cache which violates the guidelines doesn't mean that another caches which violates that guidelines would be published, or remain active if someone posts a needs archive log on it.

Link to comment

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

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.

 

If you say so. dry.gif

Link to comment

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.

May I assume correctly that the reviewer is not aware of how those are hidden? Or that they were hidden prior to the "NEVER" wording change in the guidelines?

Link to comment

I know of a fake sprinkler head at a city fire station. Illegal or not? I know of a wood lined box shape in the ground with a ammo can inside and a big rock for a cover on top. Illegal or not???? Is piling up brush, logs, rocks, branches to cover a cache burying it or not???

 

Fake sprinker heads are generally pushed into the sod or mulch and as such are generally accepted, although not very well liked by many. The wooden box lining... that one would be the epitome of buried cache. Piling stuff like you mentioned is not what the guidelines are referring to. Try to understand the reason for the guideline and I think you'll understand better what is and what is not meant by "buried".

Link to comment

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

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.

My guess is that there are still exceptions. If Richard Garriott were excavate a huge underground chamber on his property to hide a cache in, I'd bet it would be listed.

 

I'm not sure I buy the copycat excuse that some give as a reason for not giving exceptions. There are plenty of other guidelines where either Groundspeak or a reviewer can make an exception and nobody complains about copycats.

 

Didn't this guideline always say cache are never buried? I think what changed was that there use to be explicit wording about exceptions in general. This was removed. If I had to guess, I suspect that reviewers got tired of people asking that they be given an exception and pointing to all the examples of similar hides that got published. Now they basically act as if exceptions are not allowed.

 

 

Wow. It's a simply NOT ALLOWED Of course with all the rules and guidelines here there are always exceptions, weather it's on private property or not. or even if the reviewer knew it's buried.

 

So let's clear this up Keystone? Briansnat? any moderator or Lackey have a (Final/definite) answer for this nice OP?

I don't think you will see an answer from a reviewer mainly for the reason I stated above. The reviewers like it now that exceptions are not explicitly called out in the guidelines. They can turn down a cache and simply need to point to the no precedent guideline to explain why there are some caches that exist. Either these predate the guidelines, or slipped by the reviewer (no one puts in a reviewer note that the cache is buried). They no longer need to decide if something is so novel or "wow" that it should get an exception. I tend to believe that reviewers can still make exceptions, but even where Groundspeak has asked reviewers to not make exceptions, Groundspeak still reserves the right to make them.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Didn't this guideline always say cache are never buried?

 

No. It was changed sometime after January 26, 2011 from the fairly loose "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." to the currently more restrictive "3. 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."

 

Notice the addition of "Geocaches are never buried" as part of the new links to the knowledge books and the change from "not appropriate" to "not permitted."

 

Wayback Machine

Edited by GeoBain
Link to comment

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

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.

 

I'd be curious to see what would happen if you buried a cache on your property, someone posted a Needs Archive log on it because it was buried to see what a reviewer would do.

 

Yes, there *are* caches that are buried but anyone that has read the guidelines beyond the fourth sentence would have read that there is no precedent for hiding a cache. Just because you can find a published cache which violates the guidelines doesn't mean that another caches which violates that guidelines would be published, or remain active if someone posts a needs archive log on it.

WWhy would anyone post a needs archive on any cache that is on someones property? Seems to me to be a real stupid reason to post a need archive but some people are real stupid so that doesn't surprise me

Edited by the4dirtydogs
Link to comment

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

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.

 

If you say so. dry.gif

Im saying so :rolleyes:

Link to comment

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.

May I assume correctly that the reviewer is not aware of how those are hidden? Or that they were hidden prior to the "NEVER" wording change in the guidelines?

You can assume what you want to but you know what they say about the word "assume" :laughing:

Link to comment

Why would anyone post a needs archive on any cache that is on someones property?

For any number of other possible guideline violations other than the permission one. Just because it's on your property doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. For example, a cache on your property still has to follow the "no solicitation" guideline. If you edited your cache description post-publication to include something about solicitation, cachers would be well within their rights to NA your cache.

 

Edit to add: And that all assumes you've told cachers the cache is on your property. Unless you tell them in your description, finders have no way of knowing that it's your property. I've seen a number of caches like this. If a cacher sees a cache on private property, and the description doesn't say anything about it being the CO's property or having permission, I could foresee them logging a NA.

Edited by The A-Team
Link to comment

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.

May I assume correctly that the reviewer is not aware of how those are hidden? Or that they were hidden prior to the "NEVER" wording change in the guidelines?

You can assume what you want to but you know what they say about the word "assume" :laughing:

 

Yes... if I remember correctly, it says something about you and me.

Link to comment
I know of a fake sprinkler head at a city fire station. Illegal or not?
Did/does anyone need to "dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache"? Most of the fake sprinkler caches that I've seen have been on top of the ground, either supported by bark or other loose material, or attached to a board that lies flat on the ground.

 

I know of a wood lined box shape in the ground with a ammo can inside and a big rock for a cover on top. Illegal or not????
Did/does anyone need to "dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache"? I've seen caches like this archived when the box was built for the cache, even when it was on the CO's property. I've also seen caches in boxes like this, where the box clearly preexisted the cache, so it was okay.

 

Is piling up brush, logs, rocks, branches to cover a cache burying it or not???
Did/does anyone need to "dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache"? I've seen lots of caches covered with loose material like that. It would take extra effort to violate the "no digging" rule when covering a cache with loose material like that.

 

And in some cases (e.g., Mingo), it is possible that the cache is grandfathered and allowed to remain even though a similar cache would not be listed today.

Link to comment
I know of a fake sprinkler head at a city fire station. Illegal or not?
Did/does anyone need to "dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache"? Most of the fake sprinkler caches that I've seen have been on top of the ground, either supported by bark or other loose material, or attached to a board that lies flat on the ground.

I have never seen a sprinkler cache like that. All the sprinkler caches I have seen are in the ground. These would typicaly require the hider to "break ground"; unless they used a gopher hole or somthing. I think sprinkler caches should be band anyway. They result in widespread property damage at many other cache sites.

Link to comment
I know of a fake sprinkler head at a city fire station. Illegal or not?
Did/does anyone need to "dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache"? Most of the fake sprinkler caches that I've seen have been on top of the ground, either supported by bark or other loose material, or attached to a board that lies flat on the ground.

I have never seen a sprinkler cache like that. All the sprinkler caches I have seen are in the ground. These would typicaly require the hider to "break ground"; unless they used a gopher hole or somthing. I think sprinkler caches should be band anyway. They result in widespread property damage at many other cache sites.

Yes, I see my share of damages at GZ. They should be banned because of the nature of the hide that force people to break the real sprinkler head while looking for a cache. I see damage around the area of where difficult cache are even the cache itself it not a sprinkler head.

 

If they ban all sprinkler caches, I feel it will slow down the damage to the real sprinkler head because people will stop checking on them.

Link to comment
I know of a fake sprinkler head at a city fire station. Illegal or not?
Did/does anyone need to "dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache"? Most of the fake sprinkler caches that I've seen have been on top of the ground, either supported by bark or other loose material, or attached to a board that lies flat on the ground.

I have never seen a sprinkler cache like that. All the sprinkler caches I have seen are in the ground. These would typicaly require the hider to "break ground"; unless they used a gopher hole or somthing. I think sprinkler caches should be band anyway. They result in widespread property damage at many other cache sites.

It'd be pretty tough to ban them, though. How would it be accomplished? Ask the reviewer to check out each cache prior to publication?

Link to comment
I know of a fake sprinkler head at a city fire station. Illegal or not?
Did/does anyone need to "dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache"? Most of the fake sprinkler caches that I've seen have been on top of the ground, either supported by bark or other loose material, or attached to a board that lies flat on the ground.

I have never seen a sprinkler cache like that. All the sprinkler caches I have seen are in the ground. These would typicaly require the hider to "break ground"; unless they used a gopher hole or somthing. I think sprinkler caches should be band anyway. They result in widespread property damage at many other cache sites.

It'd be pretty tough to ban them, though. How would it be accomplished? Ask the reviewer to check out each cache prior to publication?

Really easy, once someone reported on it, all online logs will be deleted, that way all cachers will be aware really fast that its banned, period. Only on newer caches. The older one will stand but archived and locked.

Link to comment
I know of a fake sprinkler head at a city fire station. Illegal or not?
Did/does anyone need to "dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache"? Most of the fake sprinkler caches that I've seen have been on top of the ground, either supported by bark or other loose material, or attached to a board that lies flat on the ground.

I have never seen a sprinkler cache like that. All the sprinkler caches I have seen are in the ground. These would typicaly require the hider to "break ground"; unless they used a gopher hole or somthing. I think sprinkler caches should be band anyway. They result in widespread property damage at many other cache sites.

It'd be pretty tough to ban them, though. How would it be accomplished? Ask the reviewer to check out each cache prior to publication?

Really easy, once someone reported on it, all online logs will be deleted, that way all cachers will be aware really fast that its banned, period. Only on newer caches. The older one will stand but archived and locked.

Never seen that happen before (all online logs deleted) and sincerely doubt that we'll ever see it. And if somebody feels the need to report it, they can already report is as a buried cache if they really want to. But that still would not be banning sprinkler head caches.

Link to comment
I know of a fake sprinkler head at a city fire station. Illegal or not?
Did/does anyone need to "dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache"? Most of the fake sprinkler caches that I've seen have been on top of the ground, either supported by bark or other loose material, or attached to a board that lies flat on the ground.

I have never seen a sprinkler cache like that. All the sprinkler caches I have seen are in the ground. These would typicaly require the hider to "break ground"; unless they used a gopher hole or somthing. I think sprinkler caches should be band anyway. They result in widespread property damage at many other cache sites.

It'd be pretty tough to ban them, though. How would it be accomplished? Ask the reviewer to check out each cache prior to publication?

Really easy, once someone reported on it, all online logs will be deleted, that way all cachers will be aware really fast that its banned, period. Only on newer caches. The older one will stand but archived and locked.

Never seen that happen before (all online logs deleted) and sincerely doubt that we'll ever see it. And if somebody feels the need to report it, they can already report is as a buried cache if they really want to. But that still would not be banning sprinkler head caches.

I have see all logs "deleted" on a new cache, it was too close to another one and the reviewer deleted it and pull it off the shelf. When you got a whole state on your database, you find those type of action. What happen is, when I want to refresh the cache, it wont. It happen more often in the southern oregon than anywhere else in the state. Something is in the water down there. This happen about once every two months or so.

Link to comment
I know of a fake sprinkler head at a city fire station. Illegal or not?
Did/does anyone need to "dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache"? Most of the fake sprinkler caches that I've seen have been on top of the ground, either supported by bark or other loose material, or attached to a board that lies flat on the ground.

I have never seen a sprinkler cache like that. All the sprinkler caches I have seen are in the ground. These would typicaly require the hider to "break ground"; unless they used a gopher hole or somthing. I think sprinkler caches should be band anyway. They result in widespread property damage at many other cache sites.

It'd be pretty tough to ban them, though. How would it be accomplished? Ask the reviewer to check out each cache prior to publication?

Really easy, once someone reported on it, all online logs will be deleted, that way all cachers will be aware really fast that its banned, period. Only on newer caches. The older one will stand but archived and locked.

Never seen that happen before (all online logs deleted) and sincerely doubt that we'll ever see it. And if somebody feels the need to report it, they can already report is as a buried cache if they really want to. But that still would not be banning sprinkler head caches.

I have see all logs "deleted" on a new cache, it was too close to another one and the reviewer deleted it and pull it off the shelf. When you got a whole state on your database, you find those type of action. What happen is, when I want to refresh the cache, it wont. It happen more often in the southern oregon than anywhere else in the state. Something is in the water down there. This happen about once every two months or so.

In my experience, logs on retracted caches still stand.

Link to comment
I know of a fake sprinkler head at a city fire station. Illegal or not?
Did/does anyone need to "dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache"? Most of the fake sprinkler caches that I've seen have been on top of the ground, either supported by bark or other loose material, or attached to a board that lies flat on the ground.

I have never seen a sprinkler cache like that. All the sprinkler caches I have seen are in the ground. These would typicaly require the hider to "break ground"; unless they used a gopher hole or somthing. I think sprinkler caches should be band anyway. They result in widespread property damage at many other cache sites.

It'd be pretty tough to ban them, though. How would it be accomplished? Ask the reviewer to check out each cache prior to publication?

Have one of these before you publish the cache:

 

 

Quote

 

Hi!

 

Thanks for placing a cache for others to find! ...[snip]... Please post your response in a reviewer note and then enable the cache page.

 

1) Please explain the property your cache is placed on. If you have gotten permission, please include contact information in your reviewer note. Any cache that is at a business (private property) should have permission from the business owner/manager/security personnel. Cemetery hides should have permission from the caretaker of the property (town or church, usually).

 

2) Please explain what type of container your cache is. Please note that ammo boxes should have military markings removed or covered up, and that a well-labeled container can help your cache from being mistaken as something dangerous!

 

3) Please explain how your cache is hidden. Caches should NEVER be buried. Holes should NEVER be drilled into trees, and zipties don't do damage to trees like nails and screws can.

 

 

:laughing:

Link to comment
It'd be pretty tough to ban them, though. How would it be accomplished? Ask the reviewer to check out each cache prior to publication?
Enforcement is one issue. The details of the guideline banning sprinkler caches would be another. Why is it okay to use a board supporting a length of PVC pipe with an end cap or a valve, but not okay to use a board supporting a length of PVC pipe with a sprinkler?

 

Look at the way the "no digging" guideline causes confusion and disagreement. Do you really want the guidelines to address specific camouflage techniques?

Link to comment
I know of a fake sprinkler head at a city fire station. Illegal or not?
Did/does anyone need to "dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache"? Most of the fake sprinkler caches that I've seen have been on top of the ground, either supported by bark or other loose material, or attached to a board that lies flat on the ground.

I have never seen a sprinkler cache like that. All the sprinkler caches I have seen are in the ground. These would typicaly require the hider to "break ground"; unless they used a gopher hole or somthing. I think sprinkler caches should be band anyway. They result in widespread property damage at many other cache sites.

It'd be pretty tough to ban them, though. How would it be accomplished? Ask the reviewer to check out each cache prior to publication?

Really easy, once someone reported on it, all online logs will be deleted, that way all cachers will be aware really fast that its banned, period. Only on newer caches. The older one will stand but archived and locked.

Never seen that happen before (all online logs deleted) and sincerely doubt that we'll ever see it. And if somebody feels the need to report it, they can already report is as a buried cache if they really want to. But that still would not be banning sprinkler head caches.

I have see all logs "deleted" on a new cache, it was too close to another one and the reviewer deleted it and pull it off the shelf. When you got a whole state on your database, you find those type of action. What happen is, when I want to refresh the cache, it wont. It happen more often in the southern oregon than anywhere else in the state. Something is in the water down there. This happen about once every two months or so.

In my experience, logs on retracted caches still stand.

A mod can delete your log without you knowing he/she did it. Yea.

Link to comment
I know of a fake sprinkler head at a city fire station. Illegal or not?
Did/does anyone need to "dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache"? Most of the fake sprinkler caches that I've seen have been on top of the ground, either supported by bark or other loose material, or attached to a board that lies flat on the ground.

I have never seen a sprinkler cache like that. All the sprinkler caches I have seen are in the ground. These would typicaly require the hider to "break ground"; unless they used a gopher hole or somthing. I think sprinkler caches should be band anyway. They result in widespread property damage at many other cache sites.

It'd be pretty tough to ban them, though. How would it be accomplished? Ask the reviewer to check out each cache prior to publication?

Really easy, once someone reported on it, all online logs will be deleted, that way all cachers will be aware really fast that its banned, period. Only on newer caches. The older one will stand but archived and locked.

Never seen that happen before (all online logs deleted) and sincerely doubt that we'll ever see it. And if somebody feels the need to report it, they can already report is as a buried cache if they really want to. But that still would not be banning sprinkler head caches.

I have see all logs "deleted" on a new cache, it was too close to another one and the reviewer deleted it and pull it off the shelf. When you got a whole state on your database, you find those type of action. What happen is, when I want to refresh the cache, it wont. It happen more often in the southern oregon than anywhere else in the state. Something is in the water down there. This happen about once every two months or so.

In my experience, logs on retracted caches still stand.

 

Yes. I have never, ever heard of a reviewer deleting a found log. I think that a found log is between the finder, the owner and Groundspeak itself. It's not the reviewer's job to worry about who found what.

Link to comment

I found a earthcache that require you to "dig" or "break the soil" the soil to test the level of PH with a PH tester.

 

One the earthcache page, it said. "Please use Leave No Trace principles while in this environment."

 

Here is theearthcache.

 

That earthcache got an ALR as well. :ph34r:

 

What you guys think?

 

I think that their land use permit expired two months ago. I also think that it illustrates why I ignore most Earthcaches. Write a fifty word essay? What's interesting is that the essay that they want doesn't even have to do with Earth Sciences. It has to do with Animal Behavior. I also think that they can't make you submit a photo. What I don't think I saw was anywhere that they asked you to dig. If the soil is loose on the ground, you don't have to dig to get a sample.

Link to comment

I think sprinkler caches should be band anyway. They result in widespread property damage at many other cache sites.

It'd be pretty tough to ban them, though. How would it be accomplished? Ask the reviewer to check out each cache prior to publication?

The way I interpret them, Groundspeak guidelines already prohibit these kinds of hides:

 

4. Geocache placements do not damage, deface or destroy public or private property. Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm.

However, convincing a reviewer to interpret them the same way I do might be problematic.

Link to comment

Yeah, I wouldn't expect online logs to be deleted, no matter what the problems are with the reported cache. After all, logs on retracted caches stand, even if the cache listing itself can no longer be viewed by those who found the cache.

 

I have finds on two retracted caches. (One I can understand. The other, I have no idea why it was retracted.) My logs still stand, and I can read my logs. And that's all, just read my logs.

Link to comment
I know of a fake sprinkler head at a city fire station. Illegal or not?
Did/does anyone need to "dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache"? Most of the fake sprinkler caches that I've seen have been on top of the ground, either supported by bark or other loose material, or attached to a board that lies flat on the ground.

I have never seen a sprinkler cache like that. All the sprinkler caches I have seen are in the ground. These would typicaly require the hider to "break ground"; unless they used a gopher hole or somthing. I think sprinkler caches should be band anyway. They result in widespread property damage at many other cache sites.

It'd be pretty tough to ban them, though. How would it be accomplished? Ask the reviewer to check out each cache prior to publication?

You just need a new guideline "Geocaches are never hidden in fake or real sprinkler heads". It would be just like banning buried caches -_-

 

Should sprinkler heads ever be banned, it would likely be a rationale like digging. Some park manager will come and find his park's sprinkler system was destroyed and will blame it on geocaches hidden as fake sprinkler heads. Soon parks and cities will be banning geocaching and in reaction there would be a new guideline.

 

I think sprinkler caches should be band anyway. They result in widespread property damage at many other cache sites.

It'd be pretty tough to ban them, though. How would it be accomplished? Ask the reviewer to check out each cache prior to publication?

The way I interpret them, Groundspeak guidelines already prohibit these kinds of hides:

 

4. Geocache placements do not damage, deface or destroy public or private property. Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm.

However, convincing a reviewer to interpret them the same way I do might be problematic.

I would think it would. I've found many fake sprinkler caches without having to damage, deface, or destroy a single real sprinkler. Many fake sprinkler cache are hidden in places where a real sprinkler would not be, so the finder doesn't even have an opportunity to damage a real sprinkler. Sure in some cases, there may be several sprinkler heads and the one isn't real may not be obvious. And there may be some geocachers who after finding one fake sprinkler cache feel the need to take apart every sprinkler, even when there is no evidence that the cache is hidden this way. Fortunately, most cachers after taking apart and then putting back a few real sprinklers learn how to tell a real sprinkler from a fake one. I've rarely seen any damage and when I have, it isn't clear it was geocachers who caused it.

Link to comment

I think sprinkler caches should be band anyway. They result in widespread property damage at many other cache sites.

It'd be pretty tough to ban them, though. How would it be accomplished? Ask the reviewer to check out each cache prior to publication?

The way I interpret them, Groundspeak guidelines already prohibit these kinds of hides:

 

4. Geocache placements do not damage, deface or destroy public or private property. Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm.

However, convincing a reviewer to interpret them the same way I do might be problematic.

I would think it would. I've found many fake sprinkler caches without having to damage, deface, or destroy a single real sprinkler.

So have I. But while most geocachers are careful, there are some who are rather careless. It doesn't take too many of them to cause some significant damage.

 

Many fake sprinkler cache are hidden in places where a real sprinkler would not be, so the finder doesn't even have an opportunity to damage a real sprinkler. Sure in some cases, there may be several sprinkler heads and the one isn't real may not be obvious. And there may be some geocachers who after finding one fake sprinkler cache feel the need to take apart every sprinkler, even when there is no evidence that the cache is hidden this way.

To summarize... Fake sprinkler caches hidden far from real sprinklers could cause geocachers to damage real sprinkers near other caches. And fake sprinkler caches hidden near real sprinklers could cause geocachers to damage those nearby real sprinklers.

 

Fortunately, most cachers after taking apart and then putting back a few real sprinklers learn how to tell a real sprinkler from a fake one. I've rarely seen any damage and when I have, it isn't clear it was geocachers who caused it.

If there are real sprinkler heads near a non-obvious cache, then I'd guess about 25 percent of the time I notice one or more of those sprinklers are visibly broken. If I walk past random sprinkler heads, I'd guess no more than 5 percent of them are visibly broken (and that's a stretch). While I cannot prove geocachers are breaking those extra 20 percent, it seems like a fairly logical conclusion.

 

But I agree with you that most reviewers are unlikely to archive a sprinkler cache that isn't buried. Unless the land manager complains. Or they simply ban geocaching.

 

I understand the United Kingdom reviewers won't allow hides in stone walls because of the damage a few geocachers have done to some of those walls. Maybe fake sprinkler caches are headed to a similar fate. In any case, I won't be hiding any.

Link to comment

Even if they put one in the ground on their own property, not too many cachers would feel comfortable pulling on plants to see which one it is.

I would suggest a large clay pot and put the cache in it with a fake plant on it. Or even a real one but include that in the hint which one it is.

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...