Buried caches

[+NanCycle]

I know of at least 5 caches that are buried. I reported one of them to the reviewer and nothing was done about it. Should I bother to report any more?

 

Edited to clarify what I meant by "buried." In each case a hole was obviously dug. In 3 cases the hole was shored up on 4 sides by wood and the container placed into the cavity and covered by another piece of wood and/or a large flat rock. In 2 cases the hole was made to fit a plastic container which was placed into it up to its neck/top, and then covered by some type of camo.

Edited October 17, 2013 by NanCycle

[+gpsblake]

Buried as in putting dirt over them, or simply put in a hole already in the ground and covered by leaves?

 

Yes, if it is buried as in the first case, report it, it's not snitching....

[+Don_J]

I know of at least 5 caches that are buried. I reported one of them to the reviewer and nothing was done about it. Should I bother to report any more?

 

Did you get any feedback from the reviewer that you reported it to? How long ago did you report it? The reviewer may have opened a dialog with the cache owner without your knowledge.

[+NanCycle]

I know of at least 5 caches that are buried. I reported one of them to the reviewer and nothing was done about it. Should I bother to report any more?

 

Did you get any feedback from the reviewer that you reported it to? How long ago did you report it? The reviewer may have opened a dialog with the cache owner without your knowledge.

 

I reported it to the reviewer on 11/26/12 and did not get any feedback. I can tell from recent logs that the cache is still buried.

[+CEH2000]

I would post a "Needs Archived" note, reviewers usually get alerted when those are posted. I may be wrong, but I believe it says it the guidelines "Caches may not be buried". I will look into this more....

[+St.Matthew]

What if it is your own property or you have permission?

[+CEH2000]

I just looked at the guidelines:

 

3. Geocaches are never buried, neither partially nor completely.

If one has to dig or create a hole in the ground when placing or finding a geocache, it is not allowed.

 

I think a "Needs Archived" note may be appropriate in this case. I'm surprised these even got published....

 

Maybe a Groundspeak official can clarify?

[jholly]

I just looked at the guidelines:

 

3. Geocaches are never buried, neither partially nor completely.

If one has to dig or create a hole in the ground when placing or finding a geocache, it is not allowed.

 

I think a "Needs Archived" note may be appropriate in this case. I'm surprised these even got published....

 

Maybe a Groundspeak official can clarify?

If writing to the reviewer directly does not get a response then posting a NA will also be ignored, same guy. About the only thing you can do is use the contact Groundspeak link and contact GS directly. It may or may not get some attention.

[4wheelin_fool]

Some reviewers do not archive caches.

[+cerberus1]

I reported it to the reviewer on 11/26/12 and did not get any feedback. I can tell from recent logs that the cache is still buried.

Tough one.

Another note to the Reviewer and you're either helpful or a pain in the can.

An NA w/o actually looking if it was fixed would probably strike you off everyone's Christmas card list.

- Bet they have a pile of favorite points tacked on too.

[+emmett]

.

 

I do not know the full details about the caches you reference but I know of at least three high quality caches that do not conform with this rule and I can think of no actual harm caused by their placement. These are inventive caches that raise the bar in a sea of mediocrity. So answer this - who benefits by reporting them?

 

On the other hand, I can think of dozens and dozens of crappy caches in lousy spots that conform perfectly with the rules. Me thinks you are focused on the wrong problem.

 

.

[+lookout.]

Unless the cache page in the description says something like "the cache is buried" how would the reviewer know that it was buried. This is why these caches are published. But even then the cache owner can change the text after the reviewer approves the cache so this isn't a catch all.

 

what you did was correct, emailing the reviewer to get his attention. they are busy however so it might take some time before they get around to it. the best way to get the reviewers attention would be the needs archive log as this is directly sent to the reviewer.

 

again even with this it might take some time before they get to it, but they generally email the cache owner first. give him time to try and fix it before they take other actions. and again, the cache owner can lie about that too.

 

so all you can really do is report it the way you did and then promptly ignore the cache. (because you have already found the cache so you don't need to ever find it again)

[Keystone]

What's the date when the cache was hidden? (Cache may be grandfathered depending on interpretation of buried caches guideline at time of publication, if it's otherwise not causing a problem.)

 

What's the permission status for the cache?

 

Has the owner claimed they "used an existing hole?" (That's hard to disprove.)

 

Are photos available to the reviewer?

 

The answers to these questions can influence the reviewer's reaction or inaction.

[+ngrrfan]

I know of at least 5 caches that are buried. I reported one of them to the reviewer and nothing was done about it. Should I bother to report any more?

 

Edited to clarify what I meant by "buried." In each case a hole was obviously dug. In 3 cases the hole was shored up on 4 sides by wood and the container placed into the cavity and covered by another piece of wood and/or a large flat rock. In 2 cases the hole was made to fit a plastic container which was placed into it up to its neck/top, and then covered by some type of camo.

IMHO... you have insufficient information to come to any conclusion except, the container is in a hole covered by a rock. Can you prove the hider dug the hole? I doubt it.

[+cerberus1]

I do not know the full details about the caches you reference but I know of at least three high quality caches that do not conform with this rule and I can think of no actual harm caused by their placement. These are inventive caches that raise the bar in a sea of mediocrity. So answer this - who benefits by reporting them

There was one who posed the same idea a week or so ago about signing an actual log as the log. He coulda used your help.

Doesn't matter if it was designed by the Wright brothers, it's still against guidelines and should be reported.

We all lose if the landowner believes the hide was buried.

[4wheelin_fool]

Has the owner claimed they "used an existing hole?" (That's hard to disprove)

 

How about I go into a park as a regular citizen and dig a hole on my own accord.

So then I can return the next day as a geocacher and hide a cache in it?

 

Whatever the reasoning behind it, there is absolutely no excuse for the reviewer to ignore an email, which was sent nearly a year ago. It's very bad manners to ignore any email, and especially one sent in good faith to someone who represents the site about a potential problem.

Edited October 17, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+WarNinjas]

You did your part and reported it. If the reviewer doesn't see a problem with it I personally wouldn't worry about it any more. Just keep playing. If you see more caches by this CO with the same thing maybe point it out to him/her if you think it is a problem. They might think about it more before doing it again. I don't see worrying about it though. I know I wouldn't at this point.

[+T.D.M.22]

What if it is your own property or you have permission?

 

The guidelines don't say it's allowed to be buried with permission. There's reasons why that is that I won't get into because I'm on my phone.

[+Scootercop]

My brother in California recently had a problem with an "Evil penny" cache. He glued a penny to to the lid of a small tube and placed it into the ground so that a person walking by would only see the penny. Now in my opinion a penny that is glued to the lid is now an extension of the container, so part of the container is even with the surface of the ground. By definition* this cache is not "buried." Reviewer refused to publish cache citing "buried."

 

*Since it is easiest to just google the definition of "buried," this is the definition I go by.

[+redsox_mark]

My brother in California recently had a problem with an "Evil penny" cache. He glued a penny to to the lid of a small tube and placed it into the ground so that a person walking by would only see the penny. Now in my opinion a penny that is glued to the lid is now an extension of the container, so part of the container is even with the surface of the ground. By definition* this cache is not "buried." Reviewer refused to publish cache citing "buried."

 

*Since it is easiest to just google the definition of "buried," this is the definition I go by.

 

This will likely evolve into a sub-thread of its own, but I think the interpretation used is that caches can not be even partially buried (except can be placed in an existing hole).

 

Caches like the evil penny touch a bit of a grey area I think. If I place an ammo can on the ground, the weight of it might make an indentation in the ground of greater depth than the bit attached to the penny. Or if the penny was on leaves or very soft ground does that make a difference? But yes, technically if that small tube is pushed a centimeter into the ground it is "buried" and not allowed. But I think you should be able to put it on a bed of leaves.

 

Thinking about it more - if I have to push it into hard ground then that would not be allowed. But I should be able to place it on soft sand, if the weight of the penny naturally allowed the attached container to sink enough to be hidden. Though there would be the risk of it getting totally covered by blowing sand. I could place it on rocky ground, where the container is hidden in a gap between small rocks/pebbles.

 

Or if I used a pre-existing hole. Should not be hard to find a small natural hole in the ground to fit one of these into. That would make for an interesting debate; did I make that 1 cm hole myself or was it there already? E.g a small rock used to be there and it got dislodged by a passing walker....

Edited October 17, 2013 by redsox_mark

[+ngrrfan]

Some reviewers do not archive caches.

The 2 reviewers that take care of the area Nancycle is in do their job very well. They work with cachers to keep the game on the up-and-up. If anything, they are a true credit to the thankless job they have.

Edited October 17, 2013 by ngrrfan

[4wheelin_fool]

Some reviewers do not archive caches.

The 2 reviewers that take care of the area Nancycle is in do their job very well. They work with cachers to keep the game on the up-and-up. If anything, they are a true credit to the thankless job they have.

 

I would have believed that if someone had emailed her back with an explanation. Buried caches such as the ones she described have been disallowed since 2002, and if someone emails a reviewer about it, there is no excuse to ignore them. Personally I don't care if its a 55 gallon drum buried to its lid, what bothers me is the reviewers purposely ignoring someone, which is rude. I believe jellis emailed another reviewer about the same issue on a cache *twice*, and was ignored until a Lackey archived it.

 

With some reviewers being anal retentive about fake sprinkler heads and pennies glued to bison tubes, its amazing that others act like they are above reproach on something like this.

[+J Grouchy]

I know among this crowd what I'm about to say will probably be viewed as bordering on sacreligious or treasonous...but when I run across micros that have been pushed into the ground, I don't get upset or worry about calling attention to it.

 

These are generally the type I run across:

- Fake sprinkler head

- Little snap-top centrifuge tube, often with a bottle cap or penny or rock glued to the cap and pushed down at the base of a road sign.

- A weatherproof match tube at the base of a tree (or inside a hollow stump) pushed down into the ground next to the roots.

 

I just don't feel like those are harmful and I don't think it's a "slippery slope" situation. These aren't buried ammo cans (which I certainly WOULD report). I have not and would not put down any caches like that - mostly because I worry about them either being lost or destroyed and they are a pain to grab and open without getting my hands muddy...and it seems kind of like a cheap and unimaginative way of hiding something.

[+NanCycle]

Copy of the email I sent the reviewer (details removed):

 

I thought I should let you know that the . . . Travel Bug Hotel cache GC. . . is now buried. It consists of a plastic bucket sunk in a hole obviously dug to fit it.

From reading the logs, I think that this change occurred earlier this year when the CO made the cache "theft proof."

 

It is absolutely not my intention to call out the reviewer for not acting on or even not responding to my email; I'm just asking whether it is worth even reporting the others if the guidelines are not going to be enforced. I agree that the reviewers in this area do an excellent job--I don't know what happened here.

 

I do not think that this one was buried when originally published in 2005.

 

All the others seem to have been buried from the beginning--2004, 2007, 2008, 2012--and none of the pages specifically mention that it is buried.

 

True, I cannot prove that the CO's dug the holes, but I'm sure that anyone who looks at them would come to the same conclusion--that it is obvious that the holes were dug specifically to hide the caches.

 

I am not going to post any NA, because I don't want to get into it with the COs. I have enough trouble already with a CO whom I told they should fix the coordinates that were off by 70 ft. (This one I can't fathom how it was ever published with the coordinates clearly in someone's back yard.)

[4wheelin_fool]

Copy of the email I sent the reviewer (details removed):

 

I thought I should let you know that the . . . Travel Bug Hotel cache GC. . . is now buried. It consists of a plastic bucket sunk in a hole obviously dug to fit it.

From reading the logs, I think that this change occurred earlier this year when the CO made the cache "theft proof."

 

It is absolutely not my intention to call out the reviewer for not acting on or even not responding to my email; I'm just asking whether it is worth even reporting the others if the guidelines are not going to be enforced. I agree that the reviewers in this area do an excellent job--I don't know what happened here.

 

I do not think that this one was buried when originally published in 2005.

 

All the others seem to have been buried from the beginning--2004, 2007, 2008, 2012--and none of the pages specifically mention that it is buried.

 

True, I cannot prove that the CO's dug the holes, but I'm sure that anyone who looks at them would come to the same conclusion--that it is obvious that the holes were dug specifically to hide the caches.

 

I am not going to post any NA, because I don't want to get into it with the COs. I have enough trouble already with a CO whom I told they should fix the coordinates that were off by 70 ft. (This one I can't fathom how it was ever published with the coordinates clearly in someone's back yard.)

 

The guidelines have been disallowing caches buried like that since at least 2002, so none of them should be buried. This is how problems arise. A cacher sees a few like this, and then when their fake sprinker head gets archived they throw a fit.

[+T.D.M.22]

What if it is your own property or you have permission?

 

If caches are allowed to be buried-even if I so it in my on yard-a new cacher might see that, and he will then bury a cache without permission(thinking it's OK and normal). Digging up the ground in some business or in a park. That's a permission issue right there. But it's also perception. Geocaching is NOT buried treasure, but if we have buried caches allowed, then non cachers might see it as such.

Both will lead to geocaching being viewed as negative. People, and cities won't allow caches at all because they don't want people digging one hole for a cache, or worse, digging a hole trying to find the cache. There are places where geocaching is banned, or ridiculously regulated as it is.

 

I know among this crowd what I'm about to say will probably be viewed as bordering on sacreligious or treasonous...but when I run across micros that have been pushed into the ground, I don't get upset or worry about calling attention to it.

 

These are generally the type I run across:

- Fake sprinkler head

- Little snap-top centrifuge tube, often with a bottle cap or penny or rock glued to the cap and pushed down at the base of a road sign.

- A weatherproof match tube at the base of a tree (or inside a hollow stump) pushed down into the ground next to the roots.

 

I just don't feel like those are harmful and I don't think it's a "slippery slope" situation.

 

I find one fake sprinkler head, Then next month or whenever, I can't find the cache. Look all around for it, but I see sprinklers...I take it apart. Oh no it was a real sprinkler...Land owner has it get taken apart/broken 2 or three times a month...But that's OK right? It's only time and money.

[+niraD]

*Since it is easiest to just google the definition of "buried," this is the definition I go by.

The conventional meaning of "buried" is not what the guideline is referring to. Otherwise, every ammo box under a UPS would violate the guideline.

 

The "no buried caches" guideline is easier to understand as a "no digging" guideline:

 

I. 1. 3. Geocaches are never buried, neither partially nor completely.

If one has to dig or create a hole in the ground when placing or finding a geocache, it is not allowed.

 

FWIW, I've found only one "evil penny" cache so far. The plastic container attached to the penny was lowered into an existing crack in the ground, and thus, did not violate this guideline.

[4wheelin_fool]

Better yet, if a reviewer is ignoring you, then emailing them is just a waste of time. They are only a hapless volunteer. Go telephone the property owner and tell them what geocachers are doing on their property.

Edited October 17, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+desmognathus]

Lots of stump holes in my neck of the woods (so to speak). I try to fill them up with ammo cans so folks don't accidentally step in them and break a leg. Who needs to dig?

[+Don_J]

My brother in California recently had a problem with an "Evil penny" cache. He glued a penny to to the lid of a small tube and placed it into the ground so that a person walking by would only see the penny. Now in my opinion a penny that is glued to the lid is now an extension of the container, so part of the container is even with the surface of the ground. By definition* this cache is not "buried." Reviewer refused to publish cache citing "buried."

 

*Since it is easiest to just google the definition of "buried," this is the definition I go by.

 

This is where things get silly. You can no longer push the cache into the ground, but you can put it into an existing hole. Since I have a habit of spiking my hiking pole into the ground so it doesn't fall over, problem solved.

[+Don_J]

Better yet, if a reviewer is ignoring you, then emailing them is just a waste of time. They are only a hapless volunteer. Go telephone the property owner and tell them what geocachers are doing on their property.

 

I'm a big fan of following the chain of command. Why not notify the Lackeys first? Getting a land owner to ban caches because one cacher is breaking the rules and one reviewer may be ignoring it, seems a bit overkill. Why not exhaust all other options first?

[+hukilaulau]

A couple of years ago I found a cache in one of our nice parks where a hole had obviously been dug to accommodate a large plastic container, with just the top exposed. Several people had claimed finds, expressing delight at how clever it was (One had said, "I want to do exactly the same thing when I get home!"), but one of our most prolific cachers had declined to take the smiley and said the cache should not be allowed. When I found it I agreed and posted a SBA (without claiming the find.) The reviewer asked for pictures, which I sent, and after asking the cache owner to fix it or explain it, the cache was archived.

If the reviewer had not done anything, I would have just moved on and forgotten the whole thing.

[+dprovan]

When I found it I agreed and posted a SBA (without claiming the find.)

This is an interesting attitude I never would have considered. If I find a dubious cache, I still found the cache and say so with a Found log even if I don't think the cache should be there. To the degree the two events are related, I think they're related in the opposite way: to underscore that I know exactly how the cache is hidden and why it shouldn't be there, I'd want to publicly declare that I'd actually found it just in case someone might think I was logging the NA based on hearsay or something.

 

I guess the idea of not taking a find is that you want to shun caches with procedural faults?

[+wmpastor]

Some reviewers do not archive caches.

And some archive without giving the CO a chance to correct.

[+wmpastor]

What if it is your own property or you have permission?

 

If caches are allowed to be buried-even if I so it in my on yard-a new cacher might see that, and he will then bury a cache without permission(thinking it's OK and normal). Digging up the ground in some business or in a park. That's a permission issue right there. But it's also perception. Geocaching is NOT buried treasure, but if we have buried caches allowed, then non cachers might see it as such.

Both will lead to geocaching being viewed as negative. People, and cities won't allow caches at all because they don't want people digging one hole for a cache, or worse, digging a hole trying to find the cache. There are places where geocaching is banned, or ridiculously regulated as it is.

 

I know among this crowd what I'm about to say will probably be viewed as bordering on sacreligious or treasonous...but when I run across micros that have been pushed into the ground, I don't get upset or worry about calling attention to it.

 

These are generally the type I run across:

- Fake sprinkler head

- Little snap-top centrifuge tube, often with a bottle cap or penny or rock glued to the cap and pushed down at the base of a road sign.

- A weatherproof match tube at the base of a tree (or inside a hollow stump) pushed down into the ground next to the roots.

 

I just don't feel like those are harmful and I don't think it's a "slippery slope" situation.

 

I find one fake sprinkler head, Then next month or whenever, I can't find the cache. Look all around for it, but I see sprinklers...I take it apart. Oh no it was a real sprinkler...Land owner has it get taken apart/broken 2 or three times a month...But that's OK right? It's only time and money.

I think the "no buried caches" rule has the same rationale as the "no indoor caches" rule. Both keep people from going down a route of destruction. Imagine going into a building and seeing electrical switchplate covers removed by cachers. "Switchplate micros" would be as common as LPCs.

[+niraD]

I think the "no buried caches" rule has the same rationale as the "no indoor caches" rule.

What "no indoor caches" rule would that be?

 

I've seen the "no buried caches" (or "no digging") guideline. I haven't seen one prohibiting indoor caches.

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

Over the past 5 years I've seen a few caches that the OP would probably complain were "buried" and try to get archived.

The best was a TB hotel that was built into the landscaping of a hotel, with the hotel manager's consent. The rock landscaping around a tree at the corner of the property had an underground utility box placed, but no utilities- just an ammo can.

I've seen the 4wood panels before on personal property so the 5gal bucket sits lower and fits in with the landscaping.

Another was a cache inside a sprinkler system control box that was flush with the ground.

But I probably shouldnt have mentioned these, now the OP or some other OCD rules-centered individual will probably search through my finds to locate the cache and write an NA note.

[4wheelin_fool]

Better yet, if a reviewer is ignoring you, then emailing them is just a waste of time. They are only a hapless volunteer. Go telephone the property owner and tell them what geocachers are doing on their property.

 

I'm a big fan of following the chain of command. Why not notify the Lackeys first? Getting a land owner to ban caches because one cacher is breaking the rules and one reviewer may be ignoring it, seems a bit overkill. Why not exhaust all other options first?

 

The reviewer is obviously of such high intelligence, that they know no such thing could ever occur, as such an inquiry from a plebian geocacher does not deserve an minute of their time.

 

Or perhaps geocaches should be banned in more areas. There's nothing like trimming back the rose bush to have it grow better. It appears that there seems to be massive amounts of caches being dumped in some spots without any thought behind them, care to the environment, or respect to the landowners. Without any consequences it may only get worse. Is the sport growing like a nice garden of Gallica roses, or rather like invasive kudzu? When the reviewers start to disrespect those in their own sport with honest questions, perhaps that is indicative of a deeper problem.

[+Don_J]

Better yet, if a reviewer is ignoring you, then emailing them is just a waste of time. They are only a hapless volunteer. Go telephone the property owner and tell them what geocachers are doing on their property.

 

I'm a big fan of following the chain of command. Why not notify the Lackeys first? Getting a land owner to ban caches because one cacher is breaking the rules and one reviewer may be ignoring it, seems a bit overkill. Why not exhaust all other options first?

 

The reviewer is obviously of such high intelligence, that they know no such thing could ever occur, as such an inquiry from a plebian geocacher does not deserve an minute of their time.

 

Or perhaps geocaches should be banned in more areas. There's nothing like trimming back the rose bush to have it grow better. It appears that there seems to be massive amounts of caches being dumped in some spots without any thought behind them, care to the environment, or respect to the landowners. Without any consequences it may only get worse. Is the sport growing like a nice garden of Gallica roses, or rather like invasive kudzu? When the reviewers start to disrespect those in their own sport with honest questions, perhaps that is indicative of a deeper problem.

 

Which is why you want to bring it to the attention of their supervisors, Groundspeak HQ. I can email any of my three reviewers and ask them any question or report any issue and I will get a reply within 24 hours, even if it's simply, "Thanks for the head's up, I'll look into it". Do I live in an area that has super-reviewers that far exceed the the expected standard, or are reviewers in other area failing to live up to their basic duties?

 

I don't want to turn this into a reviewer bash. When I asked how long ago the OP reported the problem I was expecting an answer like two days ago, or something like that. I didn't expect a year and I'm kind of curious why they waited a year to ask the question here. It's possible that the reviewer had every intention of dealing with this but lost track of her email. It's possible that they emailed the OP back for more info and she never received the response. Anything is possible with a year lapsed. If I was truly concerned about the cache, I would start the process over and if no response was received in a week or two, escalate it to HQ and explain that the reviewer hasn't responded.

[+NanCycle]

I'm kind of curious why they waited a year to ask the question here.

 

On a recent trip. I found 2 more caches hidden with the 4 wooden sides lining the hole dug to place the cache in. I am wondering if there's any point in reporting them, or if there's more of a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy/practice. I'm getting the feeling that cachers are free to dig holes as long as they don't mention it on the cache page, or property owners/land managers don't complain.

[+niraD]

I'm getting the feeling that cachers are free to dig holes as long as they don't mention it on the cache page, or property owners/land managers don't complain.

From a guidelines perspective, geocachers cannot dig or create a hole in the ground when placing a geocache.

 

From a practical "what you can get away with" perspective, geocachers can do anything they want as long as (1) the volunteer reviewers can't identify the problem using their online tools, (2) no one reports the problem (via NA logs, via email, or via some other means), and (3) no volunteer reviewers find the cache with their player accounts. So yes, there are caches out there that violate the guidelines because the CO managed to slip something by the volunteer reviewers and no one else has reported it yet.

 

Of course, once one earns a reputation for playing fast and loose with the guidelines, the volunteer reviewers will pay more attention to one's future cache submissions.

 

And of course, guideline violations (especially digging, defacement, and the like) can cause concern among land managers, which limits everyone's ability to enjoy geocaching in certain parks and open spaces.

[+MtnMutt-ProDuckShins]

Ok, so you dislike a said Buried Cache..

Let's examined that term Buried, which means... To cover in order to conceal from sight.

 

Then all caches are that. Does this mean you now want all caches to be placed out in the open?

 

Is the whole issue that you've had trouble finding them or you just to vent because someone slightly stretched rule to make for a better Cache?

 

Wait.... See that Speed Limit sign! I bet you never ever go beyond the posted limit..... Correct?

 

Each to his/her own ways to play this game. This is only a game, enjoy it and have fun and exercise in the outdoors.

 

Remember Nature gives us all opportunities to place a Cache in the outdoors and some folks just use it better than others.

 

Smile more, there is already too much stress in the world why add to it.

 

PEACE. Over & out

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Ok, so you dislike a said Buried Cache..

Let's examined that term Buried, which means... To cover in order to conceal from sight.

 

I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim that they dislike buried caches. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking buried caches.

 

Dictionary definitions of buried are irrelevant. The only definition of "buried" that matters is that of land managers. If land managers sees a cache that they deem to be "buried" they just might (and some have) disallow any caches on the property they manage. If we're lucky that might be a small plot of land. If we're not it could be a city or state park or huge swaths of real estate managed by national agencies.

 

 

Then all caches are that. Does this mean you now want all caches to be placed out in the open?

 

Is the whole issue that you've had trouble finding them or you just to vent because someone slightly stretched rule to make for a better Cache?

 

At least three logical fallacies so far. What's next?

 

 

Wait.... See that Speed Limit sign! I bet you never ever go beyond the posted limit..... Correct?

 

 

If you ignore speed limit signs eventually you'll get caught. Ignore them often enough and you'll lose the privilege to drive. Guess what will happen if you ignore the guidelines created by those that allow you to create a cache listing?

 

 

Each to his/her own ways to play this game. This is only a game, enjoy it and have fun and exercise in the outdoors.

 

Remember Nature gives us all opportunities to place a Cache in the outdoors and some folks just use it better than others.

 

 

Nature doesn't give us opportunities to place caches. Land manager and property owners do that. If land managers get the impression that geocaching is a game about burying containers, they won't care if some people think it's fun an creative. They'll just deny our right to use the property they manage to play the game.

 

 

Smile more, there is already too much stress in the world why add to it.

 

PEACE. Over & out

 

The only think I could agree with in this post.

 

 

[+JohnnyVegas]

I know of at least 5 caches that are buried. I reported one of them to the reviewer and nothing was done about it. Should I bother to report any more?

 

Edited to clarify what I meant by "buried." In each case a hole was obviously dug. In 3 cases the hole was shored up on 4 sides by wood and the container placed into the cavity and covered by another piece of wood and/or a large flat rock. In 2 cases the hole was made to fit a plastic container which was placed into it up to its neck/top, and then covered by some type of camo.

You might also post a SBA, that may get more attention

[+JohnnyVegas]

I would post a "Needs Archived" note, reviewers usually get alerted when those are posted. I may be wrong, but I believe it says it the guidelines "Caches may not be buried". I will look into this more....

you are correct, buried caches are not allowed

[+JohnnyVegas]

My brother in California recently had a problem with an "Evil penny" cache. He glued a penny to to the lid of a small tube and placed it into the ground so that a person walking by would only see the penny. Now in my opinion a penny that is glued to the lid is now an extension of the container, so part of the container is even with the surface of the ground. By definition* this cache is not "buried." Reviewer refused to publish cache citing "buried."

 

*Since it is easiest to just google the definition of "buried," this is the definition I go by.

that is a buried cache

[+JohnnyVegas]

this is an interesting thread. I had to step away from doing lots of geocaching when I went back to school 5 years ago, now that I am done with school I am caching a lot again. I can not go a week without finding at least one cache that violates the guide lines. Buried, screwed into private property, glue to park benches and so on. I guess a large number of people that hide caches just do not read the guidelines. Now if some one reports an illegal cache they will encounter all kinds off Cr#p form other cachers

[+tozainamboku]

My brother in California recently had a problem with an "Evil penny" cache. He glued a penny to to the lid of a small tube and placed it into the ground so that a person walking by would only see the penny. Now in my opinion a penny that is glued to the lid is now an extension of the container, so part of the container is even with the surface of the ground. By definition* this cache is not "buried." Reviewer refused to publish cache citing "buried."

 

*Since it is easiest to just google the definition of "buried," this is the definition I go by.

that is a buried cache

Maybe. At one time is was clear that pushing a small item into soft soil was not burying. The guidelines defined burry as using a shovel, trowel, or other sharp instrument to dig. Later the guidelines changed to breaking the soil, and then even more recently to creating a hole. I'm a bit ticked that the definition keeps getting more restrictive and that there hasn't been a Groundspeak explanation of why.

 

One reason may be just a desire to use simpler language. The other may be that people have complied with the looser standards and land managers have complained.

 

In my opinion, given the real reason for the rule, it should be don't dig where the land manager is likely to have a problem. This clearly doesn't work becuase all it takes is for one person to hide a buried cacne and until the land manager complains, everyone else will think that they can bury caches in that park or park district.

 

If it's OK to hide an item under a pile of rocks or sticks, the land manager is not likely to get upset about a micro pushed into the ground. On the other hand, they may object to a slightly bigger hole to hide a small or regular. TPTB are likely reluctant to specify the size of the hole that is too big and would rather that people use some common sense. I'd personally find it hard to object to the evil penny (at least on the basis of it making a hole).

[+hukilaulau]

When I found it I agreed and posted a SBA (without claiming the find.)

 

I guess the idea of not taking a find is that you want to shun caches with procedural faults?

I guess you could put it like that. This isn't the first time I've done that and I'm certainly not the first to do it.

My note made it clear that I had found the cache. Your reason for claiming the smiley is disingenuous. I understand that you want to increase your numbers no matter what. I look at it differently. What I really thought was that the cache should have been retracted, erasing all evidence of a cache that clearly should not have been there in the first place.

[+Don_J]

Ok, so you dislike a said Buried Cache..

Let's examined that term Buried, which means... To cover in order to conceal from sight.

 

Then all caches are that. Does this mean you now want all caches to be placed out in the open?

 

Is the whole issue that you've had trouble finding them or you just to vent because someone slightly stretched rule to make for a better Cache?

 

Wait.... See that Speed Limit sign! I bet you never ever go beyond the posted limit..... Correct?

 

Each to his/her own ways to play this game. This is only a game, enjoy it and have fun and exercise in the outdoors.

 

Remember Nature gives us all opportunities to place a Cache in the outdoors and some folks just use it better than others.

 

Smile more, there is already too much stress in the world why add to it.

 

PEACE. Over & out

 

One buried cache led to the ban on physical cache containers on all National Park Service controlled land for a ten year period. It's not about being mad that you had a hard time finding a cache so you had to snitch to the reviewer. It's about the fact that some cachers feel that they are entitled to do whatever the heck they want on someone elses property, because "it's only a geocache", and if someone doesn't keep them in check, everyone will suffer. It matters little what your, mine, Webster's or Wikipedia's definition of buried is. Groundspeak's definition is what matters. If I find a cache buried in a state park or conservancy land, or private business property, or next to the off ramp of the Interstate, I'm going to report it.

 

This whole "you play your way, I'll play my way" is nonsense when it comes to the #1 guideline for placing a cache.