Author Topic: What constitutes "burying"?  (Read 2798 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

portera

  • Big Time Cacher
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • Yes, I probably should be working...
What constitutes "burying"?
« on: October 30, 2012, 14:52:44 »
So on Saturday night, I found a new cache in a park in the west end called "bottlecaps". GeoNerding and I shared the FTF. It is described accurately on the cache page, and the coordinates are pretty close. Without giving too much away, it is visible from above, but the majority of the container is below grade.

There was a "Needs Archived" logged on the cache today with the reason that it is buried. While I don't think the cache has much chance of surviving very long due to its location and the fact that the container is likely not waterproof. However, I don't understand what makes this cache any different from the Binthair cache near Blackburn which is hidden in a similar fashion. I did say to GeoNerding at the time that there was going to be hoo-haw about this cache, and I guess I was right, though I suppose that I may be adding a hoo or haw myself. :)

I look forward to the hoo-ing and haw-ing...

BlackRose67

  • Big Time Cacher
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
Re: What constitutes "burying"?
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2012, 15:28:49 »
So on Saturday night, I found a new cache in a park in the west end called "bottlecaps". GeoNerding and I shared the FTF. It is described accurately on the cache page, and the coordinates are pretty close. Without giving too much away, it is visible from above, but the majority of the container is below grade.

There was a "Needs Archived" logged on the cache today with the reason that it is buried. While I don't think the cache has much chance of surviving very long due to its location and the fact that the container is likely not waterproof. However, I don't understand what makes this cache any different from the Binthair cache near Blackburn which is hidden in a similar fashion. I did say to GeoNerding at the time that there was going to be hoo-haw about this cache, and I guess I was right, though I suppose that I may be adding a hoo or haw myself. :)

I look forward to the hoo-ing and haw-ing...

Ground was "broken" for "GAG - 18 I HAVE EYES ONLY FOR YOU", but it's not buried; most of it is above ground.

A similar discussion is also going on at the GC.com forums over the wording of
"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've read about fake survey stakes stuck in the ground that also seem to be OK.

kirok

  • Administrator
  • Big Time Cacher
  • *****
  • Posts: 690
  • "To boldly find what no cacher has logged before!"
    • Binthair Challenge
Re: What constitutes "burying"?
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2012, 19:02:19 »
I don't understand what makes this cache any different from the Binthair cache near Blackburn

This Binthair cache, most of mlord's caches, and a few others I can think of from the era, were placed before this "guideline" existed.  They are grandfathered.  If we were to retroactively apply the guidelines, there would a lot more caches in Ottawa getting archived.

Let us all not forget that the first ever geocache was a pail buried in the ground.

That said, any new cache published should certainly be made to conform to the guidelines, and reported if the violation is blatant.  I have not visited this cache, so I cannot speak to it's "compliance", but from I read in the logs I suspect I would have hit the NA as well.

Just my $0.02

model12

  • Administrator
  • Big Time Cacher
  • *****
  • Posts: 672
  • Rifling through your cache
    • SteveHanes.com
Re: What constitutes "burying"?
« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2012, 20:18:26 »
I found bottlecaps tonight, and would certainly have to agree that it was installed with the use of some tool or other, which would make it a non-conforming hide according to the guidelines today. If the CO could explain how it was installed without the use of a tool, then I think it's good to go. Not to say it's a good cache at all; it is a poor choice for our climate, and is already breaking apart...

This exact hide comes up repeatedly though, and there are a few examples of it still active in Ottawa and the surrounding areas. They typically do not last, and they are usually found by PAF since they are literally needle-in-a-haystack hides.

I have seen many similar hides in my travels; most were hidden in pre-existing installations. As cachers travel they tend to bring home new ideas, and try to implement them at home. That's where the 'installation' and 'use-of-tools' comes in.

I say find a better spot. Don't try to force a cache into an inappropriate area. And don't use anything except your 2 hands to place it.
Steve

“Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.”
- Dr. Seuss



CacheDrone

  • Guest
Re: What constitutes "burying"?
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2012, 20:29:20 »
"If I would have been allowed to archive all of those wretched Binthair caches, instead of letting Alison talk me out of it, we wouldn't have these problems in Ottawa!"   :P

hidnseek

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Cacher
  • *****
  • Posts: 419
Re: What constitutes "burying"?
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2012, 20:53:03 »
I have heard about this cache and CV tells me the reviewers are talking and checking in before acting to see all on same page, as the guidelines have changed recently.

Binthairs and most older caches are consider grandfathered. Consider them like a case study as to maybe why a guideline was introduced, changed.


"I have to go. I'm conducting a seminar in multiple personality disorders, and it takes me forever to fill out the nametags."
— Niles Crane (David Hyde Pierce)

GreyingJay

  • Guest
Re: What constitutes "burying"?
« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2012, 09:27:14 »
I used to go by the guideline that if I could use my hands to loosely remove gravel or earth or pine needles or whatnot, then it was OK, but if I had to use a tool to make the hole, then it was not.

Is that no longer valid?

I found a cache recently that was not below ground but was completely buried by pine needles. I assume there's no problem with that.

The red-haired witch

  • Guest
Re: What constitutes "burying"?
« Reply #7 on: October 31, 2012, 11:16:09 »
This much at least is clear : pine needles, leaves, snow and similar ground covers are ok.  Good thing too, because half the cache in this country should be "buried" in snow soon enough.  :P

The guidelines on not burying caches are about the ground itself, (dirt, rock, sand...)  and there are lots of discussions on the definition of buried.  Is it ok if you dig with your hands, is pushing something in the ground ok?  Does it make a diffierence is it's something small for like a tent stake, or something big like a 4 x 4?  Does it make a difference if it's only partially buried? 

I think the final discussion might end up being guided by the original reason for this guideline, which is still valid : geocaching should not be seen by land managers as causing damage to the land.  Some people still imagine geocachers as treasure hunters digging holes all over a property to find buried treasure.  It's not true and people should not be allowed to place caches that make this look true... 


Binrat

  • Jr. Cacher
  • **
  • Posts: 79
Re: What constitutes "burying"?
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2012, 17:33:47 »
I see nothing wrong with using an existing hole and placing a trap door on it and using a little ground cover to hide the cache.  I know of a mlord cache just like this.

Binrat

kirok

  • Administrator
  • Big Time Cacher
  • *****
  • Posts: 690
  • "To boldly find what no cacher has logged before!"
    • Binthair Challenge
Re: What constitutes "burying"?
« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2012, 20:32:53 »
I know of a mlord cache just like this.

Uh huh.  Yeah.   All three of them?  Perfectly rectangular holes too.  Yup.   ::)  ;)
As I said earlier however, they were (likely) placed before this guideline came into effect, or at least before reviewers were enforcing it.

Shoven

  • Guest
Re: What constitutes "burying"?
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2012, 14:23:38 »
My .02?  I think that the person that couldn't find it 3x got all ticked off and reported it.  Sorry. I don't know any of you but reading the logs that's the way it looks to an outsider.

So the cache in question is now archived.  Which is unfortunate.  I haven't tried to find this cache but I do know of at least one that I have found that is in the ground and was not placed by hand.  I believe its called "Wheels on the Bus" in Barrhaven.  I loved this find.  But if you want to follow the rules then this should be archived as well. No?


GreyingJay

  • Guest
Re: What constitutes "burying"?
« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2012, 14:31:58 »
My .02?  I think that the person that couldn't find it 3x got all ticked off and reported it.  Sorry. I don't know any of you but reading the logs that's the way it looks to an outsider.

Perhaps, but if you read the other logs, it doesn't sound like a very fun experience for anyone. Spent over an hour searching? Multiple locals asking "what are you doing here?" Meters from a children's playground? They had to bring in a metal detector to find it?

This is WHY caches aren't supposed to be buried -- so they can be found!

I could see cutting some slack on a cache that isn't going to cause concern with land managers or muggles. I recognize Hidden Treasure is a similar "needle in a haystack" that takes people hours to find, but at least it's relatively out of the way in a big field.

Frankly I'm not sure I blame the person who submitted a Needs Archived, because I think there's a valid point to saying "urban geocaches aren't supposed to be like this - for a reason!"


bluelamb03

  • Administrator
  • Big Time Cacher
  • *****
  • Posts: 1636
  • Good hunting everyone!
Re: What constitutes "burying"?
« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2012, 15:38:47 »
So the cache in question is now archived.  Which is unfortunate.  I haven't tried to find this cache but I do know of at least one that I have found that is in the ground and was not placed by hand.  I believe its called "Wheels on the Bus" in Barrhaven.  I loved this find.  But if you want to follow the rules then this should be archived as well. No?

"The wheels on the bus go round and round..." by Glucan http://coord.info/GC1ZE3H is a fake sprinkler cache, a fairly common type of cache hide, I could cite a dozen of them off the top of my head. It was published before the more stringent guidelines were adopted. Like "Hidden Treasure" and the mlord caches mentioned above it's 'grandfathered', but it does serve as an excellent example of why the new guidelines have been adopted. After finding a 'sprinkler' cache, especially ones that use actual sprinklers, people often damage irrigation systems looking for another 'sprinkler' cache. I've found sprinkler heads disassembled in the vicinity of a micro in a shrub. I'm sure the gardener/landowners are very impressed by ignorant cachers damaging their equipment......

There are many places, even in an urban area, and many cache hides that can be placed without inviting damage to property or terrain. Surely we shouldn't tolerate poor caches now just because they weren't recognized as a problem in the past?

Blue -
Without shared stories we are strangers.
- Sheila Mendonça