Groundbreaking Guidelines

[Jacaru]

Firstly I want to say that this is not a thread attacking our reviewers who do a damned good job of reviewing caches in this country, a job that I wouldn’t want for all the coffee in Costa’s. They are in a difficult position of being damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Neither is it an attack on the GAGB for whom I also have a lot of respect


With all the recent debate going on regarding the disabling of the KT series, especially on Geocaching Midlands (GeM) I thought that it may be prudent to bring to issue to the GAGB forum

For anyone who doesn’t know, the KT series is a trail of over 100 caches along a canal in the North West of England. It is a series that is relatively new and has already gained a fair few favourite points. However, someone decided to report the series to the reviewers as they feel that the caches are buried. I can’t comment on this myself as I have not done the trail, only on what I have read. It appears that tubes are stuck in to the ground and they themselves contain the actual cache. Quite rightly, under the present guidelines one of our reviewers temporarily disabled the caches whilst they investigate

A few days later, again on GeM, another member reported that his cache had been TD’d as that had also been reported to a reviewer for being in the ground, this cache was a solar light with the cache inside it.

]If every cache that was staked in to the ground was reported, there would be a lot of blank spaces throughout the country. I would think that most of you reading this have found at least one cache fixed in to place like this in your caching lifetime

Many cachers have spent good money at geocaching outlets in this country on caches that have to be staked. Fake grass, toadstools, birds etc. etc. Why would these be for sale if they couldn’t be used?

If we want to take things to the extreme regarding the breaking the ground guideline, then surely camping events shouldn’t be allowed to take place!!! Tent pegs, flag poles and banners come to mind.

The GAGB have also come in for a lot of stick over the last few months on various forums and Facebook pages for being out of touch with the UK population of cachers and for not representing their needs.

This would be an ideal opportunity for the GAGB to do something that would get you a lot of support.

]I would ask that you, the committee, negotiate with Groundspeak on behalf of our community to rethink, reword and revise their policy on ground breaking. Obviously no one wants to go out there burying caches, but to stop people staking stuff in to the ground is going to stop a lot of innovative caches being placed.

Thankyou.

[Maple Leaf]

We have a committee meeting tomorrow, so I will add it to the agenda

[Andalusite]

Can you clarify what you would like the GAGB to lobby for?

How big a stake would you say is ok? A bottle lid with a sample tube? A piece of plumbing tube with a 35mm film pot inside? A 6" tube with a plastic bottle inside? What about a fake drain cover?

Are you asking for more complex guidelines that state widths and dimensions?


Would you ask Groundspeak to allow buried caches with express landowner permission? If so would you want the fact that the cache is buried to be stated on the listing?

I'm not trying to be argumentative or picky but to foster a debate about what it is that you'd like the GAGB to lobby for.



Regards


Andalusite.

[Jacaru]

Hi Andalusite,

I welcome your question. I posted the thread to start such a debate off. It's okay people moaning on other forums about the GAGB, but I hope that by pointing them here some serious debate and discussion can start so that the committee have something firm to take to Groundspeak.

[Mongoose39uk]

A Poll of members to see if there is even a wish for it to be taken to review would be a good plan

[The Tares Clan]

Can you clarify what you would like the GAGB to lobby for?


I would like them to lobby for consistency in the implementation of the guidelines. We all know that there are caches which are buried and whcih have obviously broken ground but which are (currently) not TD or archived.

Quoting something I have already said on the GAGB Facebook page:



Reviewers are in a very difficult place as they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. They have to follow the guidelines/rules set out by the listing company (as do COs). Groundspeak are in a tough situation as well as they have to try to create/amend guidelines/rules which cover every eventuality across the world and no "governing" body has ever managed to get the rules/guidelines correct the first time.

The rule on burying has been around for a very long time and it was amended in April to make it clearer that it was the breaking of the ground which is at fault and not using a natural dip and some camouflage to hide the cache. I am in total agreement with this rule although we have all seen many, many caches which "bend" it.
And another quote



ET#1 is very much buried - it is " a big ammo can placed under a little trap door in the ground". Have a look at http://geocass.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/p1010394.jpg and http://geocass.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/p1010395.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgeocass.files.wordpress.com%2 F2012%2F04%2Fp1010395.jpg&h=pAQFCYWxdAQEmUocMPj8a0xQnlKSLjG6zpGxToIL9pJ6CMA&s=1) (taken from http://geocass.wordpress.com/2012/04/22/an-american-caching-adventure-part-1-the-et-highway/. Even photos such as https://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/large/c6ea8d93-f611-4845-81f8-29e782e0d857.jpg from the gallery page show it very much has broken ground.

The same page shows sprinkler caches - "sprinkler containers placed in white pipes in the ground at the base of bushes with a rock on top.".

Please note that I am *NOT* saying these should be TD or archived but simply asking for consistency. If a guideline is applied in one area, it should be applied in another.

It maybe that the COs for the above have explicit permission to break ground but as the guideline is currently worded, they are still against the guidelines. If they have permission and are allowed to "bend" the guidelines because of the permission, this should be allowed elsewhere in the world (again I am not saying if the CO for KT Power series has that permission as I do not know but if the Canal & River Trust (ex British Waterways) gave that permission, we should have a level playing field.
Personally, all I want to come out of this is for GS to clarify the situation and have it implemented consistently.

[bobo frett]

I wish for it to be taken to review. I've found many good hides which have broken the ground.

I support the GAGB and thoroughly appreciate what they do for the caching community.
I'm also aware that this site appears to have a much lower volume of traffic than the social networking sites.
I didn't know there was a committee meeting for example, don't know if I should have. However, it helps when I see Jacaru start a thread and see the GAGB respond and say they will put it on the agenda for discussion. This is a positive thing.

I didn't know there was a committee meeting, unsure if I was meant to. BUT I think I would like to know so if I had any burning issues then I could mention them on here or on the GAGB facebook page and hope they may make the committee agenda. Perhaps a wee note or status update on facebook would make the GAGB more accessible to us Joe Publics. I digress.

I would like the GAGB to discuss the 'ground breaking' guideline. I disagree with it myself and wish for it to be rethought.

[Spire67]

cache with a small spike or tube pushed into the ground do no damage. In many cases they secure the cache so that it does not migrate from its intended location and makes locating them straight forward. This can in turn prevent damage to the surrounding area through caching activity.

With regards to what I think should be allowed I would say a spike with a diameter no greater than a regular pencil which can be pushed into the ground by hand. A tube large enough to accomodate a 35mm film pot. Again which can be pushed into the ground by hand.

If groundspeak committee members are unaware there has been a huge wave of support on the GeM facebook page for the KT Power series. Clearly this is something that the vast majority of cachers think is acceptable and support the use of. Even the reviewer Royal Oak has done the series and clearly saw nothing wrong with it. I think they even favourited it.

Please represent the views of UK cachers on this issue by petitioning groundspeak to allow this type of hide.

[frosty68]

I'm a little surprised there's so little activity on here regarding this, considering the hundreds, of not thousands of comments on the various Facebook groups.
I've also found some great creative and imaginative caches which were buried, do the no burying (or breaking ground) rule operates to have been flouted regularly globally (et highway), but most cachers and reviewers turn a blind eye.
Perhaps "we should campaign for greater reviewer flexibility though I do understand lines needed to be drawn, and three only way to guarantee consistency is to treat guidelines as hard and fast rules.
One thing we could do to raise awareness of this issue is report et1, this is a global game, lets see if the rule are interpreted the same?

[Tre-da]

I would like to make the follow suggestions regarding breaking the ground.
The rules should be altered as follows.

1. Spikes including tubes up to 50 mm diameter my be inserted into the ground to a maximum depth of 300mm should be allowed anywhere except SSIs or similar.

2. On ground that is in agricultural use, on private fenced land, SSIs and similar then ground breaking should be completely prohibited except as above with landowners specific permission.

3. On road verges and areas on the road side of fences or hedges and similar areas with public access it is permitted subject to the following:-
Maximum size of any hole to be 500mm x 500mm x500mm.
Excavations must be carried out with hand tools only.

4. Where ground braking has taken place then the area must be left safe for ANY persons that pass the area.

5. No digging or similar is allowed in the search of a hidden cache. (This should prevent areas being dug over by finders)

6. No ground braking of any sort is permitted within 2 metres of any services such as cables and pipes.

These suggestions should allow the hider and the searcher to operate in safety without detriment to the environment.

[ivanidea]

I agree that caches shouldn't be burried.

But, I think it should be acceptable to permit 'temporary' supports, which do not cause any permanent damage, so when removed the area will heal naturaly, such as when using tent pegs, sprinkler spikes or solar lights (to name some examples).

[keehotee]

This would be an ideal opportunity for the GAGB to do something that would get you a lot of support....


The aims of the GAGB are


To enhance caching and to progress it as an activity within Great Britain and Northern Ireland by:


liaising with land owners, agreeing mutually beneficial guidelines so that caching on their land is approved and encouraged (for members and non-members alike)
helping all cachers to enjoy the activity without falling foul of the civil and criminal laws of the land
establishing good caching practices by accepting advice from land, environmental, archaeological, historical and other relevant bodies
acting as intermediaries, and being the first point of call for all interested parties in The United Kingdom ensuring that the positive educational, environmental and recreational aspects of caching are properly represented
helping new members of the caching community when they begin
To keep membership of Association free of charge.
To keep the Association “non-commercial”.


I don't see anything in there about approaching one of the four active (in this country) listing sites, because some of the membership disagree with the wording of one of the site's guidelines.
Although the wording has changed, the intent is still within the GAGB's own guidelines.
IMO this action will not serve to enhance the GAGB's failing image with any but a few cachers.

[The Imp]

I, am not a fond lover of forums, “You will see that by the number of posts I have placed”. It will take a great deal to get me to type something unless I feel something should be said. Today is that day!

Firstly, GAGB & Reviewers. You all do a great voluntary job, and without you, we would not have the fantastic sport we all enjoy. I appreciate times can be difficult upholding rules, and conflicts of opinions will always occur, however, maybe this is one time, when public opinion is so strong, this rule, just may need to be reviewed its self. Perhaps it’s outdated, or perhaps it needs toughening up on?

I have read many articles on Facebook etc, condoning the reviewers actions taken on this cache, yet many forget, reviewers have guidelines to follow and for whatever reason, you can not please everyone all of the time. Bringing this matter to the forefront for discussion, may be the best way forward once and for all! Irrespective, this matter needs resolving sooner, rather than later, so we can all carry on, knowing where we stand and what’s correct and what’s not!

For 4 years, I have cached throughout the United Kingdom, and to say I have never found a cache in the ground would be a complete lie. On average at least one find in 50 is buried in one way or another. From a simple cache fixed to a bottle top, pushed into the ground, to one say by a manhole edge, squeezed in-between the concrete and the grass.

As others mention, some fixed to grasses, artificial plants and even a CO has scraped away a small piece of soil, placed a cache and then recovered it with a stone. I personally see no difference to these, as I do to one placed inside a cave. All are below ground surface, and all could be seen as breaking the ground and breaking the rules

Guidelines need to be clear, and should set examples for all to understand. Personally I seem no harm in push in the ground caches provided they are safe, and unobtrusive. Neither do I see problems with caches hidden in caves, manholes, pipes, tunnels, mines , pillar boxes, drains, under a piece of moss! etc, etc. The lists are endless, but there all out there now and have been for years! Its part of the challenge! And that’s what Geocaching is all about! “A challenge!!!”

Digging ground with tools, however, I feel should still be permitted, “ but “ under a stricter guidelines of permissions required by land owners. If they have no objections, then posting a reviewer note with the consenting name and contact details, should be suffice. I appreciate there is a huge difference to a cache that has been dug out by the use of tools, and perhaps this is what we should be looking at closer, rather than the broader spectrum, that everyone enjoys already and has done for years.

Why change something that obviously works and everyone likes and enjoys. (or archive 1/50th of the worlds caches.) I see an uproar looming!:ohmy:

[border caz]

I agree caches should not be buried - as in: a hole is dug, the cache is placed in the hole, the hole is filled with earth.

I don't understand why the guidelines had to be changed to this incongruous "If one has to dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache, then the cache is not permitted."

All cachers will have "broken ground" when hiding and finding caches unless they have only walked on city streets - earth is not concrete! It moves when we step on it! We break ground every time we walk across it.

IMHO the guideline should be changed back to simply say that caches should not be buried and noone should have to dig to find them.

Regarding the GAGB's involvement - I do understand that it is not in their remit at present to act as go-betweens with listing sites on behalf of it's members, but I suspect that a lot of cachers believe that it is and it would increase membership if it were. Certainly many cachers feel aggrieved that they have no voice to speak for them in matters such as this one.

[Griff Grof]

Caches placed and published, before the guideline was updated, have been Grandfathered.

Those containers are still on sale, probably, to aid COs when their container needs replacing etc. Also, other listing sites probably have no problem with it - who said Geocaching shops only sold products to users of Geocaching.com? People do use other sites too!

I think it's a sensible guideline, but not as it is worded - it should read "Caches will not be published if they break into ground more than Xcm in depth"

[The Tares Clan]

Caches placed and published, before the guideline was updated, have been Grandfathered.


That is what we assume has happened as that is what GS have done in the past but there is no official confirmation of that from what I can see.

[keehotee]

I think it's a sensible guideline, but not as it is worded - it should read "Caches will not be published if they break into ground more than Xcm in depth"

1cm? 1 inch? 1 foot?

You'd need to define size too, then - because there'd be nothing to stop somebody digging a 1cm hole and laying a paving slab in it.....

Personally - and I'm well aware that I'm on my own here - I think the wording's fine. It was probably put in place to stop those people who would deliberately work around the letter of a guideline just to say they had. Why (why...?????) do people feel the need to stick things in the ground? It's not like we're short of decent above ground hiding places in this country - and as the Imp said, this could apply to 1 in 50 hides - so there goes any novelty factor too. No - I think they've gone/are going the way of first film pots, and then magnetic nanos - in providing what some hiders like to think of as a clever hide because they can buy a solution off the shelf and not have to strain the old grey matter too hard when hiding.

[The Tares Clan]

It is the lack of consistency that is the issue for me. Even before the guideline was changed, the statement "Geocaches are never buried." was always there but caches such as ET#1 are very much buried.

[Team Microdot]

A Poll of members to see if there is even a wish for it to be taken to review would be a good plan

The most sensible suggestion I've seen in the thread so far.

Even if we ignore the fact that with the best will in the world GAGB does not represent all of the UK geocaching community, if GAGB is going to approach anybody on behalf of the UK geocaching community then they should at the very least seek a majority vote on this action from within their own membership and make the approach on that basis.

So far I see a small number of people who feel that the current guideline regarding breaking ground to hide / find a cache should be amended. Perhaps there are more people voting for this on other channels or just shouting louder - I don't know - but if their views are to be funnelled through this channel then they need to speak up in this channel.

Personally I don't see what all the fuss is about and believe that the simpler the guidelines are, the better for all - especially the reviewers who end up in the firing line every time someone has an issue with clearly defined guidelines being enforced.

The current guideline I believe is as clear and simple as it can be - no half measures, no blurry edges or grey zones which themselves lead to more angst through scope creep - simple, straight foward, easy - and that's probably why it's been set this way. I say stick with it.

On the subject of trying to justify staked hides because they are for sale on online - well there's lots of stuff available online - weapons and drugs for example - does the fact they are for sale online justify their use? I think not. That's a bit like trying to justify breaking the speed limit simply because the car you purchased is capable of doing so.

And a hide in a cave isn't the same thing as a buried hide - assuming the cave is a pre-existing natural void which required no manual excavation - which describes most caves that the general public have access to.

And as for guidelines which restrict the placing of caches within a given distance of underground pipes or cables - how on earth are you going to know if your prospective hide is too close to pipes or cables until it's too late :confused: Or is it just a case of making test excavations until you find a spot you can get away with? :blink:

I say follow the KISS principle - Keep It Simple Stupid - and the current guideline is about as simple as it gets.

That's my 2 penn'orth.

[northking]

It is clear that the wording of the 'Guideline' is an attempt at brevity. This has caused the meaning and intention to be lost. Taking the wording as it stands I would suggest that almost every cache placed in a rural environment is causing us to breach the guideline. Section 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'. Walking across the forest floor, raking away loose leaves, reaching around an exposed root system or hole in a tree are all actions likely to 'break ground to find the cache'
Section 4 'Geocache placements ...... Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property ...... Climbing a tree, brushing against a moss-covered rock, stepping away from the usual path can all be construed as causing unintentional harm to the surrounding environment.
Sounds extreme doesn't it? But this wording does not seem to allow for common sense to be applied, both by the cache owner, the finder and the reviewers. Caches placed in a dangerous or inappropriate position are generally flagged up by visitors very quickly. A cache that is damaging or likely to cause permanent damage to the environment would also be flagged. A cache that is being held in position by, say a knitting needle would rarely cause permanent damage, and from experience is less likely to cause an extensive search than a fake rock placed amongst other rocks and/or debris.

Please address the wording of the guideline with the listing companies and ask that wherever possible general terms are used to allow for a common sense approach, taking into account the area where a cache is placed. (I have previously attempted to address this issue directly with Groundspeak and not received acknowledgement or a reply) Thank you.

[Mrs Blorenge]

1cm? 1 inch? 1 foot?

You'd need to define size too, then - because there'd be nothing to stop somebody digging a 1cm hole and laying a paving slab in it.....

Personally - and I'm well aware that I'm on my own here - I think the wording's fine. It was probably put in place to stop those people who would deliberately work around the letter of a guideline just to say they had. Why (why...?????) do people feel the need to stick things in the ground? It's not like we're short of decent above ground hiding places in this country - and as the Imp said, this could apply to 1 in 50 hides - so there goes any novelty factor too. No - I think they've gone/are going the way of first film pots, and then magnetic nanos - in providing what some hiders like to think of as a clever hide because they can buy a solution off the shelf and not have to strain the old grey matter too hard when hiding.


No, you're not on your own.

As I mentioned somewhere else, when the Guideline said only, "Caches must not be buried" (or similar words) there were often posts in the Groundspeak forums from people who would say, "I know that it says caches must not be buried but is it all right to... ?" Then they'd come out with a cunningly contrived work-around which they thought they should be able to get away with.

It seems to me that Groundspeak have made the new wording unambiguous: I reckon I understand what they mean. I can happily live with it.

[team mx]

To me the rule should be no digging is allowed in order to find a cache but something pushed into or tethered to the ground is permissible.

The guidelines should be seen as guidelines and not set in stone rules and the reviewers should be given some leeway to take the caching community's opinions into account especially if they've found the cache in question.

I would suggest no decisions are taken yet but you should instigate a debate on your own forums draw up a poll and try to get a consensus of opinion, this should also silence the critics who say the GAGB has no mandate.

[Team Microdot]

It is clear that the wording of the 'Guideline' is an attempt at brevity. This has caused the meaning and intention to be lost.

...

Please address the wording of the guideline with the listing companies and ask that wherever possible general terms are used to allow for a common sense approach, taking into account the area where a cache is placed.

I'm struggling to reconcile these two aspects of the post.

The current guidline uses general terms - which would seem to statisfy your request, but is too brief to adequately convey meaning and intention?

So what would work better? General terms but lots of them?

General and specific at the same time?

Remembering of course that if we are going to ask GAGB to speak on our behalf, we'll need to give them something concrete and specific to take to the table.

You ask for the application of common sense, yet start to point at even walking along a path as an example of breaking ground and thus an argument against the guideline as it stands - not an example of common sense as far as I can see.

And the thing with common sense is that it is often very far from common - as each person will have their own measure of what is acceptable and what isn't and that will be subject to all manner of bias - hence the need for clear, concise, unambiguous guidelines - which is what I think we have here already.

Another 2 penn'orth.

[lfc4eva]

Personally - and I'm well aware that I'm on my own here - I think the wording's fine...

You're not alone, I think the wording is fine too. :)

Though I have to say I haven't an opinion one way or the other on the novelty caches on the small spikes, bottle tops, fake grass etc.. I have found a handful of those kinda caches and it didn't occur to me at the time they may be detrimental to the environment. BUT there are always some who want to take it a little bit further and before you know it we have holes being dug and caches buried.

I would like some clarification on whether those already in situ before the change to the guideline have been grandfathered in? If they haven't, then there is a need for consistency in dealing with those which are in breach of the guideline.

I'd also like to see Tony's suggestion of a poll to determine the level of interest in a change to this guideline from the geocaching community, not just within GAGB but in the wider Geocaching community. Could a poll be set up on here but with links to all the regional forums and Facebook to include the wider community?

[Palujia]

Judging from the extremely poor responses to numerous polls posted on the forums in the last few years I'm not sure that it will help in this instance. Common sense should prevail in all cases when placing caches. No matter how many rules or guidelines are put in place either by us or by GS the cache hider should be aware of environmental impact when putting it out. As already stated KISS principles work and some of the most fiendishly difficult caches have been placed in plain sight - Be sensible, there is no need to dig holes to hide caches - put yourself in the place of the "seeker" - if you need to cause damage to the environment (other than trampling on Stinging nettles !!!)to find your cache then perhaps another hide is in order - I don't follow social networking sites for personal reasons but I am sure that the debate will continue on them, and the other committee members will let me know of any significant developments

[T1ffer]

I see no problems with any sort of "ground breaking" cache as long as it is visible. Meaning I can see the bottle top, coin, fake grass or whatever above the ground without having to dig or move rocks, etc to see it. If the caches in the the disabled series are covered by rocks or other camoflauge then technically I'd consider that buried.

[jonnyapples]

The problem that seems to be creeping over this country / world is the need to legislate for common sense.

I’m sure nobody would mind ‘folk pushing part of a containers into soft ground without the use of tools’ as a basic starting point.

Anything above this requires common sense. I’ve got no problem with folk burying the bottom part of large containers in the middle of a deserted wood but hammering in a 2ft steel anchor next to a lamppost would certainly get ‘raised eyebrows’.

Specifying sizes / depths and force required just opens up a whole can of worms.

The guidelines should be just that , with a margin for interpretation. The use of words such as 'in the spirit of', respect, responsible, sympathetically etc should be used.

I'm struggling to get into the mindset of those 'cacher' who are reporting these caches. What drives them to be self appointed caching police... jealousy , self righteousness, a misguided interpretation of the rules or an obsession with tupperware only caches :-)

Enough from me ... cheers

[Team Microdot]

I'm struggling to get into the mindset of those 'cacher' who are reporting these caches. What drives them to be self appointed caching police... jealousy , self righteousness, a misguided interpretation of the rules or an obsession with tupperware only caches :-)

Which is precisely the attitude which makes the simplest, clearest guidelines possible necessary and limits possible latitude to the bare minumum.

Just out of interest - who do you think should take responsibility for ensuring that standards and the good name / respectable public perception of geocaching are upheld?

[team mx]

Which is precisely the attitude which makes the simplest, clearest guidelines possible necessary and limits possible latitude to the bare minumum.

Just out of interest - who do you think should take responsibility for ensuring that standards and the good name / respectable public perception of geocaching are upheld?

If left to their own devices communities of cachers could self police their own area and the reviewer would disable/archive with the majority support from his peers. This would cut a lot of the reviewer angst because they'd become a instrument of the local cachers rather than opponent.

[Team Microdot]

If left to their own devices communities of cachers could self police their own area and the reviewer would disable/archive with the majority support from his peers. This would cut a lot of the reviewer angst because they'd become a instrument of the local cachers rather than opponent.

Couldn't have put it any better myself :cool:

EDIT: I think partner / facilitator is closer to the mark than instrument.

I believe there's a mechanism which facilitates thanking posters for their posts but I'm new here so don't know how to use it :confused:

Guidance please?

[team mx]

Dunno I've never said anything anyone's ever agreed with before! It's new territory for me.

[jonnyapples]

I totally agree self policing and common sense, the caching community as a whole are responsible & respectful of their surroundings.

The problem really is the 'breaking ground' issue and this is where common sense not hard and fast rules need to be used IMHO. Examples quoted :Small tubes with something attached to the top, solar lights, novelty items with small spikes/post are all acceptable to me and i would not feel the need/want to contact the owner then the reviewer over these items. Other unsuitable items i may drop the CO a polite note to suggest how they could improve cache.

I just want to go caching , find some interesting caches while being respectful and in awe of some great locations.

[lfc4eva]

The problem really is the 'breaking ground' issue and this is where common sense not hard and fast rules need to be used IMHO. Examples quoted :Small tubes with something attached to the top, solar lights, novelty items with small spikes/post are all acceptable to me and i would not feel the need/want to contact the owner then the reviewer over these items. Other unsuitable items i may drop the CO a polite note to suggest how they could improve cache.

The problem with allowing that kind of common sense is there will always be someone who pushes the boundaries too far and still claim that it is acceptable. My common sense may be a different level to yours or anyone elses, so who is going to police which of us is right?

The current guideline doesn't allow for such a grey area and that can only be a good thing imho.

[lfc4eva]

I believe there's a mechanism which facilitates thanking posters for their posts but I'm new here so don't know how to use it :confused:

Guidance please?

I think you need to have made 5 posts or more - I have just made my 5th post and now have a thanks button under each post. ;)

[Team Microdot]

I totally agree self policing and common sense, the caching community as a whole are responsible & respectful of their surroundings.

The problem really is the 'breaking ground' issue and this is where common sense not hard and fast rules need to be used IMHO. Examples quoted :Small tubes with something attached to the top, solar lights, novelty items with small spikes/post are all acceptable to me and i would not feel the need/want to contact the owner then the reviewer over these items. Other unsuitable items i may drop the CO a polite note to suggest how they could improve cache.

I just want to go caching , find some interesting caches while being respectful and in awe of some great locations.

And I think that view is probably reflected in the majority of the caching community.

Problems arise when the boundaries are pushed and the scope of the standard creeps, or when newbies / people unaware of the guidelines take their lead from something which just about complies and then magnify it into something which doesn't. This in turn puts reviewers in a difficult position and sadly on occasion brings them into actual conflict with irate CO's :(

So we're back to the KISS principle :)

[team mx]

The problem with allowing that kind of common sense is there will always be someone who pushes the boundaries too far and still claim that it is acceptable. My common sense may be a different level to yours or anyone elses, so who is going to police which of us is right?

The current guideline doesn't allow for such a grey area and that can only be a good thing imho.

That's why under my idea final decision doesn't lay with one person but a collection of peers and the reviewer is facilitator, adjudicator and ececutioner if needed.

[Team Microdot]

That's why under my idea final decision doesn't lay with one person but a collection of peers and the reviewer is facilitator, adjudicator and ececutioner if needed.

Isn't that exactly the arrangement which exists currently?

Maybe GS decided their time could be better spent on more useful things than poring over nitty-gritty detail as to what constituted a buried cache and what didn't?

As an aside and in reference to earlier posts, it seems that the average cacher is expected to have enough common sense to judge if a cache is buried or not when placing a cache, but the moment the average cacher flags up a cache which they think is a problem they are no longer deemed as having adequate common sense to make that judgement?

Surely it can't be both?

:confused:

[team mx]

I think the problem is the average cacher can't see a problem with pushing a tube into soft ground then a small minority come along quote the GUIDELINES not rules and the reviewers disable then archive. Must people have a live and let live attitude.

[team mx]

Isn't that exactly the arrangement which exists currently?

Maybe GS decided their time could be better spent on more useful things than poring over nitty-gritty detail as to what constituted a buried cache and what didn't?

As an aside and in reference to earlier posts, it seems that the average cacher is expected to have enough common sense to judge if a cache is buried or not when placing a cache, but the moment the average cacher flags up a cache which they think is a problem they are no longer deemed as having adequate common sense to make that judgement?

Surely it can't be both?

:confused:

The current system is cacher hides cache
Reviewer checks reviews cache
Reviewer finds cache with no issue
Lots of cachers find cache with no issue
Someone reports cache as buried and reviewer archives it for being in breach of guidelines.
Lots of other caches ok until that someone finds logs and reports it and another cache goes.

[DrDick&Vick]

Inconsistency at it's worst, a reviewer finds the whole series and does nothing as obviously he sees nothing wrong, some busybody reports the caches to another reviewer who then disables the series.
It is a guideline that is open to so many interpretations as many see breaking ground as actually having to dig with a tool rather than the simple insertion of a spike or small pointed container.
I have emailed Groundspeak for some clarification but it appears that they have received 'a greater than average amount of emails' so I will have to wait until next week for an answer. I wonder why they have received all those extra emails?:dunno:
I still believe that the reviewers do a good job but can be heavy handed at times.

[keehotee]

The current system is cacher hides cache
Reviewer checks reviews cache
Reviewer finds cache with no issue
Lots of cachers find cache with no issue
Someone reports cache as buried and reviewer archives it for being in breach of guidelines.
Lots of other caches ok until that someone finds logs and reports it and another cache goes.

I was the 50-somethingth finder of a cache in a dry stone wall near here a few years ago. I moved it, posted the new co-ords in my log, and posted a NA.

The cache had been found by some very experienced cachers before me, but their attitude was "it's a nice series, it seemed a shame to rock the boat"

Reviewer's are just ordinary experienced cachers with a bit (albeit a big bit) of extra voluntary work to do when they're not caching..... and if they were caching in a group, they may not even have seen the cache itself.

[Team Microdot]

...some busybody reports the caches to another reviewer who then disables the series....

I still believe that the reviewers do a good job but can be heavy handed at times.

Are you being ironic here or did you just brand every cacher who raises concerns about a cache with a reviewer a busybody and then go on to undermine those reviewers who uphold guidelines? :blink:

I must have got the wrong end of the stick here, surely :confused:

[DrDick&Vick]

There is concerns about a cache and there are concerns! I have concerns about one, safety grounds, and I just refuse to do it. If you think a cache is wrong, by all means report it but don't claim all the smilies.
My main point was the Inconsistency, where one reviewer can find the whole series and find nothing wrong and another one simply disables them when they are bought to his attention.
These are just my views which I am sure I am entitled to.

[Team Microdot]

Of course you're entitled to your views - just as I (and anyone else for that matter) am entitled to disagree with some of them which, on this occasion, I'm afraid I do because they seem to imply that it's not cool to try to maintain standards or to support the reviewers who work so hard to support us or to try to set good examples to other and especially NEW cachers by acting responsibly and setting quality caches which fit the then current guidelines.

I fully accept that there are levels of non-compliance and there levels of good/bad and that we should all be adult enough that common sense would be adequate but I also think that people don't always read the guidelines, and instead take their cues about how caches should be from those that they find - which is why I'm in favour of guidelines which promote and facilitate those good examples and preclude bad examples - even if they're not popular with some people some of the time.

And if that makes me un-cool or deserving of a caching police badge that's fine too - I never was the cool kid at school anyway :)


There is concerns about a cache and there are concerns! I have concerns about one, safety grounds, and I just refuse to do it. If you think a cache is wrong, by all means report it but don't claim all the smilies.
My main point was the Inconsistency, where one reviewer can find the whole series and find nothing wrong and another one simply disables them when they are bought to his attention.
These are just my views which I am sure I am entitled to.

[martybartfast]

... especially NEW cachers by acting responsibly and setting quality caches which fit the then current guidelines.


The reviewers have no interest in quality, and I think one of the likely outcomes of this and some other guidelines is that they will stifle inventive quality caches.

edit to add: the above refers to the remit of their role as a reviewer, as an individual I'm sure they're just as interested in quality as the rest of us.

[team mx]

Of course you're entitled to your views - just as I (and anyone else for that matter) am entitled to disagree with some of them which, on this occasion, I'm afraid I do because they seem to imply that it's not cool to try to maintain standards or to support the reviewers who work so hard to support us or to try to set good examples to other and especially NEW cachers by acting responsibly and setting quality caches which fit the then current guidelines.

I fully accept that there are levels of non-compliance and there levels of good/bad and that we should all be adult enough that common sense would be adequate but I also think that people don't always read the guidelines, and instead take their cues about how caches should be from those that they find - which is why I'm in favour of guidelines which promote and facilitate those good examples and preclude bad examples - even if they're not popular with some people some of the time.

And if that makes me un-cool or deserving of a caching police badge that's fine too - I never was the cool kid at school anyway :)


Of course its "cool" to maintain standards but its so "uncool" to maintain a standard a large number of cachers dont support I.E breaking the ground to hide caches. Burying is a completely different thing IMHO

[keehotee]

What everybody is missing - deliberately or otherwise - is the fact that this rule was first introduced NOT to prevent hiders from carefully digging holes to hide their cache, but to prevent finders from digging the place up when looking for caches that they knew (or assumed) were buried. It doesn't matter how conscientious and careful a hider is about tidily digging, lining, and covering a buried hide, if only 1 of the next 100 finders is slapdash, or just doesn't care, the place is trashed!
Consider that the "cache with a spike" might be a fake piece of grass. If it's not very well camoed it'll be easy to spot - so what's the point in sticking it in the ground? And if it is well camoed, a finder might go around tugging out every tuft of grass until they find the correct one!

[campdave]

Given that I've seen several logs from premium members, with thousands of finds, who seem to have no problem looking for a cache hidden in a stone wall. The amount of people prepared to look in a stone wall with the mindset that "I'll just look carefully, so that's OK" proves that community policing doesn't work. I went to maintain one of my caches recently, only to find it didn't have a lid - not one of the logs thought to even mention it, never mind post a NM on the cache.

I support the keeping of the "no breaking ground" guideline. It's simple and unambiguous.

Are there really any shortage of caches out there that we need to argue to keep these caches? There will be a tiny minority of GZs where there is no alternative hide. It might stifle the very rare creative cache. I've yet to get to 1000 finds, but so far,I've found several excellent hides, none of which have broken ground. The few I've found below ground (before the new rule came into place) were wet and unpleasant. I don't see the need to protect these in the hope of the occasional outstanding cache.

[Mongoose39uk]

At least this is now being discussed not just accepted.

It's just a shame it too 100plus caches and a hissy fit for someone to take notice

[Mrs Blorenge]

Of course its "cool" to maintain standards but its so "uncool" to maintain a standard a large number of cachers dont support I.E breaking the ground to hide caches. Burying is a completely different thing IMHO

I would question your statement that "a large number of cachers" don't support the new wording of "don't break the ground". I've seen no evidence of this in the topics posted on the Groundspeak forums since this wording was introduced at the end of April. It was mentioned by a few posters at the time the changes were announced by Sandy here: "Updated Cache Placement Requirements" (https://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=294567&view=findpost&p=5026333) but that's all.

My guess would be that 97% of UK geocachers won't be bothered by it at all.

(No, I have no evidence to support that percentage which I picked out of the air this Saturday morning - it's just my guess.)

[The Tares Clan]

The reviewers are in a very tough place - they are volunteers who do sterling work but they have to toe the corporate line of whichever listing organisation they "work" for.

The listing company is in a difficult position as they have to try to deal with every eventuality that a CO can ever think of. Fundamentally, I have no issues with the wording of the current guidelines as they have been a modification of pre-existing guidelines and I am sure that through open discussion and relevent debate that they will be changed again in the future. No "governing" body of a sport has *EVER* got the wording of their rules/guidelines correct the first time.

The issue I have with it is the inconsistency. The guideline has *always* been "no burying" but there are very famous caches such as ET#1 which is very clearly buried. Is a piece of desert any different than a piece of the UK ?

All I am asking for (and hope to get) is a consistent message which COs and finders can deal with *and* which is consistently implemented throughout the world (as much as any rule can be). That would help me as a finder to know that a cache I came to met/did not meet the guidelines and it would mean that no-one could chastise the reviewers or the listing company as they could point at a consistently implemented rule.

I understand that there are caches out there and it could be that the listing company decide that certain caches are grandfathered in or that a cache has specific landowner permission to do it.

We are all supposed to have landowner permission and I cannot see how, if the landowner agrees to the "burying" of a cache, how the listing company can refuse the listing (apart from the obvious !) as long as all local and international laws are adhered to.

There are so many caches out there that could be in breach of the guidelines - caches in trees can harm the environment as people break branches etc, caches in rivers can lead to damage to riverbanks etc, caches in "open" spaces lead to geotrails being created which harm the environment. Does that mean we should report all of these ?

The main point is consistency as well as a reasoned debate ;)

[Team Microdot]

All I am asking for (and hope to get) is a consistent message which COs and finders can deal with *and* which is consistently implemented throughout the world (as much as any rule can be). That would help me as a finder to know that a cache I came to met/did not meet the guidelines and it would mean that no-one could chastise the reviewers or the listing company as they could point at a consistently implemented rule.

I generally agree with this - it's the fudge factor, the blurry edges and grey zones which lead to confusion, misunderstanding, upset and conflict.


We are all supposed to have landowner permission and I cannot see how, if the landowner agrees to the "burying" of a cache, how the listing company can refuse the listing (apart from the obvious !) as long as all local and international laws are adhered to.

Simple - the owner of the listing site gets to control what's on there and generally bases its choices on the guidelines they have then in effect. It's their website - they can do whatever they like with it. They are under no obligation to publish ANY cache at all if they don't feel like it :)

The cache could have the blessing of the landowner, the local council, parliament or even the Queen - and still the listing site is well within its rights not to publish it on their site if they so choose :)

[The Tares Clan]

I generally agree with this - it's the fudge factor, the blurry edges and grey zones which lead to confusion, misunderstanding, upset and conflict.


And that is why the guideline/rule has to be consistently implemented and enforced. If there is consistency, the grey areas will become sharper black and then the guideline can be enhanced again.



Simple - the owner of the listing site gets to control what's on there and generally bases its choices on the guidelines they have then in effect. It's their website - they can do whatever they like with it. They are under no obligation to publish ANY cache at all if they don't feel like it :)

The cache could have the blessing of the landowner, the local council, parliament or even the Queen - and still the listing site is well within its rights not to publish it on their site if they so choose :)

Which is why I said "apart from the obvious!" :)

However, the listing sites business model is based on active participation and continual growth through new members and new caches. If people feel disillusioned then they *may* go to an alternative listing company - that has already happened in this case.

I fully realise that GS/GC are the biggest player in the market but companies such as Nokia were the biggest player in the mobile phone market and they did not listen to their customers and lost out - the business world has many examples of this.

[Ve8]

I don't agree with the revised guideline but the new text appears clear cut (to me at least) and for once its also nice to see groundspeak post unambiguous guidelines.

My opinion won't be popular (it never is :D) but reading this thread makes me think why was this not addressed when the guideline was changed a few months back??? - it's a little late in the day to be complaining/lobbying now :dunno:

Secondly I assume all that the caches concerned were published after the guideline was clarified? If so I'm afraid to say that I agree with them being TD'd.

[Team Microdot]

Which is why I said "apart from the obvious!" :)


Which makes your earlier response even more confusing - as you seem to be saying that you can't see the obvious?

Either that or what YOU mean by obvious isn't obvious to me - or probably to anyone else who isn't gifted with the power telepathy :dunno:


However, the listing sites business model is based on active participation and continual growth through new members and new caches. If people feel disillusioned then they *may* go to an alternative listing company - that has already happened in this case.

I fully realise that GS/GC are the biggest player in the market but companies such as Nokia were the biggest player in the mobile phone market and they did not listen to their customers and lost out - the business world has many examples of this.

I'd say this is a non-issue ;)

I'm willing to accept as most likely what's already been stated - most people are happy with the guideline or at least not affected / bothered by it.

If a few people want to go over to other listing sites I don't see that making a big impact.*

If recent events around here are anything to go by, people are leaving the other listing sites and coming over to GC - we've had caches in the area delisted from other sites and brought over to GC, so I'd say GC are fairly comfortable in the #1 slot.

*Edit to add - and TBH if their displeasure at the guidelines is likely to lead, directly or indirectly, to outright abuse directed at the volunteer reviewers and the protagonists are happier elsewhere then c'est la vie as far as I'm concerned :)

[team mx]

Which makes your earlier response even more confusing - as you seem to be saying that you can't see the obvious?

Either that or what YOU mean by obvious isn't obvious to me - or probably to anyone else who isn't gifted with the power telepathy :dunno:



I'd say this is a non-issue ;)

I'm willing to accept as most likely what's already been stated - most people are happy with the guideline or at least not affected / bothered by it.

If a few people want to go over to other listing sites I don't see that making a big impact.*

If recent events around here are anything to go by, people are leaving the other listing sites and coming over to GC - we've had caches in the area delisted from other sites and brought over to GC, so I'd say GC are fairly comfortable in the #1 slot.

*Edit to add - and TBH if their displeasure at the guidelines is likely to lead, directly or indirectly, to outright abuse directed at the volunteer reviewers and the protagonists are happier elsewhere then c'est la vie as far as I'm concerned :)

It's kind of difficult to know whether you speak for Groundspeak or GAGB. Maybe that the main problem.

[Team Microdot]

It's kind of difficult to know whether you speak for Groundspeak or GAGB. Maybe that the main problem.

Sorry - you've lost me completely now :confused:

Main problem?

Problem how?

Problem for whom?

I speak for neither Groundspeak or GAGB - just myself :)

[team mx]

The problem that Groundspeak and GAGB gave blended together.

[Team Microdot]

The problem that Groundspeak and GAGB gave blended together.

:confused:

[Happy Humphrey]

I don't agree with the revised guideline but the new text appears clear cut (to me at least) and for once its also nice to see groundspeak post unambiguous guidelines.

I'd rather that the guideline prohibit buried caches instead of this confusing "breaking ground" silliness. Surely we all know what a buried cache is? It's certainly nothing to do with a cache held in place by a spike, or placed in a small tube sunk into the ground.

Groundspeak have always said that if you needed a pointy tool to dig a hole for the cache then it's buried; and that seemed to explain it well enough. Unfortunately I guess that someone managed to argue that as they had scraped away soil with their hands it was technically not "buried".

I think it's a simple case of misunderstanding the revised wording, which to me is merely a botched attempt to clarify the word "buried" without explaining what is meant.

[keehotee]

I'd rather that the guideline prohibit buried caches instead of this confusing "breaking ground" silliness.

Maybe because if you simply prohibit "buried" caches some joker will dig a hole, sink a 25 gallon drum into the hole, and cover it with a cleverly constructed lid.
They'll argue that it's not buried - you can see the lid, it's just in a hole....

[Brenin Tegeingl]

I'd rather that the guideline prohibit buried caches instead of this confusing "breaking ground" silliness. Surely we all know what a buried cache is? It's certainly nothing to do with a cache held in place by a spike, or placed in a small tube sunk into the ground.

Groundspeak have always said that if you needed a pointy tool to dig a hole for the cache then it's buried; and that seemed to explain it well enough. Unfortunately I guess that someone managed to argue that as they had scraped away soil with their hands it was technically not "buried".

I think it's a simple case of misunderstanding the revised wording, which to me is merely a botched attempt to clarify the word "buried" without explaining what is meant.

Sorry HH I know you "believe" that I personally misinterpreted the interpretation, but the interpretation was one as explained by a number of my colleagues from around the world, in the Reviewers Private forum!

So not "my" interpretation, but one based on the opinions of those which a huge amount of experience between them, in interpreting the Guidelines!

So Reviewer, who have put in more time in the role than I have :ohmy:, agreed with the interpretation!

Could we see a rewording of the Buried Guideline, who knows :dunno:. The Guidelines are a constantly evolving entity, ones that evolve to take in the experiences and lessons learnt. Are the Guidelines perfect? Well no, and they will never be. Will there be disagreements about the implementation of them? Yes because we are all human, but the Reviewer Community do discuss the meaning and implementation of the Guidelines on a virtually constant basis. So it is not a case of one or 2 deciding that a specific interpretation is valid. Rather a large Group of experienced people, who can get further guidance off Groundspeak, in regards to the interpretation in regards to specific wording.

Deci


PS: anyone was free to contact Groundspeak at any time, and query the way I had interpreted the wording of the Buried Guideline. But did anyone actually so so? Instead, did they just decide, that because they did not "agree" with the interpretation I gave, that I was completely wrong, without asking the company who write the Guidelines!Or actually asking me personally, where I had got the interpretation from.

[Happy Humphrey]

PS: anyone was free to contact Groundspeak at any time, and query the way I had interpreted the wording of the Buried Guideline. But did anyone actually so so? Instead, did they just decide, that because they did not "agree" with the interpretation I gave, that I was completely wrong, without asking the company who write the Guidelines!Or actually asking me personally, where I had got the interpretation from.
The guideline now needs revising in that case as it seems to say something that it doesn't mean. It's not a matter of not agreeing with your interpretation; there seems to be no interpretation needed.

It should not be in the section about "Buried Caches" as it's clearly NOT about burying caches at all. No-one is claiming (for instance) that a cache which has a spike attached to anchor it in place is "buried", because that would be nonsense. It's above the surface of the ground and may well be in plain sight.

And it's not up to us to find out where you got the interpretation from; if you don't mention it, then it's reasonable to suppose that it's merely your own opinion. After all, we can't see the reviewer's private forum.

But now you've explained where you got the interpretation from, perhaps you'd be kind enough to expand on the reason for it? In other words, if I placed a cache and to make sure that the impact on the local environment was minimised I also attached it to the ground; for instance, via some sort of spike and clip arrangement, why would that be seen as reprehensible? Or if I built up a couple of inches of sand around the box to keep it from sliding away, how will that cause severe problems such that the cache has to be disabled?

We can all see that if you buried a cache it would be bad, because people would then start carrying spades and trowels and if they couldn't find a cache might start digging up the area. So we can understand the "no buried caches" rule. But what about the new "no breaking the surface" rule? On the face of it the rule has no basis in common sense and will cause most caches to be disabled (except that we know that it won't be enforced - so what's it all about?).

[Mongoose39uk]

I don't agree with the revised guideline but the new text appears clear cut (to me at least) and for once its also nice to see groundspeak post unambiguous guidelines.

My opinion won't be popular (it never is :D) but reading this thread makes me think why was this not addressed when the guideline was changed a few months back??? - it's a little late in the day to be complaining/lobbying now :dunno:

Secondly I assume all that the caches concerned were published after the guideline was clarified? If so I'm afraid to say that I agree with them being TD'd.


Some did try to question it and where ignored. Few made a issue at the time only shouted when it affected them.

[Happy Humphrey]

Some did try to question it and where ignored. Few made a issue at the time only shouted when it affected them.

Well, if this "no buried caches" rule is being implemented as strictly and uncompromisingly as it seems then I'll have to go out and retrieve several of my caches (none, I hasten to add, is buried, thus demonstrating how well-written the rule is!).

Is this how it's meant to work? I'm still at a loss to know what harm they are doing, and the discussion seems to be a bit light on explanations about the reasons for the new "no ground attachment" part.


N.B. I hadn't heard of it until the discussion hit the forum; how are we meant to debate an upcoming new rule if there's no consultation first? I'd have suggested different wording to make the intention of the rule clear (as opposed to encouraging various interpretations when there seems to be no sense in the most literal interpretation).

[Mongoose39uk]

It was posted by the reviewers, not as a consultation though. Done deal forget having a opinion.

[The Tares Clan]

As I have said before, it is about consistency for me. I would think that this would break the guidelines as (to me), ground has been broken and the cache is buried.

Click for a bigger viewhttps://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/thumb/485f5369-e32f-4d66-a3ec-9256ef16a3ba.jpg (https://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/485f5369-e32f-4d66-a3ec-9256ef16a3ba.jpg)

Of course, is it is OK as this cache is number one in a series that has been highlighted in Latitude 47 (http://blog.geocaching.com/2010/11/24-hour-epic-adventure-nets-more-than-a-1100-geocaches/) :dunno: ?


Now it could be that this has special permission from Nevada as it brings a lot of revenue to the Highway but if the guideline states (and always has done) that no burying is allowed, this has to be a special case which tptb have agreed to.

I fully realise that the guidelines are evolving and that no organisation will ever get it right first time but it is the lack of consistency which is causing the issue (IMHO) and this leads to people interpreting the guidelines in a different manner.

I have never (and hope to never have to) challenged what any reviewer has said as they have to work with the guidelines which they are given. However, I do not think that this should preclude having open debate about the impact a particular guideline is having and as has been stated, we have no access to the reviewers forum and can only go by statements which have been made elsewhere.

Personally, I think it is very healthy to have these discussions irrespective of what the final outcome is (after all GS make the rules for their listing site) - the important thing is that we see how/why a decision has been made; there will always be people who disagree with things but again that is healthy - if people did not challenge things, the world would be a very different place.

[Happy Humphrey]

That's a trackable, not a cache. I'm not sure whether trackables can be buried; I don't think there's a rule against it. In any case, how would you know whether that was sunk into the ground or whether there was a convenient hole that the cache placer utilised? I once placed a cache in such a hole; it looked like I'd made a hole in the ground but I never did, I just happened to have a container that snugly fitted into an existing hole. Of course, if I'd then placed earth over the cache it would indeed be buried.
But this rule isn't about buried caches, but the ones that are stuck into the ground in some way, such as on a small spike.

N.B. Now that you've shown the tracking number we can all log it, if we feel so inclined!

I agree
that the important thing is that we see how/why a decision has been made
...but that doesn't seem to happen with Groundspeak nowadays. From reviewers' silence on this topic, I guess that they weren't furnished with an explanation for this rule either.

[The Tares Clan]

That's a trackable, not a cache. I'm not sure whether trackables can be buried;

It is actually



This is a Letter Box Hybrid

Another couple of photos from the gallery show that you need to open the trap and get it out:

Click for a bigger viewhttps://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/thumb/1450c68d-fba3-4b3e-b368-50edffb68405.jpg (https://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/large/1450c68d-fba3-4b3e-b368-50edffb68405.jpg) and https://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/thumb/fd1488e5-a1f2-4b97-83ee-f6e80824784c.jpg (https://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/large/fd1488e5-a1f2-4b97-83ee-f6e80824784c.jpg)


But this rule isn't about buried caches, but the ones that are stuck into the ground in some way, such as on a small spike.

In this specific case, it is about the use of a small spike but the rule has always said that a cache should not be buried and I am pointing out the inconsistency of it - what about sprinkler caches in the US as well ?




N.B. Now that you've shown the tracking number we can all log it, if we feel so inclined!


Anyone could do that anyway as I have simply linked to the gallery page of the cache. If the CO does not want it logging, they should remove this photo (and plenty of others as well!)


I agree
...but that doesn't seem to happen with Groundspeak nowadays. From reviewers' silence on this topic, I guess that they weren't furnished with an explanation for this rule either.

But Deci has stated that a discussion has gone in the reviewers forum which can only be seen as a good thing. Maybe by the fact that we are discussing it here may lead to Deci/other UK reviewers to put a question about consistency to the other reviewers and if they agree that there is a lack of consistency, they (the group of worldwide reviewers) can then bring it to attention of GS.

[Happy Humphrey]

It is actually

It's rather confusing, then. I found it here; http://coord.info/TB4H3DH, where it says;


About This Item

This is our 2nd attempt at having a nice container to welcome cachers to the famous E.T. Highway Mega Trail.
The original container (which was beautifully airbrushed and can be seen in several of the early gallery pictures on the cache page) was stolen by someone who felt it would make a great souvenir.
We've put a little effort into securing this new container in place. We know if someone really wants it, they'll get it. But hopefully what we've done will serve as a good deterent.

But it doesn't matter too much.

On your main point, clearly a cache secured in place by a spike isn't buried, nor is the more common tupperware box slightly seated in a hollow. So under the previous "buried cache" rule they were allowable, as they aren't buried. Now we have the "breaking the surface" rule they are outlawed, as they break the surface.

Can you explain why this rule has been brought in? What problem is it trying to address? No-one is going to respect a rule that hasn't been explained.

[The Wombles]

I've had a response from Groundspeak to my request for clarification. They have rewritten this placement guideline:


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.



Copied directly from the Groundspeak Guidelines here (https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx)

[sandvika]

I've resisted getting sucked into this debate because to me, Geocaching is a lot more than Groundspeak, and if Groundspeak want to wrap extra layers of red tape around their listing site it is their perogative to do so. Nobody is obliging geocachers to use Groundspeak.

In my view, it is the geocachers who are the geocaching community, not the listing sites. It should be the geocachers who organise themselves and create a common sense set of guidelines to enhance their reputation and reduce the chances of the hobby being brought in to disrepute.

This is precisely what brought GAGB into existence, and I expect, numerous other national and regional geocaching organisations too. Dave Edwards (The Wombles) and Dave Palmer (Deciangi) have done more then anyone else ever have to get permissive caching agreements in place under the auspices of GAGB.

In my view, this is the right way, but the fact that GAGB membership isn't a 'no brainer' to most geocachers is mostly due to the fact that Groundspeak have a virtual stranglehold on the hobby and geocachers' attention is more naturally drawn to them than to GAGB. :wacko:

So thank you Dave for raising the issue of Groundspeak's "breaking ground" rule with them on behalf of GAGB.

Now that it appears that a greater degree of common sense has been restored, can we turn our thoughts to selling the value of GAGB to the UK caching community?

[Mongoose39uk]

I suspect the GAGB had ****** all influence on this.

[Mongoose39uk]

Is the GAGB going to spread the word via other media like Facebook where there are 832 followers to their page compared to the miniscule numbers who visit the forum?

[Maple Leaf]

I was going to post it on facebook yesterday and then spotted that Mrs B already had, so didn't.

However, I have just realised that was in the Geocaching UK Facebook group rather than the GAGB group .... so will add something later.