Digging?

pwags · Post by **pwags** » 30 March 08 4:52 pm

As a relative new-comer to caching, I am still learning what makes a cache a "good" hide... certainly from the logs on my hides I have built a reasonably good understanding of what cachers like. An ice-cream container under a tree isn't enough, and something more creative is always appreciated.

Specifically, I am aware of the guidelines prohibiting "digging", for either a hider or a seeker... but is this rule strictly followed? From an environmental perspective, I can see why the digging rule exists, but I can also see how a small hole dug to hide a cache, as I've seen recently with GC1ABTB, can cause no harm to the environment, and can add to the experience of finding the cache... I really liked this particular hide!

Furthermore, is there a process whereby breaches of the rules are reported? If we find a cache that's outside the guidelines, what should a responsible cacher do?

I look forward to hearing the views of those who have been doing this for longer than me!

Alansee · Post by **Alansee** » 30 March 08 5:45 pm

What makes for a good cache - now that opens up a whole website of discussions - which I am sure has been done many times here! My advice would be to make sure that you find a reasonable number of caches first so that you can make your own judgement.
<p> The more specific question about "digging" is easier to address. I have found a few caches now and any number have involved a small amount of earth removal, particularly several very early caches which were buckets dug into the ground. Apart from any environmental issues, a problem with doing this is that water is far more likely to collect around and in the cache, so I for one do not recommend it!
<p> That having been said, moving a small amount of debris and even soil with minimal impact appears to be reasonably practice and I don't recall anyone having complained about it.
<p> However I do have an issue, and have left several pointed logs, with hiding a cache in the scrub in such a way that the scrub inevitably gets trashed because the cache is too hard to find. Either make the hide obvious and/or leave a good clue in such cases I say.

The Spindoctors · Post by **The Spindoctors** » 30 March 08 6:20 pm

Alansee wrote:However I do have an issue, and have left several pointed logs, with hiding a cache in the scrub in such a way that the scrub inevitably gets trashed because the cache is too hard to find. Either make the hide obvious and/or leave a good clue in such cases I say.

Spot on. It is one thing to have tricky hide, but if that leads to others trashing the area to find it, then that's not good. I appreciate that it is hard to predict the behaviour and impact of cachers into the future, and most of the impact occurs unintentionally.

My advice is to monitor the logs and even revisit the area to assess and possibly adjust the hide if needed.

pwags · Post by **pwags** » 30 March 08 7:02 pm

Alansee wrote:That having been said, moving a small amount of debris and even soil with minimal impact appears to be reasonably practice and I don't recall anyone having complained about it.

So, there is some flexibility - they are "guidelines", not "rules" as such?

The Spindoctors · Post by **The Spindoctors** » 30 March 08 7:08 pm

They are guidelines, but remember your cache definitely has a greater chance of water damage, leakage, animal muggling.

FWIW - I've never seen a buried (or half-buried cache) that survived for long.

Post by **caughtatwork** » 30 March 08 8:14 pm

pwags wrote:
Alansee wrote:That having been said, moving a small amount of debris and even soil with minimal impact appears to be reasonably practice and I don't recall anyone having complained about it.
So, there is some flexibility - they are "guidelines", not "rules" as such?

They are guidelines, but that one in particular is very much enforced as a rule.

If you need a pointy item to hide or retrieve the cache, it's a no-no. If you scrape away some dirt with your hands, then it's entering the area of grey. If you move away 6 inches of mulch, hide your container and then put the mulch back your aren't digging, but you're not going to be a friend to the area that gets trashed by people looking for a cache that's as good as buried.

If you flaunt the guideline that caches aren't to be buried by using a technicality to 'get your cache below ground level' and your cache gets reported for being buried, then archived, don't complain.

Fundamentally, if you need to ask whether you are in breech of a guideline, you probably are.

pwags · Post by **pwags** » 30 March 08 9:12 pm

caughtatwork wrote:They are guidelines, but that one in particular is very much enforced as a rule.

If you need a pointy item to hide or retrieve the cache, it's a no-no.

Hmmm... does the sensitivity of the area change this rule? For example, one of yours c@w, GCQZPZ, has obviously involved some digging to plant, but in an area where the digging isn't in any way harming the environment?

Post by **caughtatwork** » 30 March 08 9:24 pm

pwags wrote:
caughtatwork wrote:They are guidelines, but that one in particular is very much enforced as a rule.

If you need a pointy item to hide or retrieve the cache, it's a no-no.
Hmmm... does the sensitivity of the area change this rule? For example, one of yours c@w, GCQZPZ, has obviously involved some digging to plant, but in an area where the digging isn't in any way harming the environment?

See that's where the technicalities and trickiness come into play. There was no digging. Despite apparent obviousness of having to dig to plant the cache, it was pushed into the ground (in times when it was a lot wetter than in the current drought). There was no dirt removed.

However, if the cache was reported as being being buried and a reviewer asked, I would provide the same explanation. If they decided I was being less than truthful and they believed I had dug a hold to bury the cache and archived it, I would be peeved, but would understand their position.

It's a rare cache that is archived for being buried, but it does happen. I'm skating close to the line with the cache you mention, but I'm also willing to accept the consequence of it being archived. Most people aren't willing to accept that consequence and will get all bent out of shape if their cache gets archived for being buried.

Different frame of mind.

pwags · Post by **pwags** » 30 March 08 9:44 pm

caughtatwork wrote:I'm skating close to the line with the cache you mention, but I'm also willing to accept the consequence of it being archived. Most people aren't willing to accept that consequence and will get all bent out of shape if their cache gets archived for being buried.

I'd certainly hate to see one of the CCCC series archived on a technicality! Thanks for the advice, c@w.

Papa Bear_Left · Post by **Papa Bear_Left** » 31 March 08 1:19 am

Part of the issue with buried caches is that, once some people get the idea that caches can be buried, then maybe this one that they can't find is one of them, so it's worth having a scratch around and maybe a bit of a dig in some likely spots... Next thing you know, the GZ is ready to plant the potato crop!

I've seen a cache which was on a sandbar with pretty explicit directions on where to find a buried travel bug (which was to lead the FTF to the cache and then be released normally) Even with the good directions, it still looked like a bomb site after two or three people had tried and failed to find it! (We eventually found it, a bit deeper than we expected.)

As always, before you go to any great effort to hide a cache that you're not sure about, ask theUMP (that'd be me) first as a reviewer brick hurled in your direction may offend! (theUMP.reviewer@gmail.com or via "theUMP" on the site)

Geof · Post by **Geof** » 01 April 08 10:35 am

I'v found a few buried grandfather and other caches and they always seem to leak or get dirt / leaves spilled in them by finders. I'd avoid it if you can help it.

The worst one was buiried in an ant mound. Only trouble the ants kept pileing dirt higher and higher on it. Its archived now thankfully

.