When is a cache "buried"

[ForYourEyesOnly]

I've been thinking of this for some time now but I thought I'd hold my thoughts because I didn't want to sound too peevish. About a year ago now I logged a DNF on a FTF hunt. Subsequently when I found the cache I felt that it was buried (no doubt that contributred to the DNF) - but I don't believe any other cachers had a problem with it (maybe just me).
It was listed as a regular and for the life of me I couldn't figure out where it would be hidden. In fact it was a small bucket, buried to its rim, with a lid that had a small stone as a handle. When covered with pine needles all that was visible above the ground was the stone. Actually it was very clever - but was it in keeping with the code?
I've had a few other caches that have been covered with so much dirt and rubble (flush to the ground) that they could also be considered to be buried - or are they? What do you think constitutes a buried cache, and what is allowable?

[pjmpjm]

I've had similar questions when piles of 'natural camo' -- placed either by the CO or later finders -- become excessive. How far can this 'scattering of debris' on top of a cache go before you're effectively burying it?

[Richary]

I've had some finds where the cache was buried, as in a hole was dug to hide it. That according to the guidelines is a no-no. If it's just hollowing out a spot and piling leaves etc on top that probably meets the guidelines. Even if it's a PITA to find! But we will need to wait for riblit or the Ump to respond to get the official guidelines on what is acceptable.

[Philipp]

I felt that it was buried ... - but I don't believe any other cachers had a problem with it

That's common behaviour. There are a lot of caches out there which are kind of buried. It start's sprinkler heads and goes all the way up to huge buckets. Burying a cache is like placing a micro: It is just way easier than creating a good camo. This is why nobody will bother although it's not withing the guidelines to bury a cache.

bury = dig into the ground
put stuff on top of the cache != bury

[emily~angel]

I put out a cache in a hole that it just fitted in, it was a natural hole, and a rock just over the top was a great hide, but it was rejected as it was buried.....I have now done 4 off the top of my head, all dug with spades and buried....so I do not know

[theUMP]

This is my standard response to caches that appear to be buried:

The guidelines say:
"Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not exhaustive):
...
* Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other "pointy" object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate."

and I'm really, really keen to avoid any hint of buried caches.

One of the things that land managers always cite as a reason for not wanting geocaching on their turf is that "buried treasure" will cause ecological damage. They're right, it would, hence that guideline!

However, if some over-keen cachers have even the idea that a geocache might be buried, suddenly every rock, every patch of sand, every garden bed within 20m becomes a target for damaging and intrusive underground searching.

Please find a better way or a better place to hide your cache.

We've found a couple of buried caches that illustrate the problems:

One was a TB that was buried in sand on a spit, with fairly explicit details of where it was in relation to a bush growing there. We couldn't find it, went away, then came back after seeing a few other DNFs. We eventually found it, but the place looked like a bomb site! And this was a one-off, with good directions, not a permanent cache with a whole GPS error radius to dig up.

The other was under a rock, under which a hole had been dug. Since there was obviously nowhere that a container of the correct size could be hidden at the spot our GPS said was GZ, we assumed a bad reading and searched quite a large area, probably doing more damage than we should've. When we eventually resorted to turning over rocks that were obviously too small to hide the cache, we found the hole.

You will find buried caches out there, for various reasons. They might be old ones, placed before we became aware of the issues arising from this practice. They might not have given the reviewer any reason to think they were buried (luckily, most placers recognise the need to give searchers a clue as the buried nature of their cache, which I also see and respond to as above!)
And, sadly, some cachers might've just lied about the buried nature of their cache when challenged. "I just used an existing hole" is one that, in one case at least, appeared to've only been an existing hole since someone with a spade dug it out that day... (the dirt was still scattered nearby.)

As a rule of thumb, if there'd be no way to hide a container of the given size if there wasn't a hole dug, it's buried. Hidden down amongst tree roots is probably OK, because we shouldn't be surprised to find a hollow there. Amongst rocks, ditto. On level ground, under leaf cover or sand... it's buried.
If you find a hole, dug by an animal or where a tree stump's been removed or whatever, apply that rule of thumb. If you come across it and there's no indication that there'd be a hole there (if it wasn't full of cache), then it's not a suitable hide.

As with all such things, it's not cut and dried, there's grey areas. If in doubt, take a few photos before and after you've placed the cache so you can make your case to the reviewer.

But there's better ways to hide caches.

[MtnLioness]

But there's better ways to hide caches.

I agree 100 fold!
Creativity has gone by the wayside and instead people can't think of a good way to create a great camo or container but throw a container (oft unpainted too) under the nearest bush! Grrr....I hate those the most! (Urban mostly)

[Black Bunny]

I understand the rule, and the reason for it, but I tend to think that if the placer didn't hurt anything, AND no digging is required to find it, then it should be all right. After all, it's the potential damage to the local environment that we're worried about.

I've seen a LOT of damage from people just looking under bushes for a cache.

Wendy

[pwags]

We've found a couple of buried caches that illustrate the problems:
...SNIP...
If you come across it and there's no indication that there'd be a hole there (if it wasn't full of cache), then it's not a suitable hide.

So, to take this discussion one step further... what is the recommended procedure if/when we find a new cache that has been buried? Should it be reported to the reviewer?

[caughtatwork]

We've found a couple of buried caches that illustrate the problems:
...SNIP...
If you come across it and there's no indication that there'd be a hole there (if it wasn't full of cache), then it's not a suitable hide.

So, to take this discussion one step further... what is the recommended procedure if/when we find a new cache that has been buried? Should it be reported to the reviewer?

Log an SBA and the reason.
That was the whole community can come down on your like a tonne of bricks for being the cache police.
If you do it secretly by sending an email to the reviewer then once you're found out the community can then come down on you like a tonne of bricks.

[Yurt]

I'd always thought that it was only a no-no if you needed a "pointy thing" to dig up the cache. But on reading this then if a hole has been dug to place it and it's just covered with leaves on top it's non-compliant. I must have found a few dozen like that then. Didn't think it was a problem but I can understand the potential damage from originally digging the hole though.

[Happy Chappies]

Of course this also raises for me other caches like GCWKJC in Canterbury which i adopted recently. Technically it's not 'buried' as you don't need to dig anything to find it, but quite clearly it would've needed a 'pointy object' to create a hole for the hide structure to go in. I've seen a few others like that where pipe, irrigation hatches or other boxes have been 'recessed' into the ground.... I was contemplating one of those myself but have been unsure as it did involve me setting off to GZ with a trowel...

Of course, grey areas.... Where would the world of debate be without them...

[caughtatwork]

Let's report anything and everything we don't like about a cache to get it archived.

That should help rid the game of all those annoying bridge caches, caches in highly populated areas, caches that are buried, caches in restricted areas, caches in parks and forests, caches on private land (like car parks and council owned land) as well as playgrounds which are just a haven for paedophile caches.

[Happy Chappies]

Let's report anything and everything we don't like about a cache to get it archived.

That should help rid the game of all those annoying bridge caches, caches in highly populated areas, caches that are buried, caches in restricted areas, caches in parks and forests, caches on private land (like car parks and council owned land) as well as playgrounds which are just a haven for paedophile caches.

Why waste time with reporting when you can just steal it and say it's been muggled?

(Hugely kidding here. Never done, never will - but I'm surprised it doesn't happen more than it does)

[Yurt]

Let's report anything and everything we don't like about a cache to get it archived.

That should help rid the game of all those annoying bridge caches, caches in highly populated areas, caches that are buried, caches in restricted areas, caches in parks and forests, caches on private land (like car parks and council owned land) as well as playgrounds which are just a haven for paedophile caches.

Don't forget caches that are "just too hard"!

(Groundspeak forums talk! )