The Court is Once Again in Session (Is it Buried?)....

[Cache-n-dash]

You be the judge!!!

"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."

So, the big question, is....

Guilty or Not Guilty???

[BewareOfPenguin]

I dunno. I think I could go either way on this one. I suppose by the strictest letter of the law, it is a "buried" hide. But, let's suppose the soil was soft enough and the hider used his or her bare hands. Is it still an illegal hide?

But don't get me wrong. I can see the reason for the guideline. What we see here looks innocuous enough, but it wouldn't be long before people were digging up flower beds in order to hide their caches. In defense of the above hide, seekers would know exactly where to find it. Now, if the container were completely covered, there would be a definite problem. I could see the seekers arriving, armed with trowels, picks, shovels, jackhammers, and bulldozers, looking for buried treasure. It wouldn't take long at all to tear up the area.

In a nutshell: I can definitely see the necessity for the 'no bury' rule, but I think the above example kinda sits in a gray area.
_________________

[Sparticus06]

I say not guilty. The definition of buried is to cover from sight with dirt. That container is not completely covered over, the top still sticks up. Sure the bottom part is in the ground, but who is to say that the hole wasnt already there and the hider was just using it. Could have filled it in a little then placed the container in the hole and filled in around it.
_________________
I am Sparticus!

[Orange&Blue]

Not guilty of violating groundspeak guidelines IMO, assuming the hand in the second photo did the digging.

Wasn't the original stash hidden in a similar fashion?
_________________

[Dude/Sweet]

Guilty, according to Groundspeak rules. The hole must have been made with a digging object. We've found some caches very similar to this, and it can be somewhat irritating when you are looking for a 'regular' or 'large' cache and it's buried under some leaves or something flat.

I can see why Groundspeak has this rule...I wouldn't want cacher's hiding things like this in my local park, not that this was in a park (don't know).

What say the The Powers That Be?
_________________
Founding member of SWAG - Santiam-Willamette Area Geocachers.

[CoronaKid]

100% Guilty. If it's in the ground it's buried. I don't care how soft the soil is. Which begs another question, why would one hide a cache in such soft soil anyways? I can only imagine trying to find this cache after or during a rainstorm.

I think the rule makes perfect sense and I have no problem with it.

[ChildOfAtom]

No WAY that hole was made with hands, look at the edges of it, how smooth they are. That is the work of a tool. Plus that ground looks frozen. Hard enough to dig WITH a tool, much less with your hands.

GUILTY.
_________________
My Blog!

"Is your culture a counter-culture or an over-the-counter culture?"

[Cache-n-dash]

[Red Sky]

[Team GeoRangers]

Clearly the cache was placed in the impression left by a rock. One must never jump to conclusions while listening to the podcacher podcast (or participating in a form poll).



It's always easier for a geocacher to rationalize a plausible explanation to give the hider the benefit of the doubt.

It's all good!

[GrosseFamille]

It's on the border of being guilty..
_________________
Ciao!
Papa de la GrosseFamille

[Roktman]

I've cached in a few areas where anything left on the ground is eventually buried by leaves and needles which, given time, become soil and surround the container. No big deal. One cache on the side of a hill created its own little hidey-hole as material slid down the hillside on top of it. Still visible, so no problem.

What amazes me is that people get so upset about it. Unless it causes a *real* problem, complaining about it in logs or to reviewers just makes for unkind feelings and doesn't promote the geocaching community. As the Skype splash says, "Take a deep breath"...geocaching's an activity that relies on members voluntarily hiding caches for others to find. Be grateful someone bothered to hide it for you to find, and whatever the outcome of the last cache, you're ready to move on to the next fun adventure!

[Roarmeister]

Not guilty. I am always amazed that the legalistic mind thinks of such things to worry about. As long as the cache can be reasonably found without finders doing damage to the surrounding or require that the cacher have a special tool to find or if the hider does do any particular damage. If this was in a damageable location that would be different but this soil looks fine.

PS. The whole idea of worrying about "buried" caches sounds REALLY SILLY when you consider that in winter it could be covered with FEET OF SNOW where a real tool would be required to locate the cache!!! You can and quite likely will do damage to move rocks, break branches, etc. to locate one of these. Some are correctly marked as not winter friendly but quite a few are not and in the blind attempt to get the find, a person may get too vigorous in his search.

BTW, what would be the difference between this cache and one that is completely buried by merely placing a pile of sticks, rocks and pine needles on top??? Extremely little. Except to the "legalistic" gamers!

Thanks for the topic.... I needed a "roll my eyes" moment tonight and this provided me with the sudden release!

[pacholik]

[doingitoldschool]

Guilty. Sentence the hider to hang his next cache, which should be a ammo can, from a branch at eye (4-5 feet) level.
_________________