LaughterOnWater

It's there, but it's hidden. Click the arrow next to Found it!. Your image looks quite a bit different from what I see on a tablet. The arrow is just a tiny shading in the extreme corner. In full sunlight it's just about invisible. Thanks. Now I know how. C

This is the sign at the far end of the park -- the entrance I found. The sign clear in its intent. I didn't see a sign at the parking lot, but google street view suggests there is a similar sign at the gate there. The CO told me he is a member of the HOA, but he did not ask permission from the HOA to host a cache in the park. The CO lives generally across the street from the designated parking area.

This is good feedback. Thank you. It might have been a more prudent method.

I'm going to wait a day to see if he changes his mind.

I've received this response: I have not responded. I will tell the reviewer next and let him handle it. Chris My email to the CO:

I've just emailed the CO. It's entirely possible he may join the discussion, but he has not previously posted in the forum. I await his response via email. Chris

NeverSummer, After assessing facts, methods and opinions on this thread, it's time for me to take action. This weekend, I'll contact the CO and ask him to either temporarily disable the cache until he's gotten permission from the HOA and made provision in the cache details online about how to download a printable permit allowing geocachers on that land or simply archive the cache. I suspect he will take the simplest action and archive. Thanks for helping me make a decision. I appreciate your additional insight with regards to perception of the game. Chris P.S. I didn't see anything in the online cache logs about being in someone's yard for the cache I'm looking at. I didn't feel like I was in someone's yard when I was there. I think you may be looking at a different cache. I don't think there is the same stigma attached to DNF and NM as there might be to NA. The paid app doesn't seem to allow posting NM or DNF. What's up with that? I have to report those from the web at home. C

Thank you!

Maybe it's not time yet to wave our arms around like the proverbial Nac Mac Feegle shouting "Crivens!" and "Whaley, whaley, whaley." Are we shooting the messenger? I'm just saying what I see. I'm not saying I like what I see. Haven't I already agreed with all of this? I'm a total noob. That doesn't make me an idiot. I don't have any hides. I'm not ready for that. I'm asking about this because I don't particularly care to see "No Trespassing" signs. I don't like seeing hooks in trees. And I don't like buried caches. That doesn't mean I'm going to ride out like Torquemada and pretend I've any right to dispense justice from on-high. Please stop confusing me with someone who doesn't care. I do. I'm confused because I'm expected to both at once understand your position, and at the same time am told I don't have the experience to understand your position. I'm capable of parsing English, analyzing rules and understanding multiple levels of implications that may follow from those rules. Allow me some intelligence, and I'll honorably acknowledge yours. The only person liable or at fault right now is the CO. He's been at fault for years. One or two more days or weeks probably isn't going to make a difference. If problems arise, the onus is on him, not me. I'm not required to run into a "burning building" to "save lives" if I don't have the training. And that's why I'm here--to learn proper precautions and procedures before I jump into that "burning building". I won't be a "martyr" for a hobby. I apologize if this goes against your grain, but there it is. While not a requirement to report a cache, it is a requirement that owners get permissions. If we, as geocache seekers, find a cache that is not in compliance with the guidelines, we are encouraged to report that geocache: I prefer thinking of guidelines more like a constitution rather than a holy scripture. Scripture tends to be non-amendable and above reproach. Constitutions can be amended. And these are human-wrought, unfunded, amendable guidelines for a game--not life-style mandates from an an all-powerful being. Simply stating on the page that "I have permission" might pass muster on preliminary publication--where a Reviewer does not have direct view of the site or context of the hide in full and honest description--but we users are encouraged to participate in the game by using the provided log types; this includes Needs Maintenance and Needs Archived. In this case, you've done due diligence by asking in the forums if it is ok, contacting the owner, and finding that they do not in fact have permission to place the cache in a private park. This is where you continue the process by reporting the cache via NA. It's not personal. If the cache owner takes it personally, then that's too bad. They really need to follow the guidelines and not fib about permissions on private property, or managed public lands either. I'm still mulling it over. I'm encouraged but not required by the rules to report the cache or confront the CO. As I stated before, if those were the rules, I'd find another hobby. I'll contact the CO when I feel I'm fully prepared. I have a mind, and I'll use it, thank you. From your phrasing, I'm unsure whether you personally believe CO's are incapable of honorable cache stewardship or if you are scoffing that others might believe CO's are incapable of honorable cache stewardship. It could be interpreted either way. I'm not sure I understood your statements that followed. I hope my response is sensible: It is sound science that screw hooks do less damage to trees than wires that can girdle and strangle a tree to death. Apparently it is not a rule that zip-strips around branches should be disallowed, yet zip-strips are clearly superior at killing trees over screws. Human-wrought rules and science don't always align. Sometimes it's better when they do. I would say "No Trespassing" signs trump hooks in trees with regards to human safety. That's why out of the guideline infractions I've see so far, I brought up trespass rather than hooks in this thread's originating post. And that's what this thread is all about. I've only been geocaching for a short time, yet I've seen a lot of infractions. Reporting all of them is both time-consuming and enemy-making. As I've alluded to metaphorically previously in this thread, I'm trying to get a balanced sense of whether the whole interstate is moving at 80MPH and I should move along with it, or if I should slow down to fifty-five, rat out the infractors, possibly causing an "accident" (bad press for example) and ruin the local "economy" (the game of geocaching) for everyone in the city. But also as previously stated, nobody is frying live kittens, so I'll take my time to make a reasoned decision and then follow through. Chris

Mine too. Cup hooks mostly. If on a branch, I'll often replace with a zip tie rather than an NA anymore, after my 2/3rds got harassed over what I do. One, with a 3/8" hole actually drilled through a live branch was featured in our local news channel, during an "outdoors" segment. The reporter and cacher both thought it clever... I've actually seen hooks too. That's less of a concern to me than "no trespassing" signs. If you replace hooks with zip ties, for all intents and purposes, you've essentially adopted that cache's tree. As the tree grows, the zip ties will have to be replaced on the limbs where they're attached so the bark's cambium layer isn't choked to death. Many arboreta and botanical gardens use plant labels attached with two screws so the label is visible at average eye level on the tree's trunk. The screws needs to be unscrewed a little each year to keep the label and its screws from being engulfed by the growth of the cambium layer. Arboreta usually have a management plan for this kind of thing. Contrary to what you might think, screws are not as injurious as fence wire or nylon rope when left securely-tied-yet-unmanaged on a tree. Chris

Sorry, I'm not comfortable with that. First, I'm already involved. Second, allowing someone else to report it comes across as more cowardly than the inaction of consideration. Mind, this is only one of a few nicely-created caches (popular or otherwise) that I've seen that blatantly break rules. This particular broken rule seems the most bendy. That's why I brought it up here. I'm not trying to be cynical, but it might be interesting if geocaching.com paid some actual feet on the ground to determine viable statistics on which rules are being broken, severity of rule breach, and whether it's a regional thing. It would have to be done without making it into a witch hunt. It would be interesting to correlate the popularity of a cache with its rule bendiness. It might make good research for how to make better rules.

I had not mentioned it previously. I didn't even think about it until just after reading your post. I didn't know for sure there were other entrances. I just now looked up the cache again and found there was a suggested parking spot. The coordinates are nowhere near the main park entrance. Memory can be fiddly, but I don't remember seeing a "No Trespassing" sign at that parking coordinates anywhere else on site, though I do remember seeing a candidate path into the park. Like I said, I've got some thinking to do. Chris

This is a valid argument. I'm a step closer to considering asking the CO to archive his own cache. I think I know part of the reason why other geocachers have not NA'd the cache yet. There is more than one entrance to the park. Only the main entrance has a "No Trespassing" sign. The suggested entry route waypoint is one of the entrances without a sign. You've given me something to think about. Thank you, J Grouchy.

Most caches in my area seem to be park-n-grabs. Perhaps that has skewed my perspective. As to attempting to justify decisions, erm... Is someone frying live kittens? I don't think so. How often have you looked your neighbor in the eye and made citizen's arrest for speeding, littering, loitering, skateboarding, etc.? What stops any of your neighbors from making a citizen's arrest every time you speed? My inaction is fear-based. Most inaction is. (Sometimes inaction comes from ennui.) I'm not justifying it. I'm saying, "Here we are. That's how it is. And... I'm not the only one." We can all be armchair referees from a laptop. It's easier to say "NA" from half a continent away over the internet. It's not so easy when you're the one twisting the sword in someone else's gut, eye-to-eye. Should that specific cache be archived? Probably. But it's been there for a very long time. Someone reviewed it. Lots of other geocachers have found it. Why have none of the many prior to me posted an "NA" on it? Am I so high and mighty that I should gainsay so many others' propriety? The rules, like most rules, are flawed and subject to variable interpretation. You have not convinced me well-enough that I, with less than a month of geocaching under my belt, should have the temerity to be a local geoNapoleon. Chris

Austin, Most people in this area probably don't get permission to hide caches in local strip-mall business parking lots, small local parks, brick retainer walls, public land, etc. I seriously doubt most people drop by the city/county land manager's office to find out how/where to get permission. It's an opinion. I hope I'm wrong. I apologize if I seem rude. NeverSummer There is a rule/guideline that you shouldn't put a cache on private property where it is posted, "no trespassing". When I'm ready to hide a cache, I'm likely to go one step further and make sure I have a written statement from the right authority. There is no rule that says I am required to immediately report even mild offenders. If geocaching.com were to make that an unbreakable rule, the guidelines would be equivalent to dictatorship. I'd probably find a different hobby. At some point, when one offender or another fully offends my guideline sensibilities, and I'll report them. Until then, I'll keep my tongue civil with my local CO's and learn the ropes until I've established some credibility amongst the local geocaching community.

Exactly. Of course they are not to blame. That's a large part of what 'not liable' means. Then the purpose of the reviewer is mostly not enforcement, even though if necessary they can archive an irregular cache. Since the reviewer doesn't actually visit the site, all the reviewer can really do is suggest things like "Don't place that cache in a bull pen." or "Putting a cache in a national park is illegal." They catch the big dumb mistakes we all might make. They're really more like coaches than enforcers, and only for those who chose to play by the rules. For those who don't play by the rules -- a lot of CO's -- reviewers are just a hurdle on the way to fun. (Again, I'm not saying this is right. I'm just saying that's what I see in the real world.) If most of CO's don't follow all the rules, then the review system itself is unrealistic, even if geocaching.com and reviewers are not liable. So you're equating the majority (60%?) of geocaching.com's CO's with thieves. I don't think I would go that far. I think the speeding analogy is more appropriate. Tell me you never ever speed, eh? See below. This might be more feasible. It would certainly reduce the number of lamp post caches. It would also mean another real-world hurdle. If geocaching.com had some generic downloadable pdf form, it might be useful as a permit template. Delaware State Parks's permit method is a great example. A pdf could be printed, signed, and either scanned (best option) or photographed for the reviewer. For park systems with a 'laissez-faire' policy, a link could be added to that policy from their website or from a copy of direct park correspondence. However this means more time and paperwork, and reduces the fun quotient. For caches in private parks, the permit could be made available for download so that when geocachers are caught trespassing, they actually have a permit in hand, and maybe even a number to call. Chris

We agree that these are good rules. I agree that in an ideal world, that's the way it should happen. Additionally, it removes legal liability from geocaching.com. It removes liability also from reviewers as agents of geocaching.com. All blame is placed squarely on the CO. But to stretch the analogy, most CO's are driving at 65MPH, even 80MPH, rather than the posted 55MPH. If someone were to stop all the rule breakers, so many people would no longer be having fun that geocaching.com would suffer economically, and the game in general would suffer. It's not the way we want it. It's not ideal. I merely state that this is the way it is. It's gridlock, with everyone speeding cheek-by-jowl, and if I slow down, I'll cause the accident that messes up the whole highway. This is not equivalent to drones spying on average citizens or spies tapping into your cell phone or WiFi. Other than poison ivy and scrapes from falls in remote areas, nobody is getting hurt. You're telling me that as a noob, I can pull out my cache-cop badge and NA at least a third of the caches I've seen so far. I'm saying that in the real world, I'm too new to the game to even pretend that I have the right to tell other people what to do. Like it or not, people interpret guidelines with differing degrees of leniency. I would much rather be friendly with CO's because I don't want them to hate me. If I think that way, probably a lot of other people feel that way. So the problem still ends up being about policy enforcement. Since CO's basically police themselves, we share the lowest common denominator regarding guidelines: interpretation. I have no suggestions on how to fix this. Do you? Chris

And the game would be better for it. Whether it's a private community or a lamppost, permission issues make the entire game look bad. I agree. Even kids roll their eyes when they realize it's just another lamp post cache. But about whether or not caches have permission, the problem of publishing lies somewhere between the CO and the reviewer. Maybe more of the blame should be put on reviewers. If reviewers are lax, CO's are going to be lax.

So then don't place the cache. It's pretty simple. I suspect there would be about fifty percent fewer caches out there. I don't plan to create a lamp post cache any time soon, but if I do, I'll be sure to do it with the owner's permission. Chris

I would suggest he needs to either get permission or archive the cache. They will certainly understand this: He is inviting non-members to trespass. Austin Austin,I entirely agree with you. However, as I said earlier, I'm a noob. For me to come in and start acting like Mister-Know-It-All-Rent-A-Cache-Cop will only estrange me from other geocachers that I would prefer to befriend. This game is like a microcosm of real life. For example, there are times when everyone speeds on I-85 between 316 and Spaghetti Junction in Atlanta, even when signs expressly say 55MPH. People often find themselves traveling at 80MPH. If you don't speed along with all the other traffic, you're likely to become an accident victim as others attempt to drive around you. Every time that stretch of I-85 is blocked by a major accident, the city's economy loses millions of dollars in revenue. For local LEO's to stop everyone every time they speed, it would actually cause a huge economic loss to the city. So they make sure people are at least safe. And they do it well. Life isn't always about following rules, but adapting to how the rules are bent right now. Chris

Regarding rules, so far only about a a fifth of the caches I've found in the area really follow the guidelines precisely. Some are quite popular, but blatantly do not follow some rules. CO's generally follow the rules, but I seriously doubt most of them actually asked permission of the various owners/entities in order to place their caches. Case in point are most lamp post caches. Yeah, you could ask Lowes or Walmart for permission to hide a cache, but they'll likely tell you to ask permission of the parking lot owner, a lessor who probably doesn't even live in your state. All of the caches I've found so far have been around for years. Some of them look pretty raggedy. Others are sharp, clean and well-tended. I have not visited a single cache in which burying was involved. Most are nearly in plain site, or if they're in a tree trunk or between rocks, they might be covered with 'unnaturally-arranged' sticks or a pile of brick. Some are clever magnetic hides, even painted or camouflaged to look like some manufactured part of the structure they're on. In just a few weeks, I've learned a lot about places where I live that I'd never have seen if I weren't playing the game. I imagine realtors get a similar enjoyment. If the first rule is to have fun, for now, I'll just vote with my feet where something seems sketchy.

So I've emailed the CO. He responded and said that he lives within a 500 yards of the cache. He said that so long as I'm respectful of other people's property, I'll be fine. He's a member of the HOA, though he has not expressly asked permission, fearing they would not understand. The cache has been there for years, and cache logs suggest others have visited it without problems. I'm just a noob, and as others have pointed out, I must live with my neighbors. Also as others have pointed out, what is seen in the real world is not a truly iron-clad adherence to geocaching.com rules. I will not be reporting the cache. However, there are plenty of other caches out there for me to explore. Should I decide to go out there again, if I were accosted by a LEO, I could simply say I'm the guest of a member and give the officer his name and number. I esspecially appreciate so many disparate-yet-civil viewpoints. This is an awesome thread. Thanks! Chris

Have contacted CO. Waiting to hear back. Chris

Thanks for all the responses. I'll start with the CO as suggested by on4bam. I suppose it was too much to expect I'd have been first to the term "geokosher". Cheers, all, Chris

T.D.M.22, Pup Patrol, Okay, I see where you're coming from. Points taken. Thanks. C