Mr.Benchmark

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I have no idea what this means. I see mom's all the time who I think are insanely over-protective. As for my mom, well, maybe that's not a good example - my kid sister, who was maybe all of 5 at the time, got in trouble for playing with matches all the dang time... Is the boundary line really a "toddler"? I could see that for maybe a cache in a neighborhood park, but there are many places where caches are placed where if your toddler is there unsupervised, well, you will be receiving a visit from CPS. (Another sadly neccessary, if sometimes over-reactive element in modern parenting.) It would be neat, I think, if there were a PMO option for caches with slightly more mature content. I wouldn't say "adult" content, just stuff that a teenager in scouting would appreciate (like small pocket knives, multitools, etc.), with the understanding that placement of such a cache had to be well away from where young children were liable to discover it. This has zero chance of ever happening, just saying it would be neat.

Agreed. However, I can also appreciate not leaving anything even vaguely weapon like just out and up for grabs by any random muggle-kid who finds it. (Some kids would be trustworthy, some not. One of my kids wasn't responsible enough to handle a knife - I know because I gave him one and then had to take it back two weeks later after he did absolutely EVERYTHING I told him he could not do with it.) Oh well, you have to draw a line somewhere. I'm glad we aren't responsible for insuring that anything we leave in a cache can't choke infants... The guideline says "no multi-tools", but I assume they mean "no multi-tools that include blades." I wonder if multi-tools without blades are allowed?

I've always thought the 'no pocket knife' rule was really unfortunate.

It would also help to know the local laws about trespassing and signage. Perhaps that signage isn't legal. There are reasons other than trying to deny people access to land that the person posting the signage doesn't own. Maybe they want to discourage visitors, but not outright ban them. For example, I've found that at some churches and businesses, they will post proper looking handicapped signage in designated handicapped parking places - except that there will be some not obvious flaw with the signage that makes parking in those spots not ticketable. (In the situation I heard about, it was the height of the signs - they weren't within the legal limit, you wouldn't know this without detailed legal knowledge and a measuring tape!) They do this because while they really WANT only handicapped persons to park there, they DO NOT WANT their members to get ticketed for parking in those spots. (Maybe whoever parked there forgot their placard.) So local law enforcement knows to not bother folks in those parking places, even if the car parked in them really shouldn't be there. It's conceivable that whoever posted the "No Trespassing Without Permission" signs (is that really what it says?) didn't want that stretch of beach to devolve into a public beach, but they also didn't want friends who use it to be harrassed, either. (I kind of doubt this - but it's not impossible.) Unfortunately, only someone who really knows the local ordinances and laws, or the land owner, can speak to something like that. As best I can tell, these laws vary A LOT from place to place. The large number of signs described makes me doubt this, but who knows?

Given that the CO, and apparently lots of others, had trespassed on this location for a long time, I can understand why they'd make this mistake. Actually, given that the CO apparently knows the family in question, it is possible that for them only, it is not trespassing for them to be there. (Some places, the law reads that if you trespass long enough and the property owner doesn't do anything about it, you gain some rights.) Will be interested to see what happens. The mile long walk along the beach would be construed by many as an improvement to the cache experience...

Just to be more clear about what I said about reviewers, in both of the caches this year where I had private property concerns, I first very carefully checked to be sure I could find no other legal approach. In one case there was, in the other case there wasn't. I attempted contact with the CO in both cases. Only then when it wasn't resolved in one case did I get a reviewer involved. In the past, I've filed an immediate NA log in cases where I knew first-hand that the cache was improperly placed. (In one case I learned this from the armed and exceedingly angry security guard who confronted me.)

Are you saying the walk along the lake shore is legal or not? If it's not legal, the cache should be archived. If it is legal, then there's really no problem, other than they should've stated how to approach this. Sometimes there are special rules for shorelines. For example, in my area, you THINK you own a lakehouse, with land right up to the water. In fact, you own no such thing. The US Army Corps of Engineers owns the shoreline, and some number of feet back from it. You may pay taxes on this land, but if you want to cut a blade of grass on what seems like your property, you better have a permit. If someone wants to walk through that way, it is permitted, no matter how annoying that is to you.

It's likely they are trying to contact the cache owner. There could be some mitigating circumstances: 1. Maybe the cache owner *is* the property owner, and so they have permission. 2. Maybe there is a completely legal way to access the cache. On the cache I found this year that seemed to be on private property, you could drive to within about 0.2 miles before hitting a wall of no trespassing signs. (Correct coords would've changed this to 0.3 miles...) The LEGAL approach to the property required, I kid you not, a 15 mile detour that was not obvious. 3. Maybe the coords are bad, and the cache is a PnG on the fence line. Disabling the cache should be sufficient to keep people from seeking it until the matter is sorted out.

This has happened to me twice so far this year. In one case, I think the cache listing was completely bogus - entered accidently, and somehow passing review. (Weird, huh?) In the other case, the cache really was on public property, but the coords were about 800' off, and where they pointed was absolutely on private property. (I ultimately found the second one.)

I think stuff like this needs to be at least mentioned on the cache page if private property is going to be a likely obstacle. Sometimes the approach isn't obvious. Sometimes that's part of the challenge - but if it is, the CO needs to rate difficulty appropriately *and* at least mention "if you aren't 100% sure you are on public property, you aren't and you are taking the wrong approach." Many times what they really need to do is provide a parking coordinate. An easy way to do this, often, without giving away too much, is to mention, clearly, on the cache page that "The cache is in ______ park." That at least gives you a clue that if you aren't in the park, you probably aren't doing what you are supposed to be doing. BTW, my biggest fear is running across a situation where the public / private properties are vague and unmarked, but the property owner is just nuts anyway.

NO!!! In fact, in a situation like that, with many, many "No Trespassing" signs, I would immediately contact the reviewer and post a "Needs Archived" log for the cache. Someone who posts a property that heavily means business, and while the legal penalties for trespass generally aren't that severe (note - this varies a LOT by locale! Also you better not be carrying a firearm while trespassing - that makes it much more serious most places), the problem in my opinion is that some property owners are pretty nuts about privacy, and are willing to shoot first, ask questions later. How effectively they could get away with this depends a lot on local laws, however, I'd submit that when somone is shooting at you, your biggest concern is not "gee, they aren't supposed to be doing that - they are going to be in a lot of trouble!" It is also the case that sometimes property is posted because something on the property is actually quite dangerous. An abandoned industrial site would be a good example of this - an unmaintained structure with unknown hazards can be very dangerous, and the property owner may be trying to protect you from harm, and themselves from liability if you are injured. Sometimes people who post like that are trying to keep hunters off their land. Or maybe they have an oil / gas lease and there's danger, either to someone on the land, or to equipment. Maybe they have livestock, and don't want some idiot shooting a cow by mistake. But maybe they have had livestock or property stolen recently, and will think YOU are the one who did it, and react with great hostility - there is just no telling. Often a reason for signage like this is that they've had problems with vandalism on the property. My point is that you can be putting yourself into an unknown and potentially volatile and dangerous situation - either from the law, the property owner, or from some danger on the property itself. If you are caught, best (and most likely) case, you get yelled at by the property owner for being an idiot. Next best case you end up explaining to the sherriff what you are doing there and possibly getting cited, racking up a few hundred dollars in fines. Worst case you get shot or otherwise injured. (The latter is not extremely likely - but it happens.) No cache is worth any of these outcomes.

I'm done with this thread, but since I haven't been especially nice and friendly today, I will say that TY only showed up in this thread because someone else started the thread and started talking about this bit o' drama, and another cacher called him out. Keep in mind that he didn't start this mess, someone else did. And whatever the other side of the story is - calling someone out like that on a cache page really is bad form. (Yes, it is a veiled insult and no, I'm not 100% sure it's aimed at TY, but it seems probable.) It is easy to read his statements as bragging - but given the circumstances, that really doesn't seem fair.

Never mind

I have to agree. There is an awful lot of negativity being dumped on a cacher who was insulted by another cacher simply because they enjoy trying to be the FTF. OK, post deleted, that was overly harsh on my part. Sorry.

One example is that the system doesn't deal with complex, difficult navigation TO the cache site in your vehicle, other than noting that you need an unusual vehicle. There are cases where finding the correct roads to the cache is actually much more challenging than finding the cache itself. I've seen examples where people who know what they are doing who spent hours lost out in the middle of nowhere, trying to get to a trailhead to a cache. Likewise, unpaved roads that are not really 4x4 required, but where many passenger cars aren't going to cut it isn't handled well either. It is very easy to imagine a very difficult drive to the trailhead, followed by a quite mellow hike to an easy to find cache.

Thanks - I think the underrated terrains are more serious than the overrated ones. Overrated is a disappointment. Underrated could get someone who's inexperienced or unprepared in real trouble.

I think you have the right attitude here. I hope he loses interest in bothering you, because seriously, most people who play this game would really enjoy your signature photos - personal, hand-made items like that are HIGHLY prized.

Is it just me, or is the choice of words here kind of odd - seems like "showing stealth" is the opposite of what you want to do? It's like "look at me! I'm invisible!!!" (Don't mean to pick on you firestronaut!) Then again, not showing stealh sounds wrong too. Maybe if you said "How do I achieve stealthiness." Nah, nevermind, I think that's even worse. Quick, someone ask a ninja how they talk about this in ninja-school... Sorry, I'm horrible at being stealthy, so I have no really useful advice to offer.

Awesome! This is what it is all about, in my opinion.

It seems you have made an enemy. I'm not sure what can be done about this. Stuff you leave in the cache is up for grabs. It doesn't matter if I take something from a cache if I throw it away, or enshrine it. Do you know his geocaching handle? Can you prove he's harrassing you? Even if so, I think banning someone is difficult to do, and not done lightly. (Not to mention that there are ways around this if they are really determined to harrass you.) I think generally someone has to be a much larger nuisance to the community at large, or do something much worse (like threaten you) to be so sanctioned. I'm very sorry you have having this experience. Leaving the photos is a very nice thing to do in my opinion. It is a lot more interesting and personal than so many other things people leave in a cache.

I respect what you are saying here, but I can't see how you can conclude that from what the OP originally said. This just seems like the OP had this not well conceived idea. They then posted it on the forum, it was not well received, and they retreated. In particular, they seemed to be complaining about a CO who didn't maintain their cache well (at least in the OP's opinion), even when asked. It seemed to me that the OP doesn't understand the value the community at large seems to place on older caches. Perhaps you are right though - and perhaps the OP will return and explain what they meant, although I suspect they've been scared off...

Could you explain this situation a little more clearly: 1. Are the photos in the physical geocache, or in the online log for the geocache? 2. If in the physical geocache, you are aware that people are allowed to trade items, right? 3. If they are being removed from the cache, what is the subject matter of the photos? Perhaps whoever is taking them feels they are not allowed. 4. If they are being removed from the online log, is it just one cache owner? 5. How do you know someone is taking them? We can discuss whether or not this is acceptable once we understand better what it is we're talking about here.

I do sometimes find nicely stocked caches, but it is rare. If that matters to you, you will have to search a lot for them. If that is too much effort then this isn't for you, sorry.

edit: non-constructive and overly critical post retracted.

Finding treasure out in the woods really isn't the point of this hobby. The enjoyable hike to a neat location is the point of this hobby, or even just discovering a place you never knew about that was surprisingly nearby. Or maybe it's the thrill of the hunt, or the excitement of trying to be the first to find the cache. The items you'd have traded sound really nice, but most people simply don't trade that well. It just isn't realistic to expect that a box full of free stuff out in the woods, unattended, will stay full of great stuff. The great stuff will get taken, broken stuff will get left in its place, and nobody takes the broken stuff, so quality goes down hill pretty quickly.