[Mission 9 Project Ape cache missing]

Perhaps some of the anger/disappointment should be aimed at the short-sightedness of whoever at Groundspeak developed this policy in the first place.

 

Or maybe at the short-sightedness of whoever promoted such a cache knowing the very real possibility that it would one day need to be archived.

 

Or maybe at the special promotion of this particular cache which may have led to its being stolen.

 

Not the person who actually stole it?

 

I thought there was already anger and disappointment aimed at the thief.

[VDOT and guardrails]

who knows where he'll set his sights next?

I'll chip in for plane tickets to Florida.

We've got a buttload of roadside caches here.

Not judgin'... just sayin'...

 

You already have a bias against lpc caches. What if he wanted to come to Florida and work on getting the state of Florida to ban caches in areas that had caches you did like?

 

Gosh. It was just a joke. No need to accuse.

 

Huh? Who did I accuse and what did I accuse them of?

 

Clan Riffster is very vocal about his bias. That is a statement of fact.

 

I'm just curious how he would feel if drdan affected geocaching in areas that he actually caches at. It's really easy to support the archival of lots of the types of caches you don't like. But I wonder if he would feel the same if geocaching in the Everglades was banned, for instance?

[Question about the original stash plaque.]

The original stash cache does have a cache container with a log book in it. It is highly muggled so folks are advised to not drop items there but just to dip them. I've been there 4-5 times, and it seems that the container has been moved just about every time. There is also another cache within 70 feet of it, just up the hill, called the un-original stash cache.

 

70 feet?

[Mission 9 Project Ape cache missing]

Perhaps some of the anger/disappointment should be aimed at the short-sightedness of whoever at Groundspeak developed this policy in the first place.

 

Or maybe at the short-sightedness of whoever promoted such a cache knowing the very real possibility that it would one day need to be archived.

 

Or maybe at the special promotion of this particular cache which may have led to its being stolen.

[VDOT and guardrails]

who knows where he'll set his sights next?

I'll chip in for plane tickets to Florida.

We've got a buttload of roadside caches here.

Not judgin'... just sayin'...

 

You already have a bias against lpc caches. What if he wanted to come to Florida and work on getting the state of Florida to ban caches in areas that had caches you did like?

[Disappointed in Groundspeak]

The whole "Hey, no problem! Block it!" mentality overlooks the fact that by virtue of the fact that you're saying people can/will block it, it is unwanted.

 

By some perhaps.

 

I hate Farmville. I have it blocked. But I can assure you it is not unwanted by a lot of people.

[Mission 9 Project Ape cache missing]

Perhaps it's just me but isn't collecting the little icons and pixels as much a part of geocahcing as logging caches.

 

Nope, for me geocaching is about finding geocaches. The icons the logs generate in my profile are irrelevant. I realize that some people "collect" icons, but that's a sub game that is only tangentially related to the sport. Unfortunately for the collectors, not every icon will be available to them. Many here will not be able to add locationless icons to their profiles because they started caching after they were removed from the site. C'est la vie.

 

Back to the subject, IMO, it would be nice if GS would allow someone to adopt the cache and restore it if for no other reason then not caving to a anti-cacher group.

 

Do you have evidence that there is an anti geocaching group involved with this? That's an angle I haven't heard.

 

As for special treatment, why would it be special treatment to allow someone to adopt it and continue this particular cache.

 

It would special treatment because every other A.P.E. cache was treated differently when it went missing.

 

How about it Ground Speak, have a little back bone.

 

They apparently do have backbone. They made an unpopular decision and so far have been sticking with it.

 

I was trying not to make this about anyone but you do come to mind. You are one of those cachers that seem to think it's your way or the high way. Glad you are not a GS employee or owner. I won't bother with rebutting your arguments since it would obviously be wasted.

 

I'm the new guy here so I don't know first hand what transpired with these caches.

 

But if what Briansnat has posted is true, it seems like he championed NOT archiving these caches in the past. I believe that is why he has taken the stance now that since they did go through with the archival of the other ape caches then that they should now follow that path to its logical conclusion. That means that eventually Groundspeak knew there would no longer be any ape caches. They had to know that when they archived the very first one.

 

But if I am wrong, please let me know. I just don't feel like researching this one.

[VDOT and guardrails]

The real question here is, "Are you happy with what you have accomplished?"

 

Im guessing he will ignore your post like he did mine.

 

I thought that the way that it worked is that you ignore things that aren't relevant. That clearly wasn't the "real" question of this discussion and it isn't relevant in any way. I think that it was a stupid question. A question asked by someone uninformed. A question asked by someone who's sky is clearly not colored the same blue as mine. But not a real question.

 

Ignoring people that are not relevant isn't a good thing to do. Then that person might just go to extremes to make sure they are relevant. So relevant, in fact, that every cacher in a state sits up and takes notice at what they've done.

 

Thank God my sky is not colored the same blue as yours. I like to think I see all the shades of blue.

[VDOT and guardrails]

The real question here is, "Are you happy with what you have accomplished?"

[VDOT and guardrails]

I also have eyes and can see clearly that the container is made of pvc and there is a geocaching sticker on that container and logic tells me that terrorists have no interest in blowing up street signs.

 

Of course logic did not stop California transportation workers from calling in the bomb squad when they found a film can in or around a highway sign in a very rural area . . .

 

But with that noted, it would have been nice if everyone involved could have taken a deep breath early into the process. A classic illustration of how things can escalate.

 

I've read of non-bomb looking caches placed with explicit permission being blown up.

 

And if one were to concede that this was a very suspicious looking cache that looked like a pipe bomb, it still doesn't explain drdan's actions.

 

Once he reported the cache he received the response he wanted from the reviewer. But because the reviewer could not act immediately due to some family issues, drdan went straight to VDOT when appeals@geocaching.com would have been sufficient.

 

What really bothers me about this thread is that I feel like we're feeding the guy. It seems to me he's enjoying the extra attention and I'm appalled that he's getting any at all for what he's done.

[VDOT and guardrails]

 

Granted it is apparent that there was never explicit permission given. But I'm guessing adequate permission must have existed or reviewers failed miserably at their job.

 

Fixed it for you.

 

No need to fix my sentence. I wrote what I meant to write. If you have an opposing opinion then you are free to express it yourself.

 

If you really wanted to fix it you should have added "or were not allowed sufficient time to follow up on a complaint by another geocacher".

[VDOT and guardrails]

 

Granted it is apparent that there was never explicit permission given. But I'm guessing adequate permission must have existed or reviewers failed miserably at their job.

 

Fixed it for you.

 

No need to fix my sentence. I wrote what I meant to write. If you have an opposing opinion then you are free to express it yourself.

[Mission 9 Project Ape cache missing]

I may have missed it, but where did MountainBiker ever claim he no longer wished to maintain this cache? I think it was archived due to a decision made a long time ago by Groundspeak.

 

To break from that would cause a huge problem in regards to the previously archived ape caches. Do we really want Groundspeak showing preferential treatment to caches that have a huge impact for their employees or with traffic to and from headquarters? Or do we want to see Groundspeak promote fairness to all, regardless whether or not we like any individual decision?

[Disappointed in Groundspeak]

Honest question here. Why do we need a phone app to interface with Facebook and not the standard webpage logging?

Teachers use geocaching.com in their classrooms as part of the curriculum. Many school districts have a strict no facebook policy. Anything that loads anything facebook gets dropped into the blacklist. If you even have a facebook like on the webpage it is the death of the website. We went around that block last year.

 

In the context of this thread, because that's what the OP requested. In general, I dunno. But adding it to the phone app would probably cause less of a stir than adding it to the webpage.

 

As far as the like button getting the webpage blocked from classrooms (and lets be honest, a bunch of people's work computers)--what the OP is requesting here is different than what happened last year. This discussion is about posting the cacher's actual log text to facebook. I don't know nuthin' 'bout programming and such, but I would imagine that works differently than sticking a "like" button on every cache page.

Somehow you need to send the information to facebook, probably via an API. This exchange would probably earn the webpage a black star. But I'm no expert in things facebook.

And as we keep pointing out, my request has nothing to do with the web site.

Yes, I understand you have a major jihad on getting facebook stuff on a phone. You can turn any geocaching smartphone app you want into simply a mirror to facebook for all I care. But Buckeye Clan asked a question about the *WEBSITE* not your smartphone. You got that, *WEBSITE* not smartphone. Jeez, man, quit hyperventilating about your stupid smartphone app that does not have facebook integration. The more you flog this poor horse the less support your going to get. As Archie would say, "Stifle".

 

As the OP, isn't it Indy's prerogative to make attempts to bring this thread back on topic which is, after all, about the phone app?

[VDOT and guardrails]

 

And yes, you apparently are missing the point -- especially when you suggest that this cache didn't look like a pipe bomb. Let's see, a 4" x 1.75" (approximate) piece of pipe with threaded ends, sticking in a sign post. What would your definition be of "that looks like a pipe bomb?"

 

Does this look like a bomb?

 

 

NO!

 

To Mr. E., no. I won't go all "you only joined 4 months ago on you", but many a film canister has been blown up all over North America by bomb squads. No need to post a picture of one.

 

Yes, I've read about quite a few ignorant bomb squad incidents. You don't have to be around more than 4 months for that.

 

I also have eyes and can see clearly that the container is made of pvc and there is a geocaching sticker on that container and logic tells me that terrorists have no interest in blowing up street signs.

[VDOT and guardrails]

 

I called VDOT because the original reviewer said that the cache shouldn't be there, and then was away on family problems. Absent that reviewer I then asked who I believed owned the sign - which would be VDOT. The second reviewer then asked me to get additional information from VDOT.

 

So this matter was SO pressing that you didn't have time to let that reviewer deal with it when he returned from family problems.

 

And even if that reviewer told you to go fly a kite there is appeals@geocaching.com which would work with you.

 

Now if you appealed to Groundspeak and THEY told you to go fly a kite, then by all means VDOT would have been appropriate.

[VDOT and guardrails]

 

And yes, you apparently are missing the point -- especially when you suggest that this cache didn't look like a pipe bomb. Let's see, a 4" x 1.75" (approximate) piece of pipe with threaded ends, sticking in a sign post. What would your definition be of "that looks like a pipe bomb?"

 

Does this look like a bomb?

 

 

NO!

[VDOT and guardrails]

You make some great points, especially about the proximity and that nobody could or should have believed that it was okay. But this is not about a score to settle.

 

Every single time a cache in our area is published, I then look at the listing. Why? I've seen quite a few caches that are not allowed to be where they were approved to be at. I've cited just a few of those examples in my above two posts. I turned each and every one of those in. I have said and will say it again, I am involved in local crime prevention activities in an official capacity. I have listened to police and other agencies express concern over caches here in our area. IMHO, it is only a matter of time before we have a "situation" that is going to end up in the news. And so when I see a cache that is to my understanding in a place that it isn't allowed to be, I'm going to notify someone. And I did nothing less with this cache, regardless of who the CO is. I only explained why I believed that this CO in particular would be less than receptive, and in fact I appear to have been right. In fact, it is my experience that in general it seems more CO's are likely to tell you to mind your own business if you try to discuss it with them first. Maybe your mileage varies, but that's been my experience. And apparently at least one reviewer agrees as that reviewer has said time and time again to send things like this directly to the reviewer or in the alternate (if that reviewer is unavailable), to log a NA. Which is exactly what I did.

 

So please don't suggest that this was a score to settle. I did nothing more and nothing less than I have in EVERY similar situation.

 

I could understand if this whole thing was due to you thinking that the CO had drilled a hole in the sign. If that were the case I would back you up because everyone should know not to deface anyone's property to hide a cache. But you already admitted that it was in a breakaway hole.

 

You know what? The more you post the more I am so happy I don't live near you.

 

So instead of this being a score to settle, it's really because you make a point of policing every hide you come across!

 

I just hope that all cachers near you know by now that it is in their best interest to go above and beyond the guidelines. They had better be dotting all their I's and crossing all their T's because when they post that cache you will be right there scrutinizing every aspect. And if it doesn't hold muster, then you will go right past them and straight to the person that gets you the most bang for your buck.

 

If you really wanted to be helpful you could accomplish the same thing with an NA. I'm sorry, but this still smells of vindictiveness. Maybe not towards one single cacher, but worse, to the entire game.

 

So this is now moving in the direction of ad hominem posts?

 

I do hope that you will actually go back at some point and read posts because what you post seems to indicate that you don't.

- I didn't know that was what the hole was. That's what VDOT told me.

- You say that I'd be helpful by using an NA - and that's EXACTLY what I did do, I submitted an NA. It was only after the CO deleted it, threatened to sue me. and clearly wasn't going to move the cache that I went forward.

 

And thanks for the unnecessary hyperbole about scrutinizing every aspect of a cache listing, as I never said that. I indicated that at least around here it's become necessary to actually look at cache placements to see if they are obviously located in places that they shouldn't be -- because that seems to happen a lot.

 

I read every word you wrote, including the part where you said you look at each and every listing because you've seen a lot of caches that were not allowed to be where they were approved to be and that you turn those in too.

 

I also read "VDOT says is breakaway hole" but did not see any mention that your concern was that he CO drilled a hole.

 

I saw you write that you posted an NA. I also saw that you didn't let the system do its job. An owner can delete all the NA's they want. If the REVIEWER decides that it is improperly placed the owner can belly ache and refuse to remove a cache all day long. The reviewer will still archive it.

 

Frankly, before you posted, I was under the impression that this was just a little tiff between two cachers. But it is abundantly clear to me that this is about one person that has taken it upon himself to police everyone's caches and if they don't hold up to scrutinity, then watch out.

 

Just don't come looking for caches in New Jersey. While Virginia is probably very thankful for your helpfulness, we Jerseyites are fine working with each other and the reviewers.

[VDOT and guardrails]

You make some great points, especially about the proximity and that nobody could or should have believed that it was okay. But this is not about a score to settle.

 

Every single time a cache in our area is published, I then look at the listing. Why? I've seen quite a few caches that are not allowed to be where they were approved to be at. I've cited just a few of those examples in my above two posts. I turned each and every one of those in. I have said and will say it again, I am involved in local crime prevention activities in an official capacity. I have listened to police and other agencies express concern over caches here in our area. IMHO, it is only a matter of time before we have a "situation" that is going to end up in the news. And so when I see a cache that is to my understanding in a place that it isn't allowed to be, I'm going to notify someone. And I did nothing less with this cache, regardless of who the CO is. I only explained why I believed that this CO in particular would be less than receptive, and in fact I appear to have been right. In fact, it is my experience that in general it seems more CO's are likely to tell you to mind your own business if you try to discuss it with them first. Maybe your mileage varies, but that's been my experience. And apparently at least one reviewer agrees as that reviewer has said time and time again to send things like this directly to the reviewer or in the alternate (if that reviewer is unavailable), to log a NA. Which is exactly what I did.

 

So please don't suggest that this was a score to settle. I did nothing more and nothing less than I have in EVERY similar situation.

 

I could understand if this whole thing was due to you thinking that the CO had drilled a hole in the sign. If that were the case I would back you up because everyone should know not to deface anyone's property to hide a cache. But you already admitted that it was in a breakaway hole.

 

You know what? The more you post the more I am so happy I don't live near you.

 

So instead of this being a score to settle, it's really because you make a point of policing every hide you come across!

 

I just hope that all cachers near you know by now that it is in their best interest to go above and beyond the guidelines. They had better be dotting all their I's and crossing all their T's because when they post that cache you will be right there scrutinizing every aspect. And if it doesn't hold muster, then you will go right past them and straight to the person that gets you the most bang for your buck.

 

If you really wanted to be helpful you could accomplish the same thing with an NA. I'm sorry, but this still smells of vindictiveness. Maybe not towards one single cacher, but worse, to the entire game.

[VDOT and guardrails]

...and managed to get caching banned on all VDOT property.

Was caching ever allowed on VDOT property?

Apparently so. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion about mass archival of caches.

 

Granted it is apparent that there was never explicit permission given. But I'm guessing adequate permission must have existed or reviewers failed miserably at their job.

 

If explicit permission is now the standard, then I guess we'll see a mass archival of caches worldwide.

 

No? Didn't think so.

Who was it that authorized the placement of our game pieces on VDOT property?

 

I suspect the answer is "No one".

 

Thus the reason I said the bolded part.

 

 

I think these caches existed under the Groundspeak "Wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say no more, don't ask-don't tell" policy. Kinda like the caches in Wally World and grocery store parking lots. This unwritten policy became clear when I submitted those two above mentioned caches for publication. I was prepared to provide names and phone numbers of the persons who gave permission for the hides, yet that was never asked of me. Two caches, clearly placed on private property, and neither one was questioned. From talking to cache owners who have hide-a-keys stuck on guardrails around here, it's clear that they are not being asked either.

 

VDOT property is not exactly your everyday, run of the mill private property. It may legally be off limits, but I guarantee you that geocachers are not the only people who view sidewalks and such to be public property. I'm not about to go asking someone if I can walk down a sidewalk. Therefore I find it reasonable that someone would not think explicit permission was needed.

 

Regardless of actual tresspassing or permission issues, it is clear from drdan01's post that the real reason for going to the authorities had to do with neither. He was ticked off with the CO and showed her what for. Congratulations!

 

Of course technically you are right. If everyone took the time to get explicit permission then they would pretty much be immune to such childish behavior. Glad to see you do get explicit permission for your caches. It would look very bad for a man of the law to have his cache archived for tresspassing.

[VDOT and guardrails]

...and managed to get caching banned on all VDOT property.

Was caching ever allowed on VDOT property?

 

Apparently so. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion about mass archival of caches.

 

Granted it is apparent that there was never explicit permission given. But I'm guessing adequate permission must have existed or reviewers failed miserably at their job.

 

If explicit permission is now the standard, then I guess we'll see a mass archival of caches worldwide.

 

No? Didn't think so.

[VDOT and guardrails]

So basically you got into a pissing match with another cacher and you decided to one up her by going to the big dogs and managed to get caching banned on all VDOT property. That's pretty much what others have said but with a lot less words.

 

At least you feel good about it.

 

Our reviewer posted this note on some archived caches:

 

Archiving at the request of the Virginia DOT. Guardrail caches are now prohibited by VDOT.

 

It seems obvious to me that the only reason the Department of Transportation would even be aware of geocaching is because there were caches placed in such a way that it was hazardous to look for them. Is there a way we could encourage people to consider our impact on traffic safety (for other states, the damage is done in Virginia) or do we have to rely on the usually unreliable common sense?

 

Nope VaGriz. It's not the reason VDOT is aware of them. A local cacher decided to take it upon himself to challenge the placement of one cache without asking the CO about the hide. VDOT had not choice but to issue a blanket statement that covered all their property. It was senseless and vindictive. Appears to be a personal attack which is resulting in the archival of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of caches across the Commonwealth.

 

Having grown tired of reading the misstatements and incorrect claims made in this matter I've decided that I will comment.

 

First and foremost, what you read sprinkled throughout this thread about claims of a cacher taking action without asking the CO about the hide is incorrect. And the cacher did not at any time accuse the CO of altering the sign in which the cache was located.

 

So let's lay out the actual facts, opposed to the fiction or warped perspectives presented:

 

Fact: I logged the cache. The cache was located along a state highway located within the city limits of Smithfield, VA. Then having thought better of it (a cache placed in a hole running through the entire base of the sign, located about two feet from the curb on a state highway - the more I thought about it, the more I questioned it), and wondering how exactly the CO would have received permission to place a cache inside of a highway sign, I started asking questions. I first contacted both the Virginia State Police who indicated that placing the cache there was not allowed (well, they had stronger terms for it, but that's for later). I confirmed that then by (at the Virginia State Police's suggestion) contacting VDOT's help center. I was told that permission had not been given to place a cache in a VDOT sign or on any VDOT property. I asked what rules or laws were involved. Both the police and VDOT cited a particular Virginia Code (more on that below) and also indicated that it could also be considered to be trespassing on state property.

 

Brief interlude from the above and below facts: This is also factual, but it will most likely help before going further in understanding why I wasn't so eager to just zing off an email to the CO. Prior to this incident, some time in the recent past, this particular cacher had been seeking one of my own caches. She lost the cache (dropped it inside of a metal pole, and the cache was damaged beyond repair because of that). And the cacher had also LOGGED it as found, despite the fact that she'd knew that she'd never signed the log. After spending about an hour digging the cache container out of the pole, I then deleted her "found it" log entry, and then received nasty emails even after I explained that she needed to sign the log. In reply she posted a log note saying that she was frustrated that I'd deleted her log after she was the one to alert me to the problem with the cache being dropped in the pole (ah huh - she loses the cache and then told me she lost it and then thinks that this somehow gets her "bonus points" with a CO?). So this incident (the current situation with VDOT) has NOTHING whatsoever to do with my being vindictive toward this cacher/CO, it has everything to do with the cacher/CO being unpleasant in emails and also being unreasonable. This is ALSO the same cacher who posted a thread (just check her forum posts) to question about whether I was allowed to place a beacon cache that required a capable GPS to find it (vs. also providing an alternative way to find it). That was after she first posted a negative comment in the cache log of my beacon cache - despite never even having searched for it. So it seems to me that this is all about this cacher/CO being vindictive, not me being vindictive toward her.

 

Fact: After considering all things I then logged a NA on the cache. I was told by a reviewer that this was the correct thing to do. And as suggested by the police, I cited the applicable state code. I included pictures so that it would be clear for anyone to see where the cache was and why it needed to be archived. That NA log did not say that the CO did any damage to the sign, I simply said that as I was told, that was the code that covered doing things like placing a geocache in a highway sign.

 

Fact: Groundspeak Guidelines 6.12 "Permanent Removal: Archiving a Cache" states that, "If you feel that a cache listing needs to archived, log onto the cache page, use "log your visit" and select the log type, "needs archived". Please explain in your log why the listing needs to be archived. This log will be received by both the cache owner and a local reviewer" and "Please use this log only when there are serious problems with the cache or its location." Yes, it does also later say, "Please consider first contacting the owner of the geocache with your concerns" but the process is in place for something serious to submit the NA, and the forum is full of threads where cachers were advised to submit a NA related to caches that involve trespass and such, and so that seemed to fit this situation as something similar and something serious. Having been told by the Virginia State Police that if they found someone at that sign, placing or removing the cache that they may well be cited under the state code certainly seemed to be a "serious problem" and the fact that no permission had been received seemed to support the VDOT assertion that it would be trespassing. And the NA is certainly utilized to report caches that would involve trespassing. Refer to the above explanation as to why it was preferable to not otherwise contact the CO.

 

Fact: The CO then sent me an email threatening me with a lawsuit for libel, claiming that I had stated that the CO had committed a "criminal act." The NA log said no such thing. Again, this supports my concern that the CO would act in this way, and why I wasn't going to send an email to the CO (a NA is a nice official record, an email isn't).

 

Fact: Based on the CO's email (threat) I then re-looked at the NA log, and didn't understand her reaction to that, nor why she considered that to be libel. I decided that I would reword the NA log to ensure that it was absolutely clear to anyone reading it by directly stating that I was NOT saying that the CO had damaged the sign, just that the cache wasn't allowed under that code. And BTW, as I understand it and was told that code was the correct code as it was the code about doing things to signs. (Yes, being vague for a reason - and for the record, again state that I'm not claiming that the CO committed a criminal act or such.)

 

Fact: The CO responded to me by email restating that I had committed libel, and had somehow accused the CO of a criminal act and that unless I deleted the log that the CO intended to take legal action against me. I also told the CO that it was the Virginia State Police that had said that the code I cited to was applicable, and the CO's response was to then say that what the "officer told you (me) was totally irrelevant." The CO then deleted the NA log.

 

Fact: When I'd received that email and saw the new log entry the next morning, I immediately apologized to the CO for her belief that I had accused her of a criminal act, that I didn't intend to do that and didn't believe that I had, but was apologizing if that's the way that it was somehow taken. I also restated that it was my belief that the cache was not authorized to be located where it was. The CO replied, accepting my apology, and then chastised me for not having contacted her first. It was clear however that the CO had no intention of removing or moving the cache, and she had already deleted the NA log.

 

Fact: The CO had begun posting in a caching forum, and it was clear from the specific things said that not only was the CO not going to remove the cache (such as claiming that this was about a hole, that this was because I was an inexperienced cacher, or that by the twisted logic that there were caches like that all over Virginia and that this somehow made it right), but that others thought that it was okay to have caches in highway signs, etc. The CO also posted derogatory things, and things that I believe were clearly not factual.

 

Fact: As it was apparent that the CO would not remove the cache and did not have permission to place that cache, I then contacted a reviewer and passed along the information that VDOT had provided to me. The reviewer stated agreement about the cache being prohibited. THE REVIEWER asked if I had any information on the the particular rule that VDOT was citing to. I said that VDOT hadn't provided that information but volunteered to the reviewer to ask VDOT for that and was encouraged by the reviewer to recontact VDOT.

 

Fact: I then recontacted the VDOT help line and they indicated that they would have a VDOT representative contact me. I was then contacted by VDOT and I spoke at length with that individual. The person that I spoke with knew exactly what geocaching was through friends who are cachers. The VDOT representative indicated that VDOT does not and would not give permission to place caches on or in VDOT signs. They asked about the location of the cache so that they could confirm that this was a sign owned or controlled by VDOT, and as that was public information readily available I provided that to them. I told the VDOT representative that our local reviewer had asked for any documentation of the rule and VDOT indicated that they would issue a letter and asked if I could pass that along to our reviewers and such. I agreed to pass along their information and said that I'd also forward the letter to the reviewer.

 

Fact: I then provided the detailed information received verbally from VDOT to a local reviewer and also provided the VDOT contact information so that the reviewer could directly contact VDOT. I also told the reviewer that VDOT indicated that they intended to remove the cache as soon as possible as they were concerned for safety reasons with that cache being located where it was. It appears that the reviewer didn't further contact the CO, of if there was contact I am not aware of it.

 

Fact: VDOT removed the cache. Another cacher noticed the cache missing and logged a NM on the cache. The CO responded to the NM log and indicated that the cache would be replaced. I asked a reviewer about it and was told that the reviewer needed specific information from VDOT to "convince" the cache owner. My understanding of that discussion is that the CO having been told that VDOT requested the cache be removed was demanding proof or such.

 

Fact: Over the next two weeks or so I continued asking VDOT for their letter and on 4/11/11, they provided that letter which I then immediately forwarded to our local reviewers, to Groundspeak and also provided to a local geocaching forum. As the letter indicated much more than I had asked about (which was limited to highway signs), I recontacted VDOT and asked them to clarify about what was VDOT property and their reply was that their rule included anything on roadways in Virginia ("sign, guardrail, bridge, light post, etc."). I was also told that VDOT as a state agency had authority over all other local jurisdictions (based on preeminence over local governments as Virginia is a "Dillon Rule" state), and was told that VDOT could have directed Smithfield to remove the cache but chose to remove it themselves as they wanted it done immediately. It is my understanding that they also began looking for other similar caches, both physically and through searching geocaching listings.

 

Fact: As I had been previously told that guardrail caches were okay, and had even been told by a very experienced cacher that you didn't need permission, I had a few (4) of my own. Upon receipt of the VDOT letter and learning otherwise, I archived my own four guardrail caches. And I have also recently archived one on a historical sign, as from what I can now see it appears that VDOT has control over those as well even though they are owned by another agency.

 

Fact: Groundspeak then archived the cache ("Archiving at the request of the Virginia DOT."). The CO then asked for permission to replace and relocate the cache (and from the CO's post further above in this thread that sounds like it was done through an Appeal). I then recontacted VDOT to ask whether in this particular case relocating the cache to the area adjacent to the sign was still considered placing the cache on VDOT property, and I was told that this would also be prohibited as the right of way was also VDOT property. VDOT expressed frustration that even with having issued a letter that the cache was still on VDOT property, and they also knew that this same cacher still had another cache of the same kind, also in a highway sign, and also located in the vicinity. I then passed that information to a reviewer.

 

Fact: Despite the VDOT letter prohibiting caches on property owned or controlled by VDOT, and despite everyone involved being aware of that, seven days after VDOT had issued the letter prohibiting the caches, a local reviewer unarchived the cache so that the cache could be relocated to the VDOT property located adjacent to the sign. And at the same time a discussion took place in at least one forum, with participants arguing against VDOT and outright attacking me. And various things were said, by multiple parties, misstating the facts, including assertions that the letter wasn't legitimate or that it didn't somehow apply (and even to this day, at least one blogger out there vows to determine from VDOT if their letter was legitimately issued by VDOT, implying - I assume - that I what, faked a VDOT letter???).

 

Fact: VDOT was already aware of other caches that were in violation of their rule, including one other cache owned by this CO. VDOT was also aware that despite having provided their notification about the caches being prohibited and knowing that this one particular cache had been specifically brought to the attention of Groundspeak and reviewers, that the cache was still active and located on VDOT property, and that no permission had been given to place it in either the first location or the second location. And they knew that no action had been taken regarding the second cache, which was ALSO located in a highway sign. VDOT was now also following the forum discussions and had learned about a heated discussion where CO's indicated that they didn't intend to comply with VDOT's rule and that no caches were being removed. IMHO, the "final straw" was that some CO's actually posted in the forum to encourage cachers to go out and find all of those caches before they were eventually forced to archive them. I was told by VDOT that VDOT senior management had determined to escalate the issue since their previous letter was being ignored. I was directly asked by VDOT to confirm that they had the correct information for sending legal correspondence to Groundspeak. And I presume that as a result of that, the letter from the Virginia Attorney General was then sent to VDOT.

 

Fact: I did nothing whatsoever to attempt to influence VDOT. I did not discuss these caches other than to ask if we had permission to place them. I mention this because some folks in our local forum threads have actually accused me of somehow turning VDOT against geocaching. Of course those same folks also believe that I somehow am able to get the Attorney General to send a letter to Groundspeak.

 

So, the factual summary is that:

- VDOT has stated that the CO did not have permission to place the cache in the VDOT sign

- The CO was contacted IAW Groundspeak guidelines through a NA log

- CO threatened to sue me, then deleted the NA log

- CO did not remove the cache and even attempted to replace it after VDOT removed the cache

- VDOT issued letter to say that caches on VDOT property or VDOT controlled property were prohibited

- CO then went ahead and replaced the cache and moved it from the VDOT sign to the VDOT property adjacent to the sign

- CO also did not remove the OTHER cache located in another nearby highway sign

- Because the CO refused to comply with the VDOT request, and seeing that other caches on VDOT property were not being removed, VDOT management then sought legal assistance from the Attorney General

 

And THAT'S why VDOT did what they did. Cachers never had permission to do what they did, and VDOT apparently simply wasn't aware of those caches (well, actually, apparently at least ONE VDOT employee who is also a local cacher knew and chose to defend the CO and spoke out against the VDOT policy, and I assume that didn't go well for him). But that didn't make it right, and there is no excuse for CO's and cachers to whine away about something that shouldn't have been to begin with.

 

Now the CO and multiple other cachers are complaining that for whatever reason, they are now being prohibited from having caches where they never had permission to place caches to begin with. And any claims that these CO's would have responded positively to emails seems rather bogus, given that even though they all now know that the caches are prohibited we're not seeing a flurry of archiving taking place despite pleas from reviewers that they do so. Instead, they're posting that they should join together to meet with and educate VDOT about geocaching in hopes that VDOT will then now determine that caches on VDOT owned or controlled property are now not a safety issue. Good luck with that.

 

But for the most part, these are the same cachers who complained when I submitted NAs on a cache placed at the airport (which Groundspeak ultimately had to retract the listing because a reviewer wouldn't do so), caches on fire hydrants, caches at sewage treatment facilities (posted no trespassing), and so on. And that's not counting the rash of FTF hounds that we've had recently, entering parks after closing time (which is trespassing here locally, and posted as such). And at least some of these complainers are the same ones who when I was asked by a reviewer to organize an event where the local police would meet with cachers to discuss their concern for these same issues, nobody wanted to do that. (Side note, I was asked to do that because I am actively involved in local crime prevention activities where these very kind of issues are discussed - hence the reason why I tend to pay attention to them myself.)

 

I'm certainly not the only person who takes the time to submit a NA or to contact a reviewer when a cache doesn't seem right. But I am apparently the scapegoat for what happens when cachers lacked any permission to put caches in places that compromise public safety (according to VDOT and the Attorney General of Virginia) and then apparently worked especially hard to really tick the VDOT PTB's off.

 

My intent in posting (this long reply) isn't to get involved in yet another discussion (frankly I probably won't even further monitor the thread) with those who apparently are seriously lacking in clues, it's just to set the record straight as I'm tired of reading all the misrepresentations and such.

 

Thanks for listening.

[Perfectly good caches being archived?]

 

Even if it is listed on another site I see nothing wrong with hanging a NA on the cache and once the listing is archived plopping your cache down 50 feet away. The other sites don't recognize GS proximity circles so why should we be bound by theirs, assuming they even have one.

 

That's not exactly accurate.

 

Opencaching Guidelines

Don’t oversaturate an area

Caches should be placed at least 0.1 miles from other geocaches on OpenCaching.com. If there are geocaches in the area that aren’t listed on OpenCaching.com, keep your cache far enough away that people are unlikely to confuse the two.

In some sensitive ecosystems, caches might need to be further spread apart than these guidelines.

 

Strictly speaking Opencaching doesn't recognize GS's proximity circle, but they are respectful of existing caches such that they don't want people confusing the 2. I haven't checked out any of the other sites.

Well, the cache in question won't be listed on GC.com anymore if the NA is executed, otherwise how would I be able to place a cache there? So I'm suppose to worry about caches that use to be around here somewhere? If I'm not aware of caches listed on the other sites how am I going to worry about them?

 

Then why bother moving your new cache at all. Just put it right where the old one used to exist. You mentioned moving the cache 50' and that other sites don't recognize GS's proximity and I just supplied a little more information.

[Perfectly good caches being archived?]

 

Even if it is listed on another site I see nothing wrong with hanging a NA on the cache and once the listing is archived plopping your cache down 50 feet away. The other sites don't recognize GS proximity circles so why should we be bound by theirs, assuming they even have one.

 

That's not exactly accurate.

 

Opencaching Guidelines

Don’t oversaturate an area

Caches should be placed at least 0.1 miles from other geocaches on OpenCaching.com. If there are geocaches in the area that aren’t listed on OpenCaching.com, keep your cache far enough away that people are unlikely to confuse the two.

In some sensitive ecosystems, caches might need to be further spread apart than these guidelines.

 

Strictly speaking Opencaching doesn't recognize GS's proximity circle, but they are respectful of existing caches such that they don't want people confusing the 2. I haven't checked out any of the other sites.

[If someone forgets their pen...]

Naaaa... we trust one another around here.

 

Apparently not so much.

 

 

Didn't mean you in particular. But with all the talk of deleting logs it is apparent that not everyone trusts everyone else.

 

if someone blatantly puts it in their log that they forgot their pen...I will send them an email asking them to describe the cache and then edit their log to not put such obvious admissions in it.

 

If they refuse to edit said log, I will delete it. If I do nothing, its a blatant admission to other cache attempters that I will allow anyone to just log my finds willy nilly.

 

This sounds pretty reasonable.