Us Property, No Trespassing

January 17, 2006

"Looks can be deciving", GCRH64, is on property formerly part of Barber's Point Naval Air Station. When the base was closed, over 1000 acres were retained by the US govt., including the parcel on which this cache is located. This parcel was posted with "Authorized Personnel Only" signs before the closure, and now has new "US Property, No Trespassing" signs all along the roadside. I posted a SBA note, but the owner claimed there are no signs (with left and right photos showing the signs on edge, and not readable) and that base police authorized the cache. My log was deleted and there is currently no mention of the issue on the listing. I'd be happy to search for this cache, but only with the name of the authorizing agent in my pocket. What's a body to do? Naturally, I'm considered the local 'cacher from hell'.

Edited January 17, 2006 by edchen

6.4k · January 17, 2006

Even if the cache owner deletes the SBA, it still went to the reviewers. Give them time to check it out.

7.2k · January 17, 2006

Naturally, I'm considered the local 'cacher from hell'.

Don't feel like the Lone Ranger. I don't hesitate to question questionable caches either.

Some folks might call us "Cache Police." But ask yourself this question; how would you feel if some authority found one of these caches and the next thing you know your state is battling restrictive anti-geocaching legislation?

Stand your ground. If there is, in fact, the proper permission then you should be able to cite it if you are ever questioned.

6.4k · January 17, 2006

but the owner claimed there are no signs (with left and right photos showing the signs on edge, and not readable) and that base police authorized the cache.

Perhaps you can get a pic of the same view of the cache area including the signs? If he has permission to ignore no trespassing signs (and I have done a few where that was the case) it should be clearly stated on the cache page who authorizes it.

6.4k · January 17, 2006

ask yourself this question; how would you feel if some authority found one of these caches and the next thing you know your state is battling restrictive anti-geocaching legislation?

Maybe they are just being creative?

January 17, 2006

Well, the reviewer suggested it be moved (but it wasn't). Yes, I've had the 'cache police' name thrown at me. I consider it an honor, though the 'accuser' stated "people like you will be the end of geocaching". LOL

7.2k · January 17, 2006

ask yourself this question; how would you feel if some authority found one of these caches and the next thing you know your state is battling restrictive anti-geocaching legislation?

Maybe they are just being creative?

I think in our case the legislator was the one getting "creative." :anibad:

3.3k · January 17, 2006

I ran into a similar cache, except that the cache was placed on private property to begin with - and the suggested trailhead displayed a "No Trespassing" sign!

After a little research, I found out who managed the property, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and posted a SBA note with a copy of the email from the US FWS.

7.2k · January 17, 2006

I consider it an honor, though the 'accuser' stated "people like you will be the end of geocaching". LOL

I think that quote was a little short. It probably should have read, "People like you will be the end of geocaching the way I like to play it and get away with anything I think I can get away with."

I'd say the majority of the rules that are listed on this site is because some folks don't use a lick of sense.

2.2k · January 18, 2006

Well, the reviewer suggested it be moved (but it wasn't). Yes, I've had the 'cache police' name thrown at me. I consider it an honor, though the 'accuser' stated "people like you will be the end of geocaching". LOL

The end of geocaching is leaving caches like this active. Thank you for bringing it to the reviewer's attention.

January 18, 2006

I guess I am also a cache cop because I will not think twice about posting a SBA if I think a cache is somewhere it should not be. I found a cache in NJ that was uncomfortably close to a power plant, so I posted an SBA, and got ripped in the forums and by email. But if someone called the police because some strange individual with a gps and backback was lurking near the plant, that could be disastorous to our hobby. If all cacher just used common sense when placing caches and posting them on the site (myself included) we would not have to worry about it.

January 18, 2006

Cache owner says he has permission, which means he has been given the benefit of the doubt by me - the original cache reviewer. We had previously exchanged three e-mails about the fact that Barbers Point was a Naval Air Station, but except for a small section, is now State of Hawaii land. The cache owner is in the military, and says he has reviewed the cache location with the military police there.

I have the cache on my watch list and have not had reason to retract the listing. I am not going to get in the middle of the personality conflicts at play here, but do want to note that the cache was not approved with blinders on.

erik - geocaching.com admin

24.7k · January 18, 2006

The first point of contact is the cache owner. Give them a chance to do the right thing. They are the ones responsible. If the first thing you do is hit the SBA button you will not get a good reception.

In your shoes the only thing I would of done different is what I just posted. If the cache owner was in denail and there was no other way to get to the cache that was legitimate I'd follow up with the SBA log.

Because it's clearly posted this is the kind of cache that can give this activity a bad name.

Edit: erik88l-r's post was made before I hit "post on mine" better information can change things. Now the dilema is that it's posted "No Tresspassing" but apparently ok though I'd not know that as a random cacher seeking the cache. Where they are not posted I assume the owner has permission. Because this is I'd like to know who to talk to in case the MP that stops me isn't the one that knows what's going on.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Renegade Knight

4.5k · January 18, 2006

Ah, Barber's Point Naval Air Base. Brings back memories when in the USAF I pulled temperorary duty there for 2 months eating at the navy commissary (good food) or making peanut butter and jelly sandwiches at the Coast Guard station on base. Working on the beach in a communication's trailer; getting up at sunrise and skinny dipping in the ocean until I found out the local fishermen would pull out hammerhead sharks. And the time at our picnic when after weeks of no rain our bar-b-q started a fire that shut down the air strip for a couple of hours. ah, ... well sorry to drift off the topic.

Carry on.

January 18, 2006

A pleasant off-topic, but I wish a name and other information were provided in the listing. I suspect the police "approval" to be a sham or inadequate, since the signs were equally denied to exist. Furthermore, why tempt fate by putting a cache in a posted "No Trespassing" area, when other unposted areas are available? Yes, I have some history with the owner - a previous cache was moved because it was in a Heiau (sacred site), which the owner denied was a Heiau and claimed expert knowledge of Heiau construction, being a native Hawaiian.

Edited January 18, 2006 by edchen

7.2k · January 18, 2006

Cop: Didn't you see the "US Property, No Trespassing" signs? ~Points to the clearly visible sign.~

You: Sure I did, but I'm allowed.

Cop: Sez who?

You: The cache owner and a reviewer on the website.

Cop: Who are...?

You: ...

Cop: So, you're here trespassing behind clearly visible signs saying you shouldn't be here all on the say of someone you don't know. Do I have this correct?

You: Yep.

Cop: Hands on the car...

6.4k · January 18, 2006

Man, I'm agreeing with CR.

Only way a cache in an area such as that should be allowed to exist is with verifiable contact info for the permission giver on the cache page.

January 18, 2006

"Looks can be deciving", GCRH64, is on property formerly part of Barber's Point Naval Air Station. When the base was closed, over 1000 acres were retained by the US govt., including the parcel on which this cache is located. This parcel was posted with "Authorized Personnel Only" signs before the closure, and now has new "US Property, No Trespassing" signs all along the roadside. I posted a SBA note, but the owner claimed there are no signs (with left and right photos showing the signs on edge, and not readable) and that base police authorized the cache.

I don't care if the cache owner had a personal letter from George Bush. If there are "US Property - No Trespassing" signs there, I would avoid it like the plague.

10.1k · January 18, 2006

Yes, I can see why you're considered the 'geocacher from hell.' Many times, when land changes hands, the old 'No Trespassing' sign are not removed. I've seen my share of those.

I'm not familiar with Barber's Point, though I read in the posts that student drivers frequent the area. On a simple Google Search, I find: Barber's Point has 'been turned over to the state of Hawaii.'

This map: Kalaeola shows which areas are retained by the Federal Government. The cache in question is labeled as 'Recreational' and belonging to the state of Hawaii. This is very obviously no where near the 'Retained Federal Land". The approver in question seems to be satisfied. The maps indicate good reason for him to be. I do not see what your problem is.

And that did not take me long to find using Internet search engines.

1.7k · January 18, 2006

I've got to go wit MOPAR and C&R on this one. If the cacher has approval from the military police then he should have no problems with providing with a person to contact in case a cacher is stopped by the base police. Assuming the cache is on Federal land the military police will have huge issues with a cache on a military base and people wandering around a specific area on a regualr basis.

38.2k · January 18, 2006

Yes, I can see why you're considered the 'geocacher from hell.' Many times, when land changes hands, the old 'No Trespassing' sign are not removed. I've seen my share of those.
I'm not familiar with Barber's Point, though I read in the posts that student drivers frequent the area. On a simple Google Search, I find: Barber's Point has 'been turned over to the state of Hawaii.'

This map: Kalaeola shows which areas are retained by the Federal Government. The cache in question is labeled as 'Recreational' and belonging to the state of Hawaii. This is very obviously no where near the 'Retained Federal Land". The approver in question seems to be satisfied. The maps indicate good reason for him to be. I do not see what your problem is.

And that did not take me long to find using Internet search engines.

Hmmm, do we have a potential cache reviewer on our hands here?

Edited January 18, 2006 by briansnat

January 18, 2006

It is interesting to note how many people on the east coast and other points in the contigious 48 feel qualified to comment on land issues in Hawaii. The fact is, as Erik rightly points out, that except for small portions, Barber's Point NAS is no longer US government property. The military closed the base and transfered the P3 squadrons to Kaneohe NAS and other places. The land was transfered to the State of Hawaii and is now called Kalaeloa Field. The gates are open, the guard shacks are deserted and crumbling. The public has free access to much of the area.

Yes, there are US Government Property signs all over the place as there are many other signs, buildings and other artifacts of military occupation. They are there primarily because the military moved out and left them there. The State of Hawaii has not determined a new use for the land and has left everything as is.

As Erik also notes, you folks are getting sucked in to what is essentially a personality clash between edchen and the cache owner. He has found no support in the local forum, calling those who disagree with him emotional and ignorant. So he is taking his discussion to a national stage where he hopes that others who may not have complete information will agree with him. No one disagrees with the position that caches should not be placed on US Government property. But that is not the issue here. Kalaeloa is NOT US Government property. End of story.

January 18, 2006

On a simple Google Search, I find: Barber's Point has 'been turned over to the state of Hawaii.'
This map: Kalaeola shows which areas are retained by the Federal Government. The cache in question is labeled as 'Recreational' and belonging to the state of Hawaii. This is very obviously no where near the 'Retained Federal Land". The approver in question seems to be satisfied. The maps indicate good reason for him to be. I do not see what your problem is.

And that did not take me long to find using Internet search engines.

I am the cache owner. This subject has been beaten with a dead dog over and over and over again... Thanks to Harry Dolphin and the link to the map this should be the end of it. IT IS NOT UNDER FEDERAL CONTROL..... IT IS RECERATIONAL STATE OF HAWAII LAND... Edchen find something else to do... I knew this when I spoke with base police awhile ago.

24.7k · January 18, 2006

It is interesting to note how many people on the east coast and other points in the contigious 48 feel qualified to comment on land issues in Hawaii. ...

Hell yes, when it comes to land issues in general with the information posted in this thread. Better information can change an opinion.

Private Property issues are fairly similar. Being local you may have better information than someon else, but once it's all on the table unless there is some special issue that only a Hawaiian can understand it's not rocket science. It's a cache on posted property that looks like the signs should have been removed but have not been. I've found the same issue in Idaho while seeking caches. Plus some ranchers here like to post BLM land when in fact they have no right to do so.

Note: Most of my original opinion changed with Harry Dolphins and eric's posts. Better information.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Renegade Knight

24.7k · January 18, 2006

Yes, I can see why you're considered the 'geocacher from hell.' Many times, when land changes hands, the old 'No Trespassing' sign are not removed. I've seen my share of those.
I'm not familiar with Barber's Point, though I read in the posts that student drivers frequent the area. On a simple Google Search, I find: Barber's Point has 'been turned over to the state of Hawaii.'

This map: Kalaeola shows which areas are retained by the Federal Government. The cache in question is labeled as 'Recreational' and belonging to the state of Hawaii. This is very obviously no where near the 'Retained Federal Land". The approver in question seems to be satisfied. The maps indicate good reason for him to be. I do not see what your problem is.

And that did not take me long to find using Internet search engines.

Good job.

2.5k · January 18, 2006

I'm satisfied. Looks like some people have some crow to eat.

6.4k · January 18, 2006

I certainly don't mind eating crow (quite tasty if cooked right) but if the OP is telling the truth a few things don't jive.

Here's the whole post, to refresh everyone's memory:

"Looks can be deciving", GCRH64, is on property formerly part of Barber's Point Naval Air Station. When the base was closed, over 1000 acres were retained by the US govt., including the parcel on which this cache is located. This parcel was posted with "Authorized Personnel Only" signs before the closure, and now has new "US Property, No Trespassing" signs all along the roadside. I posted a SBA note, but the owner claimed there are no signs (with left and right photos showing the signs on edge, and not readable) and that base police authorized the cache. My log was deleted and there is currently no mention of the issue on the listing. I'd be happy to search for this cache, but only with the name of the authorizing agent in my pocket. What's a body to do? Naturally, I'm considered the local 'cacher from hell'.

Now, the parts that still don't sit right with me (if they are true).

This parcel was posted with "Authorized Personnel Only" signs before the closure, and now has new "US Property, No Trespassing" signs all along the roadside.

So these aren't old, left over signs. They are recent signs.

but the owner claimed there are no signs

But apparently there ARE signs. Nice new ones. Why lie if you are in the right? (again, I'm assuming the OP is truthful. If he's lying all bets are off)

Why not just say they are old signs that haven't been removed yet if that's the truth?

base police authorized the cache.

Why would you ask the base police for permission if the cache isn't on the base?

And if you DID have permission, what's the big deal about adding something like "R. Lee Ermey at the base commander's office OKed this cache" to the cache page?

My log was deleted and there is currently no mention of the issue on the listing.

I can see deleting the SBA depending on the wording, but if someone asked for one of my caches to be archived for this reason and I did have permission and it WAS ok I would add big bold red letters to the cache description addressing the concerns; so other cacher's wouldn't avoid my cache for the same reasons.

I would hope the majority of cachers would pass up a cache surrounded by no trespassing signs, and then post a SBA or shoot or an email to the reviewer when they got home absent of any info on the cache page.

January 18, 2006

LMAO!!!!!!

Hey Ed, I dont play chess, but I think it's your move.

1.4k · January 18, 2006

I'm satisfied. Looks like some people have some crow to eat.

Hopefully there are some lessons learned by this thread. I am a long time Hawaii resident and for this reason I would never jump into a local issue in another state without doing some very complete research. I would also not rush to support someone making some serious accusations without a deep understanding of that person's MO might be.

The fact is that you well intended folks got totally sucked into what can be decribed as a local tiff: hook, line, and sinker. The area has been open to the public for sometime and as someone as already pointed out, the military has left several signs and other remnants of their occupation. Ed Chen is not worthy of a comment.

January 18, 2006

As Erik also notes, you folks are getting sucked in to what is essentially a personality clash between edchen and the cache owner. He has found no support in the local forum, calling those who disagree with him emotional and ignorant. So he is taking his discussion to a national stage where he hopes that others who may not have complete information will agree with him.

Enough said......... Checkmate

January 18, 2006

As Erik also notes, you folks are getting sucked in to what is essentially a personality clash between edchen and the cache owner. He has found no support in the local forum, calling those who disagree with him emotional and ignorant. So he is taking his discussion to a national stage where he hopes that others who may not have complete information will agree with him.

Enough said......... Checkmate

oops, hit the button twice.

Edited January 18, 2006 by dblnaknak

3.3k · January 18, 2006

On a simple Google Search, I find: Barber's Point has 'been turned over to the state of Hawaii.'
This map: Kalaeola shows which areas are retained by the Federal Government. The cache in question is labeled as 'Recreational' and belonging to the state of Hawaii. This is very obviously no where near the 'Retained Federal Land". The approver in question seems to be satisfied. The maps indicate good reason for him to be. I do not see what your problem is.

And that did not take me long to find using Internet search engines.

I am the cache owner. This subject has been beaten with a dead dog over and over and over again... Thanks to Harry Dolphin and the link to the map this should be the end of it. IT IS NOT UNDER FEDERAL CONTROL..... IT IS RECERATIONAL STATE OF HAWAII LAND... Edchen find something else to do... I knew this when I spoke with base police awhile ago.

But if it's on Google, it MUST be accurate. In this case, the aforementioned map is dated July 2, 1999.

Many times, when land changes hands, the old 'No Trespassing' sign are not removed. I've seen my share of those.

And vice versa, new owners - new signs.

Pictures tell a thousand words; we need pictures!

January 18, 2006

I know this area. Roosevelt Road has been a public road since the base was closed. Just a block away is a baseball diamond that is open to the public. Last time I was on this little side road there was no "No Trespassing" signs or other restrictions. I drove around in the tulies there and encountered HPD (Honolulu Police Department) looking at a stolen and stripped car. He ask what I was doing out there and I explained I was looking for the remnants of the Mooring Mast benchmark. He was satisfied (after I explained about geochaching and benchmarks) and left.

Point 1: If this is a restricted area why did I not see any barriers or signs?

Point 2: If this is Federal property why was HPD there?

Point 3: Why didn’t HPD tell me to leave if it was restricted?

I can go take another look, but I don’t think anything has changed.

1.4k · January 18, 2006

Now, the parts that still don't sit right with me (if they are true).
This parcel was posted with "Authorized Personnel Only" signs before the closure, and now has new "US Property, No Trespassing" signs all along the roadside.

So these aren't old, left over signs. They are recent signs.

but the owner claimed there are no signs

But apparently there ARE signs. Nice new ones. Why lie if you are in the right? (again, I'm assuming the OP is truthful. If he's lying all bets are off)

Why not just say they are old signs that haven't been removed yet if that's the truth?

base police authorized the cache.

Why would you ask the base police for permission if the cache isn't on the base?

And if you DID have permission, what's the big deal about adding something like "R. Lee Ermey at the base commander's office OKed this cache" to the cache page?

My log was deleted and there is currently no mention of the issue on the listing.

I can see deleting the SBA depending on the wording, but if someone asked for one of my caches to be archived for this reason and I did have permission and it WAS ok I would add big bold red letters to the cache description addressing the concerns; so other cacher's wouldn't avoid my cache for the same reasons.

I would hope the majority of cachers would pass up a cache surrounded by no trespassing signs, and then post a SBA or shoot or an email to the reviewer when they got home absent of any info on the cache page.

Here's some more information for the non-residents to work with:

1. Mr. Chen is involved in a personal argument with the owner of this cache over another incident that occurred a week or so ago.

2. The argument revolves around Mr. Chen seeking out a recently archived cache and removing it without consulting the owner. A custody battle of the cache erupted and a flame war broke out.

3. In retaliation for this the cache owner in turn deleted all of Ed's find logs on all of his other caches.

http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=7465

2k · January 18, 2006

After reading all the information it sounds like the local cachers know what's going on, and that we have all been mislead by someone carrying a grudge.

7.2k · January 18, 2006

I'm satisfied. Looks like some people have some crow to eat.

Not until the OP can't produce pictures of these signs.

The issue isn't ultimately whether the land is actually restricted or not. It's the fact there are signs posting the area and no mention on the cache page these can be ignored and by who's authority.

If I show up with cache page in hand and see a "No Trespassing" sign, I'm going to go with the information I have on hand--and certainly not the opinions of folks thousands of miles away on some website forum. I'm not going to assume the placer is in the right. I'm not going to assume the reviewer really knows what is going on. I'm not going to assume I can safely ignore signs. How would I know these signs weren't new and put up because the land owner was tired of folks traipsing around his property?

No, because of The Recent Unpleasentness here in a South Carolina I've beome very aware of and sensitive to these issues.

I've also became aware of reviewers reluctance in archiving caches when the SBA writer can be perceived as having a grudge against the owner. You can provide photographic proof with many disapproving logs from other cachers and still not get it archived. Clear and unequivical instances of illegal--not just inappropriate--placements can survive when someone with a grudge against the other is involved.

If I can't approach a cache without running into private or restricted property, I'm certainly going to question the hide.

It's not dinner time just yet.

1.4k · January 18, 2006

"Not until the OP can't produce pictures of these signs"

So you must be the silent majority that Ed makes reference to when he's reminded that not one local cacher supports any of his actions and why he proudly carries the -GeoChacher from Hell- tilte.

It's common knowledge that military also left behind abandoned communication equipment, buildings the size of football fields, an airstrip, lookout towers, and so on. The clean up effort to remove all trace of their occupation is massive and a very public topic here.

Each and every Hawaii resident (with the exception of the person that started the thread) has come into this forum and said that it's now public land. None of us have shown any reservations what so ever in saying that this is no longer US Government Property and the signs are outdated and meaningless as the infastructure. I am personally working with a private homebuilder in designing childrens' recreation areas less than a mile from where this cache is located.... and yes, all of it will be for public use.

A map indicating it's been public land since 1999 has been offered.

A recent thread in a local Geocaching Forum has been shown exposing the real motivation behind starting this thread in the first place.

The reviewer has offered his unbiased opinion on the situation and why the cache is still active.

The cache owner has indicated that he's talked to local law enforcement.

....yet you remained focused on the existence of a sign?

Let me leave you with my favorite quote from your new universal paralell twin that pretty well sums up his MO. When asked if his badgering of this particular cache owner (and him saying he is going to remove 9 cache hides because he doesn't want to deal with being assaulted) is a step in the right direction for local GeoCaching in Hawaii:

"A 'step in the right direction' is discouraging disgruntled, disrespectful and discourteous participants."

Your dinner is getting cold.

7.2k · January 18, 2006

Your dinner is getting cold.

It's not yet been served.

You miss the point.

There are signs and there is no indication on the cache page that you can ignore them. That's only 17 words to understand. The issue isn't just about Hawaii and your "common knowledge." It's about how to deal with situations just like this.

Re-read my post. I have experience in these issues and, in fact, there is one on-going in the area right now. No one should be presented with a cache with no apparent legal access and no explaination on the cache page. Period.

Should I remind everyone of quote from this page:

However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived.

If you can't understand the point of you shouldn't be ignoring "No Trespassing" signs, then you've got a lot to learn about landowner relations.

"Well, even though there are signs, it must be okay because it got approved" is not the way to go about geocaching. How are you to know the next instance won't get you arrested?

3.3k · January 18, 2006

Well said CoyoteRed. We have to look beyond the bickering between the involved cachers/owners and comment on the facts presented.

I think the key fact is edchen's statement, "... This parcel was posted with "Authorized Personnel Only" signs before the closure, and now has new "US Property, No Trespassing" signs all along the roadside." This is the key issue.

Local cachers have stated they live a mile away or the area is going to be made public, but no one has commented on these new signs. Do they exist? Are they really new? If they do exist and are new, do they pertain to the cache's placement. In other words, is there legal access from a different direction?

My opinion on the bickering is edchen should not have removed the cache, even if it was archived. He said he found the cache plundered and swag thrown about. I would have put everything back together and rehide the cache at GZ to give the owner a chance to address why it was archived to begin with. And I do think the owner over-reacted in assuming edchen's actions were evil for taking the cache. He did notify you; he could have taken it and not told anyone. I think you guys need to sit down and have a beer - together. That, or roshambo! <_<

1.4k · January 18, 2006

"Well said CoyoteRed. We have to look beyond the bickering between the involved cachers/owners and comment on the facts presented."

I am a private consultant who has been commissioned by the current landowner/developer to develop the area for -public- recreational use. If this

is not a good enough source for you then I suppose I will throw your dinner in the trash. You never intended to listen to reason or facts anyway.

Aloha.

11.3k · January 18, 2006

How does a cacher who arrives at the location and sees those "No Trespassing" signs know it is okay to proceed past those signs?

Just wondering . . . :laughing:

January 18, 2006

"Well said CoyoteRed. We have to look beyond the bickering between the involved cachers/owners and comment on the facts presented."

I am a private consultant who has been commissioned by the current landowner/developer to develop the area for -public- recreational use. If this

is not a good enough source for you then I suppose I will throw your dinner in the trash. You never intended to listen to reason or facts anyway.

Aloha.

Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, that is NOT a good enough source as long as there are U.S. Government "No Trespassing" signs on the site. Call me crazy, that's just the way I am.

And oh yeah, if that is really your job and you are interested in allowing people to geocache on that site, might I respectfully suggest that you move "Remove No Trespassing Signs" a little higher up in the ol' project plan?

2.3k · January 18, 2006

I think that is precisely the point CoyoteRed is trying to make. Why not simply make some notation on the cache page to the effect that the cache is located on land that was once in possession of the US govt. and that, though posted, it is now ok to search for a cache there.

I also think that what all the local cachers are basically saying is, this is general knowledge for those living there. Most everyone that lives there (at least the ones posting in this forum) knows of the history and that the land is now open to the public. It seems their position is this is common knowledge, and thus needs no further explanation.

My personal opinion is that I have no opinion on this one. Seems like an issue the local cachers need to hash out amongst themselves.

January 18, 2006

Anyone else wondering on the actuall existance of these signs? The only place stated is by someone who obviously has a grief with the cache hider...and I'm hesitant at this point to take just someone's word on anything in this thread.

It is humorous to me that people are so quick to attack everyone on either side, but it does make for interesting reading.

:laughing:

Celticwulf

January 18, 2006

Yes, I can see why you're considered the 'geocacher from hell.' Many times, when land changes hands, the old 'No Trespassing' sign are not removed. I've seen my share of those.
I'm not familiar with Barber's Point, though I read in the posts that student drivers frequent the area. On a simple Google Search, I find: Barber's Point has 'been turned over to the state of Hawaii.'

This map: Kalaeola shows which areas are retained by the Federal Government. The cache in question is labeled as 'Recreational' and belonging to the state of Hawaii. This is very obviously no where near the 'Retained Federal Land". The approver in question seems to be satisfied. The maps indicate good reason for him to be. I do not see what your problem is.

And that did not take me long to find using Internet search engines.

A very nice map indeed. However, it bears no resemblance to the "official tax map key" which clearly indicates actual ownership of each individual parcel - this one remaining in the hands of the US Government. The "US Property, No Trespassing" signs are new, while the old Navy signs,"Authorized Personnel Only", have been crumpled, though not destroyed.

I will provide photos of the signs, both old and new. However, it'll take some time, as I only have a disposable film camera.

I'm surprised at how many may believe that a newspaper map of proposed ideas bears much weight as to the actual situation . Even if this is the eventual fate of the area, why no mention that the signs can be disregarded?

As for personal issues - I have never met the cache owner, I have no opinion of them as a person. Yes, I removed a cache of their's that had been archived for 3 weeks (after any and all issues concerning that archiving were set to rest), and I posted a log so they could retrieve it. There is nothing personal in our interactions. Oh, maybe the fact that 4 of my finds on their caches were deleted without cause (twice), which they have just now informed me was a 'strong-arm' method to retrieve their cache (which was previously offerred, no tactics necessary).

Edited January 18, 2006 by edchen

20.7k · January 18, 2006

Back to the original question: What would I do if I encountered a 'No Trespassing' sign while geocaching?

The first thing that I would do is try to find another way to ground zero. If I couldn't find legal access, I would move on to the next cache.

Did this cacher do that? Have other cachers posted that they were not able to access the location?

Why do we allow ourselves to be dragged into issues like this? Why do some people have to make every cache about SC? This thread brings up so many questions.

Edited January 18, 2006 by sbell111

3.8k · January 18, 2006

I certainly don't mind eating crow (quite tasty if cooked right) ...

I hear it tastes a lot like owl. :laughing:

20.7k · January 18, 2006

... except more filling. :laughing:

11.3k · January 18, 2006

When I posted a DNF for a cache that required me to pass by "No Trespasing" signs, I posted the intimidating picture in my log.

Other cachers are less intimidated by the signs and the cache continues to be found. I, however, won't look for it . . . just doesn't seem like a very good idea . . . :laughing:

If the cache in question is in a location that is legal to access, even if you are walking right past "No Trespasing" signs, why doesn't the cache owner edit the cache page to state that.

If a "permission slip" exists, why not upload a scanned image of it to reassure cachers who do not have locally-accepted "knowledge?"

Just wondering . . . . :laughing:

20.7k · January 18, 2006

Perhaps Edchen could simply post a pic of the sign and put this poor old horse to rest.

Us Property, No Trespassing

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment