Illegal &/or Dangerous Caches

[+Mary&Dave]

I would not be suprised to hear that one of your future cache hides was stolen. or maybe your singles bug.

 

Let's not advocate stealing caches and travel bugs. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Edited June 16, 2006 by Mary&Dave

[CoyoteRed]

I've stated my disdain(sp?) for cache cops...

 

Well, there is a need for folks bringing concerns to the table over some caches. The thing is the person doing the reporting should abide by the decision of the community or the listing site. I've reported caches before and they've been archived. Why? Well, because they were illegally placed. No, not just a bad idea, but permanent damages made to private property where you know no one would be able to get permission. It wasn't my own position either. Other cachers made the same comments.

 

In short, don't be afraid to bring concerns to the attention of the community, but don't go off half cocked, Rambo-style.

[+erikwillke]

I would not be suprised to hear that one of your future cache hides was stolen. or maybe your singles bug.

 

Let's not advocate stealing caches and travel bugs. Two wrongs doesn't make a right.

 

believe me, I do not advocate that. I don't want a martyr and I wouldn't want anyone to steal my cache or bug. I was just saying I wouldn' t be suprised if it did happen.

[+erikwillke]

I've stated my disdain(sp?) for cache cops...

 

Well, there is a need for folks bringing concerns to the table over some caches. The thing is the person doing the reporting should abide by the decision of the community or the listing site. I've reported caches before and they've been archived. Why? Well, because they were illegally placed. No, not just a bad idea, but permanent damages made to private property where you know no one would be able to get permission. It wasn't my own position either. Other cachers made the same comments.

 

In short, don't be afraid to bring concerns to the attention of the community, but don't go off half cocked, Rambo-style.

 

I agree with what you have said here. When I say cache cop I mean some one who complains or takes action against a cache without actually going to the cache or have been exposed to the PC. I would elaborate more but I would be going off topic and maybe a little personal against the person I have in mind.

[CoyoteRed]

I agree with what you have said here.

 

I thought you did, but I just wanted to make it clearer that there is a major different between bringing up a concern to the community and going around getting the authorities to pull caches. I just don't want it to seem as those the two were lumped into the same pile. One is being a responsible cacher, the other is not*.

 

 

*I, too, have some choice words for folks like this.

[+wimseyguy]

Better make sure your tetnus shots are up to date before lifting any of those parking lot lamppost skirts too.

[watercop]

The Muggle Speaks,

 

I'm the City Official who found and confiscated the cache in question. My concern in confiscating this cache was twofold:

 

1. The cache was located on City of Albany property that is part of the municipal water treatment plant. Therefore, in order to access this cache, a person had to violate Federal trespassing laws as applied to the protection of municipal drinking water supplies.

 

2. Liability. Once the City was made aware of the cache, we had an obligation to the citizens of Albany to protect the City from any liability in the case of an accident.

 

Because I was not informed of the cache's exact location, I had to create an account on this website to access the clues leading to the cache. After the finding and confiscation, I immediately contacted Pablo Mac and informed him of the situation. He was polite, cooperative, and even apologetic. In short, a true gentleman. I made the cache and its contents available for him to retrieve at his convenience.

 

On a side note, I'm probably in his debt now for turning me on to geocaching. Now if I can just explain the purchase of a new GPS to my wife!

 

Bill Palma y Mesa

City of Albany Environmental Services

City of Albany, OR

Office (541) 917-7600 Ext. 4616

Cellular (541) 979-1707

Fax (541) 917-7615

bill.palmaymesa@cityofalbany.net

SEMPER FI

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The Muggle Speaks,

 

I'm the City Official who found and confiscated the cache in question. My concern in confiscating this cache was twofold:

 

1. The cache was located on City of Albany property that is part of the municipal water treatment plant. Therefore, in order to access this cache, a person had to violate Federal trespassing laws as applied to the protection of municipal drinking water supplies.

 

2. Liability. Once the City was made aware of the cache, we had an obligation to the citizens of Albany to protect the City from any liability in the case of an accident.

 

Because I was not informed of the cache's exact location, I had to create an account on this website to access the clues leading to the cache. After the finding and confiscation, I immediately contacted Pablo Mac and informed him of the situation. He was polite, cooperative, and even apologetic. In short, a true gentleman. I made the cache and its contents available for him to retrieve at his convenience.

 

On a side note, I'm probably in his debt now for turning me on to geocaching. Now if I can just explain the purchase of a new GPS to my wife!

 

Bill Palma y Mesa

City of Albany Environmental Services

City of Albany, OR

Office (541) 917-7600 Ext. 4616

Cellular (541) 979-1707

Fax (541) 917-7615

bill.palmaymesa@cityofalbany.net

SEMPER FI

Welcome to geocaching! One of the many great things about this site is that if any cache is found to be placed in a bad location it will be dealt with. Sometimes it's by a proactive city employee, other times by the cache reviewers. I'd like to say thanks for returning this cache to the owner and educating us all about this particular piece of property. Not everyone would know that this type of property is off limits unless there is a sign posted at the location.

[+Criminal]

The Muggle Speaks,

 

I'm the City Official who found and confiscated the cache in question. My concern in confiscating this cache was twofold:

 

1. The cache was located on City of Albany property that is part of the municipal water treatment plant. Therefore, in order to access this cache, a person had to violate Federal trespassing laws as applied to the protection of municipal drinking water supplies.

 

2. Liability. Once the City was made aware of the cache, we had an obligation to the citizens of Albany to protect the City from any liability in the case of an accident.

 

Because I was not informed of the cache's exact location, I had to create an account on this website to access the clues leading to the cache. After the finding and confiscation, I immediately contacted Pablo Mac and informed him of the situation. He was polite, cooperative, and even apologetic. In short, a true gentleman. I made the cache and its contents available for him to retrieve at his convenience.

 

On a side note, I'm probably in his debt now for turning me on to geocaching. Now if I can just explain the purchase of a new GPS to my wife!

 

Bill Palma y Mesa

City of Albany Environmental Services

City of Albany, OR

Office (541) 917-7600 Ext. 4616

Cellular (541) 979-1707

Fax (541) 917-7615

bill.palmaymesa@cityofalbany.net

SEMPER FI

Cool!

You found it, so don't forget to log your find on the cache page.

[+Renegade Knight]

The Muggle Speaks,

 

I'm the City Official who found and confiscated the cache in question. My concern in confiscating this cache was twofold:

 

1. The cache was located on City of Albany property that is part of the municipal water treatment plant. Therefore, in order to access this cache, a person had to violate Federal trespassing laws as applied to the protection of municipal drinking water supplies.

 

2. Liability. Once the City was made aware of the cache, we had an obligation to the citizens of Albany to protect the City from any liability in the case of an accident.

 

....

 

Actually it's good to see someone from a city post on the issue. Thanks for stopping in. I'm still going to grill you though.

 

1. Would you care to explain those laws and exactly how they apply? I find it ironic that those same laws don't have my municipality placing razorwire fences, no trespassing signs and guard dogs, around several known water supply buildings. Without clarification it seems like using a law that may or may not apply as a smokescreen for removing the cache.

 

2. Liability is another smokescreen and used so often as an excuse to say "No" that it's virtually meaningless. Anyone can sue anyone at any time over anything. Case in point. A teacher may arrange tour of a water treatment plant. Those individuals may get hurt and sue. Yet the odds are the city would be willing to provide the educational opportunity. Kids at any time can climb all over that bridge and the fences yet the bridge and fences remain accessible. Apparently access is allowed in and around the immediate premises. Just not caching access. If liablity is a true concern there should be no access whatsoever for any purpose other than operating the water treatment plant. Of course federal money tends to require multiple uses of land.

 

As an aside on liablity. In my state if you do not charge for the use of your lands for recreational purposes you are not laible if someone gets hurt. My guess is that the law was intended to encourage farmers and ranchers to allow hunting. We had a canal company so worried about liablity for a bike path that they required that we pay them a yearly fee to cover their costs and insurance premiums. Thus they had us pay for the use of their facilities (since they don't actually own the land) for recreational purposes. That effectivly increased their liablity out of the fear of liablity.

 

3. Welcome to geocaching, you will find it's as addictive as crack but in a good way.

[+Pablo Mac]

As much as I regret to see one of my more fun and challenging caches go by the wayside, it did have a healthy lifespan, and will be a great memory for me and the cachers who found it. Maybe I'll do an LPC "Memorial to Bridge #6" cache nearby, and invite MomToo! to FTF it.

 

On a side note, I'm probably in his debt now for turning me on to geocaching.

If all this hoopla results in one new cacher enjoying this hobby/sport/obsession half as much as I do, then it's all been worth it. I'll be happy to mentor this new cacher in the Pablo Mac tradition of fun & adventure.

 

Now if I can just explain the purchase of a new GPS to my wife!

Geocaching is but one of many great uses for a GPSr, grasshopper.

 

SEMPER FI

Watercop, we share a lot in common. Semper Fi back to you, brother.

[+budd-rdc]

Cool!

You found it, so don't forget to log your find on the cache page.

Don't forget to sign the log book inside the container to avoid any more controversies.

 

Thank you, watercops, for taking the time to come to the forums and explaining the issues clearly.

[watercop]

As much as I regret to see one of my more fun and challenging caches go by the wayside, it did have a healthy lifespan, and will be a great memory for me and the cachers who found it. Maybe I'll do an LPC "Memorial to Bridge #6" cache nearby, and invite MomToo! to FTF it.

 

On a side note, I'm probably in his debt now for turning me on to geocaching.

If all this hoopla results in one new cacher enjoying this hobby/sport/obsession half as much as I do, then it's all been worth it. I'll be happy to mentor this new cacher in the Pablo Mac tradition of fun & adventure.

 

Now if I can just explain the purchase of a new GPS to my wife!

Geocaching is but one of many great uses for a GPSr, grasshopper.

 

SEMPER FI

Watercop, we share a lot in common. Semper Fi back to you, brother.

 

I don't have a clue on the formatting aspects of this forum. Just want to say that I'd like to take you up on that offer Pablo Mac!

Edited June 18, 2006 by watercop

[+sbell111]

Ooh-Rah!

[+Team Cotati]

If I encounter a cache that I deem to be irresponsibly dangerous to the caching community, you can rest assured that I'll submit an SBA.

[+Bluesman63]

Hmmm, a certain Rick James song comes to mind. And just when I thought this wasn't going to get any more interesting.

 

LOL! I was thinking the same thing when I read that TB listing.

[+Pablo Mac]

If I encounter a cache that I deem to be irresponsibly dangerous to the caching community, you can rest assured that I'll submit an SBA.

Only after making an attempt to contact the cache owner privately, I hope.

[+FireRef]

Interesting thread... I can see multiple points of view on this one...

 

Here's another situation...

 

In our area, there have been a number of very ...hmmm, challenging caches placed. I myself don't plan to go after a number of them, because I'm not that psycho. Some of them aren't that bad - wandering under a very small bridge or through a relatively large pipe under a small bridge isn't a big deal. There are several that are hundreds of yards up a pipe, some pipes large enough to stand up for the entire distances. I considered these in the beginning to be rather dangerous, and the terrain ratings as well as the multiple warnings that are placed on the cache page make sure to alert everyone to the danger and to be sure they are prepared before they attempt to seek these caches.

 

Myself, I don't have any problem with these caches. To each their own... and for now, these aren't my types. Maybe sometime in the future. There are definitely enough people in my area that are interested in finding them.

 

The next question I have, then, is ... are these "legal"? In most cases, the ones I'm referring to are in drain pipes or storm sewers, some rather large ones. I don't want to get the people who placed them mad, because they are responsible for a large number of caches in this area, as well as a number of very good ones. They also appear to have taken every safety precaution necessary in their warnings that a reasonable person would. And as I said, I'd just like to know for my own peace of mind, should there come a time I have the desire (and it doesn't seem like it's that far off) to go urban spelunking...

 

FireRef

Dave Rinke

[+grey_wolf & momcat]

Interesting thread... I can see multiple points of view on this one...

 

Here's another situation...

 

In our area, there have been a number of very ...hmmm, challenging caches placed. I myself don't plan to go after a number of them, because I'm not that psycho. Some of them aren't that bad - wandering under a very small bridge or through a relatively large pipe under a small bridge isn't a big deal. There are several that are hundreds of yards up a pipe, some pipes large enough to stand up for the entire distances. I considered these in the beginning to be rather dangerous, and the terrain ratings as well as the multiple warnings that are placed on the cache page make sure to alert everyone to the danger and to be sure they are prepared before they attempt to seek these caches.

 

Myself, I don't have any problem with these caches. To each their own... and for now, these aren't my types. Maybe sometime in the future. There are definitely enough people in my area that are interested in finding them.

 

The next question I have, then, is ... are these "legal"? In most cases, the ones I'm referring to are in drain pipes or storm sewers, some rather large ones. I don't want to get the people who placed them mad, because they are responsible for a large number of caches in this area, as well as a number of very good ones. They also appear to have taken every safety precaution necessary in their warnings that a reasonable person would. And as I said, I'd just like to know for my own peace of mind, should there come a time I have the desire (and it doesn't seem like it's that far off) to go urban spelunking...

 

FireRef

Dave Rinke

 

I personally would hate to have the challenging caches go away. I don't do the ones that don't appeal to me and if someone is too soft or sweet to do the physical and exciting ones, they shouldn't do them. They also shouldn't whine and ruin it for the rest of us. (Another Semper Fi)

[+Kacky]

I personally would hate to have the challenging caches go away. I don't do the ones that don't appeal to me and if someone is too soft or sweet to do the physical and exciting ones, they shouldn't do them. They also shouldn't whine and ruin it for the rest of us. (Another Semper Fi)

 

Good point, but what if it's the cache placer who's ruining it for the rest of us? If they're placing without permission and those caches get removed by cops or whomever, then what if the city uses that as a basis for rescinding permission on all caches?

[+sbell111]

How does this thread differ from the others? What's wrong with shooting the owner an email if you have questions?

[+grey_wolf & momcat]

I personally would hate to have the challenging caches go away. I don't do the ones that don't appeal to me and if someone is too soft or sweet to do the physical and exciting ones, they shouldn't do them. They also shouldn't whine and ruin it for the rest of us. (Another Semper Fi)

 

Good point, but what if it's the cache placer who's ruining it for the rest of us? If they're placing without permission and those caches get removed by cops or whomever, then what if the city uses that as a basis for rescinding permission on all caches?

 

If we find it is in an improperly place cache, the owners in this area pull it as soon as the owner finds out, we the cache owners and cachers in this area look out for each other. We watch for these problems as well as do the approvers.

[+Team Cotati]

If I encounter a cache that I deem to be irresponsibly dangerous to the caching community, you can rest assured that I'll submit an SBA.

Only after making an attempt to contact the cache owner privately, I hope.

 

Make note of the fact in the log that I post and send an email to the owner. All three actions will be taken silmultaneously.

[+sbell111]

If I encounter a cache that I deem to be irresponsibly dangerous to the caching community, you can rest assured that I'll submit an SBA.

Only after making an attempt to contact the cache owner privately, I hope.

Make note of the fact in the log that I post and send an email to the owner. All three actions will be taken silmultaneously.

With all due respect, I think the concern that many have regarding your comment is that we don't know what your definition of 'irresponsibly dangerous to the caching community' is. Edited June 20, 2006 by sbell111

[+grey_wolf & momcat]

If I encounter a cache that I deem to be irresponsibly dangerous to the caching community, you can rest assured that I'll submit an SBA.

Only after making an attempt to contact the cache owner privately, I hope.

Make note of the fact in the log that I post and send an email to the owner. All three actions will be taken silmultaneously.

With all due respect, I think the concern that many have regarding your comment is that we don't know what your definition of 'irresponsibly dangerous to the caching community' is.

 

Should talk to the cache owner first, you might not have a good understanding of what you see or don't see. The approver level should be a last resort IMHO. We have found out that caches were in forbidden locations long after the cache was located. They have always been removed "post haste" even when we hated to lose a great cache.

[+grey_wolf & momcat]

Caches hidden in caves and mine shafts are unsafe unless posted otherwise. Many times you could be entering an oxygen deficient atmosphere. If the cache is hidden close to the entrance and I mean close, I would not enter, unless you have the gear necessary to verify safety.

 

Whether i do dangerous caches is my call not yours. There are a lot of 1/1 caches around.

[+Pablo Mac]

...what if the city uses that as a basis for rescinding permission on all caches?

We all know what would likely happen anyway if and when a city denies permission for all caches on City property. I don't think there are too many cities that would/could dedicate the resources necessary to keep tabs on and gather up every offending cache on a perpetual basis. I think they wisely see the value in allowing caches placed on City property as much as possible.

[watercop]

...what if the city uses that as a basis for rescinding permission on all caches?

We all know what would likely happen anyway if and when a city denies permission for all caches on City property. I don't think there are too many cities that would/could dedicate the resources necessary to keep tabs on and gather up every offending cache on a perpetual basis. I think they wisely see the value in allowing caches placed on City property as much as possible.

Speaking from a professional standpoint, the last thing we want to do is worry about how to regulate geocaching and the proper placement of caches. Remember, most City property is public property. Talk about trying to herd cats! Now, speaking as a future geocacher, I have seen in this past week in this forum the means of "policing" ourselves. Trust me, most problems are better off handled "in-house" if at all possible. Not every municipal official out there will want to be as understanding to the geocaching community as yours truly!

 

Semper Fi

 

Watercop

[+grey_wolf & momcat]

...what if the city uses that as a basis for rescinding permission on all caches?

We all know what would likely happen anyway if and when a city denies permission for all caches on City property. I don't think there are too many cities that would/could dedicate the resources necessary to keep tabs on and gather up every offending cache on a perpetual basis. I think they wisely see the value in allowing caches placed on City property as much as possible.

Speaking from a professional standpoint, the last thing we want to do is worry about how to regulate geocaching and the proper placement of caches. Remember, most City property is public property. Talk about trying to herd cats! Now, speaking as a future geocacher, I have seen in this past week in this forum the means of "policing" ourselves. Trust me, most problems are better off handled "in-house" if at all possible. Not every municipal official out there will want to be as understanding to the geocaching community as yours truly!

 

Semper Fi

 

Watercop

 

Just what we need is having to get "muggle types" approval in all caches we post. Been stopped by the cops before and have been one. Better get a cache "future Geocacher"

 

Semper Fi

 

Grey_wolf

[+Pablo Mac]

Maybe I should start posting

of my more dangerous cache placement missions.

[+grey_wolf & momcat]

Maybe I should start posting

of my more dangerous cache placement missions.

 

That area looks like the places i get poison ivy and leave samples of my DNA.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

...what if the city uses that as a basis for rescinding permission on all caches?

We all know what would likely happen anyway if and when a city denies permission for all caches on City property. I don't think there are too many cities that would/could dedicate the resources necessary to keep tabs on and gather up every offending cache on a perpetual basis. I think they wisely see the value in allowing caches placed on City property as much as possible.

Speaking from a professional standpoint, the last thing we want to do is worry about how to regulate geocaching and the proper placement of caches. Remember, most City property is public property. Talk about trying to herd cats! Now, speaking as a future geocacher, I have seen in this past week in this forum the means of "policing" ourselves. Trust me, most problems are better off handled "in-house" if at all possible. Not every municipal official out there will want to be as understanding to the geocaching community as yours truly!

 

Semper Fi

 

Watercop

Watercop raises an excellent issue, and one which has been raised before, both at the national level and here on the forums of the Maryland Geocachig Society, about the wisdom of self-policing rather than obsessively trying to run every cache hide possibility by city authorities in hopes of gaining explicit formal approval. To me, the gist of the matter is essentially that if it is reasonably obvious that the potential hide spot in question is likely publicly-accessible, or if it appears that no one would have to trespass in order to seek (or place) the cache, then it is sometimes better just to place the cache, rather than place one or more (often-overworked and understaffed) city administrators in the uncomfortable position of possibly having to say "no" to a formal request for explicit permission, because (as my local city officials keep reminding me during candid and friendly off-the-record conversations) giving formal explicit approval could open the municipality to liability for any injuries incurred by seekers. So, many municipalities and agencies prefer a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to the matter.

 

I am fortunate to have made the acquaintance of two fairly high-placed administrators in the city near to where we live (we live well outside city limits), and they have told me off the record that they really cannot afford to be asked for formal explicit permisson for cache placement on city properties for just that reason (as stated above.) On the other hand, they have also told me that if I am considering anything that might be "too public" and too much of a "red-flag" activity (i.e., too obvious to the public), then it might be best to first consult with them -- privately and off-record -- to garner a "considered opinion". And, in one case where I informally (again, off the record) ran a possible cache hide scenario (a hide on a tiny man-made island in the center of a lake in the city park in the center of town) by one of these officials, he asked me to please not hide the cache, because the lake is located in a very popular park with high traffic, and also in view of nearby busy roads, and he was concerned about the chance that a citizen might complain if they saw someone wading, swimming or boating out to the island, and that a police officer, particularly if they were having a bad day, might invoke a little-known law on the city books forbidding wading, swimming or boating in the park lake. And so I agreed to skip that particular hide site!

Edited June 22, 2006 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+Criminal]

Watercop raises an excellent issue, and one which has been raised before, both at the national level and here on the forums of the Maryland Geocachig Society, about the wisdom of self-policing rather than obsessively trying to run every cache hide possibility by city authorities in hopes of gaining explicit formal approval. To me, the gist of the matter is essentially that if it is reasonably obvious that the potential hide spot in question is likely publicly-accessible, or if it appears that no one would have to trespass in order to seek (or place) the cache, then it is sometimes better just to place the cache, rather than place one or more (often-overworked and understaffed) city administrators in the uncomfortable position of possibly having to say "no" to a formal request for explicit permission, because (as my local city officials keep reminding me during candid and friendly off-the-record conversations) giving formal explicit approval could open the municipality to liability for any injuries incurred by seekers. So, many municipalities and agencies prefer a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to the matter.

 

I am fortunate to have made the acquaintance of two fairly high-placed administrators in the city near to where we live (we live well outside city limits), and they have told me off the record that they really cannot afford to be asked for formal explicit permisson for cache placement on city properties for just that reason (as stated above.) On the other hand, they have also told me that if I am considering anything that might be "too public" and too much of a "red-flag" activity (i.e., too obvious to the public), then it might be best to first consult with them -- privately and off-record -- to garner a "considered opinion". And, in one case where I informally (again, off the record) ran a possible cache hide scenario (a hide on a tiny man-made island in the center of a lake in the city park in the center of town) by one of these officials, he asked me to please not hide the cache, because the lake is located in a very popular park with high traffic, and also in view of nearby busy roads, and he was concerned about the chance that a citizen might complain if they saw someone wading, swimming or boating out to the island, and that a police officer, particularly if they were having a bad day, might invoke a little-known law on the city books forbidding wading, swimming or boating in the park lake. And so I agreed to skip that particular hide site!

...and how long have we been saying this?!?!?

 

Great post.

[+MomToo!]

Let me see if I got this right, because all I've got to work on is the cache page and your post here....

 

You single-handedly brought a cache to the attention of a LEO who yanked it for the safety of all who might have hunted it after you? A cache whose page spells out the risks involved? A cache someone placed and maintained and posted for us to enjoy? A cache found by tens of happy cachers who left notes and faces, with several thank yous?

 

I'll thank you not to do that again, if I've got this about right.

 

Gee, your vehicle looks oddly simular to Pablo Mac's

 

The cache did NOT spell out the specific risks to this particular cache, the owner refused to admit the cache was

1) dangerous, the terrain rating did not fit the cache and the owner refused to adjust the rating

2) a. illegally placed within 25 feet of a federally protected water treatment facility and water spillway

b. required either Illegally trespassing on federal and city properties and could be reached only by boat or by illegally scaling a bridge, either way you could not reach the cache without breaking the law and the cache owner REPEATEDLY lied about this fact on the cache logs.

 

The City enlisted the aid of "Environmental Services staff" whom followed their own GPS, located the cache and removed it BECAUSE IT WAS ILLEGAL and they specificlly stated in their letter to me that it was also DANGEROUS and that the owner of the cache had been very "apologetic" (to them) about having broken the law and placed others in harms way and risk of arrest.

 

I did report the DANGEROUS and ILLEGAL cache to geocaching June 2005, but nothing came of it, not until the City of Albany went after the cache and contacted the website and cache owner themselves. People with children went after this cache not knowing the circumstances and others reported serious injury attempting this cache, while still others posted logs stating they would not violate the law to find the cache.

 

Hey, my conscience is clear and I feel absolutely justified in my actions and reporting it here. If the owner will blatenly LIE when confronted with the truth and continue to subject others to illegal activities and dangerous locations then I have no problem outing him. ALL the man had to do was ADMIT he was lying and warn people that it could be dangerous and illegal, so they did not enter blindly into the search, but he REFUSED to tell the truth and even went so far as to make up LIES about where the cache was and was not located. I have the backing of the City of Albany and Environmental Services staff, THEY thought it was DANGEROUS and Illegal enough to REMOVE IT and take action against the owner.....

[+MomToo!]

I have never seen any law, federal or state, or ever heard of such, that makes anything similiar to bridge caches illegal. Now, if you want to do a bit of research and back up your "garantee" then please post the federal or state statute that you believe covers such illegality.

 

Wadcutter is absolutely correct. Now, MomToo!, if you think that it is "illegal" to place a cache under a bridge per GC.com's "Cache Listing Guidelines"

["Caches near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports."], then you're wrong again.

 

I personally found and logged this cache, and it is under a Residential STREET bridge and not a HIGHWAY bridge. Plus the reviewer didn't have a problem approving this cache, and it was even outlined in the cache title (Trouble at a Bridge Over Water #6). The cache title addresses the "Bridge" issue, and "Trouble" addresses the difficulty. Not to mention the D/T rating on the cache page.

 

MomToo!, if you don't like a particular cache, DON'T DO IT! But don't wreck it for those that want to play the game.

 

D/T ratings are 3, when it requires a combination of climbing, scaling and crawling together with slippery terrain and possible jail time, the "3" is NOT an appropriate rating!! Your comments are just rediculous, John Denver tribute cache wasn't near anything remotely connected to John Denver, and yet it was named John Denver????? There are caches on school property (at least 3 schools I know of in the adjacent town right now), but just because they are there does not mean they don't violate the law!! Why would anyone assume because the name had "bridge" in it that the issue of legal or not legally placed on a bridge had been addressed, because obviously it had not? I dont care how many caches you have gone to under bridges, if you aint got permission from the governing body they are illegal and against geocaching rules, oh and lets not forget.......this WAS PROVEN to be an ILLEGAL cache which also violated geocaching rules!

[+top pin]

A very popular qoute comes to mind...

 

 

"Hell has no Wrath like a Woman Scorned"

 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2006 by top pin

[+Pablo Mac]

I won't lend credibility to another whimsical and emotional post by bothering with a detailed reply. She has it in her mind that she's 100% right, and I can't change it.

 

PS: John Denver Tribute Company isn't my cache. And neither are the school property caches you mentioned, but they have placement permission granted. Again, please get your facts straight before spouting off.

[+Marcie/Eric]

This thread is the most wonderful thing i've ever seen.

 

First. Watercop. Welcome to geocaching. This is the best result of this thread.

 

Second. Pablo Mac. I dunno if you're right or not. But I like your side of the argument better, dadgum the law . Well. At least sometimes.

 

Third. I have not seen a more vengeful caching cop than this MomToo person. First, right or not, she obviously has a bone to pick with Pablo Mac. Second. I can't stand whiny rats.

 

"Whah, I can't find your cache, Pablo Mac, so i'm going to tell on you. Whah! I think its rated to low... whah!!"

 

Thats you MomToo.

[+hikergps]

Did someone say.........Cache Cop??!!!

 

 

Cache Cop: You want answers?

 

Cache Owner: I think I'm entitled to them.

 

Cache Cop: You want answers?

 

Cache Owner: I want the truth!

 

Cache Cop: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has caches. And those caches have to be policed. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for locationless caches and you curse the pocket caches. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that urban micros, while tragic, probably saved Geocaching. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves Geocaching...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that cache patrol. You need me on that cache patrol.

We use words like maintenance, permanence, saturation...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a gps and find a cache. Either way, I don't give a sat-lock what you think you're entitled to!

 

Cache Owner: Did you order the cache archived?

 

Cache Cop: (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do.

 

Cache Owner: Did you order the cache archived?

 

Cache Cop: You're goll-darn-right I did!!

 

[+Harry Dolphin]

This thread is the most wonderful thing i've ever seen.

 

First. Watercop. Welcome to geocaching. This is the best result of this thread.

 

Second. Pablo Mac. I dunno if you're right or not. But I like your side of the argument better, dadgum the law . Well. At least sometimes.

 

Third. I have not seen a more vengeful caching cop than this MomToo person. First, right or not, she obviously has a bone to pick with Pablo Mac. Second. I can't stand whiny rats.

 

"Whah, I can't find your cache, Pablo Mac, so i'm going to tell on you. Whah! I think its rated to low... whah!!"

 

Thats you MomToo.

 

Marcie/Eric, you have hit this nail on the head.

Pablo, what did you do? Stand her up when you found out she did not meet the description in her single's ad?

This whole episode is the most pathetic vendetta that I've seen in quite a while.

[+Wadcutter]

A very popular qoute comes to mind...

 

"Hell has no Wrath like a Woman Scorned"

 

 

And don't you forget it either. Now Mom says off to bed with all of you or you won't get to go play tomorrow.

And make sure you brush your teeth!

Don't make me come up there!

Edited June 23, 2006 by Wadcutter

[+thedeadpirate]

Watercop raises an excellent issue, and one which has been raised before, both at the national level and here on the forums of the Maryland Geocachig Society, about the wisdom of self-policing rather than obsessively trying to run every cache hide possibility by city authorities in hopes of gaining explicit formal approval. To me, the gist of the matter is essentially that if it is reasonably obvious that the potential hide spot in question is likely publicly-accessible, or if it appears that no one would have to trespass in order to seek (or place) the cache, then it is sometimes better just to place the cache, rather than place one or more (often-overworked and understaffed) city administrators in the uncomfortable position of possibly having to say "no" to a formal request for explicit permission, because (as my local city officials keep reminding me during candid and friendly off-the-record conversations) giving formal explicit approval could open the municipality to liability for any injuries incurred by seekers. So, many municipalities and agencies prefer a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to the matter.

 

I agree with everything said. As has been stated previously, it is just easier a lot of times to so no to things that you don't understand and that disrupt your idea of a stable universe. A lot of folks just want to get through their day without interuptions. It's a lot easier to say no to the placement of a cache than to learn what it is. Now the folks that do take the time often learn how useful it can be to attracting visitors to an area. We have a caching group around here that has done an excellent job of working with the state of Florida to promote caching and visiting historical site.

 

People with children went after this cache not knowing the circumstances and others reported serious injury attempting this cache

 

Some people obviously do not understand what the terrain ratings mean then. This particular cache was rated 3.5. Reading Clayjar's (I think that is who came up with the rating) ratings which most people seem to adopt:

 

*** Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)

**** Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)

 

I would not expect someone to take their children to a cache that is rated between average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition and Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only.

 

You can't really blame the hider if he appropriately rates the cache and then a seeker either doesn't understand the rating or chooses to disregard it.

 

And after reading everything in this thread, I don't see Pablo as having acted out of malice. It looks like he perceived himself as having proper permission, rated the cache appropriately, and made sure the description red-flagged some of the danger (Maybe bring a life vest in case you fall in). You called Pablo Mac a liar, but I think the cache page states There is no need to violate the law or cross behind any area posted as a No Trespassing zone to access this cache. Now I haven't seen anything pointing to a law being broken and have read nowhere of someone having to ignore a No Trespassing sign to get to the cache.

 

For you to have a reason to call someone a liar, (justifiably at least), then that person would have to have knowingly lied. There is a difference between being mistaken and telling a lie. If you are unaware of a law being broken (and I am still unaware of any law that was broken), then it is not a lie to say that there is no need to violate the law. It may be mistaken, but it is not a lie. If you placed the cache without bypassing a No Trespassing sign, then it is not a lie to say that you do not have to cross behind any area posted as a No Trespassing zone. You may be mistaken. You may find out later that the area is indeed posted, but that does not make you a liar. It makes you human.

[+Kacky]

 

I agree with everything said. As has been stated previously, it is just easier a lot of times to so no to things that you don't understand and that disrupt your idea of a stable universe. A lot of folks just want to get through their day without interuptions. It's a lot easier to say no to the placement of a cache than to learn what it is.

 

 

We can agree to disagree on that. I went ahead and asked, because there had never been a cache in this town before and I wanted to start off on the right foot. One of the things that annoys me about parents and bureaucrats is that maddening tendency to say no to any new concept. But I had a plan B, which was that if they turned me down, they'd get a nice package with a further explanation and a map showing all the caches in the next town, and a promise to ask again soon. I was pleasantly surprised. I went to 3 different people in 3 different offices. Everyone's face brightened when they heard the idea and I got carte blanche. I can sleep at night knowing I got to them before any cache cop.

 

 

Now the folks that do take the time often learn how useful it can be to attracting visitors to an area. We have a caching group around here that has done an excellent job of working with the state of Florida to promote caching and visiting historical site.

 

Amen!

[+Pablo Mac]

Pablo, what did you do? Stand her up when you found out she did not meet the description in her single's ad?

This whole episode is the most pathetic vendetta that I've seen in quite a while.

I only came across her silly Travel Bug page and singles ads (and other eyebrow-raising stuff , but this is a family place) after a little investigation when she initiated this thread. Receive an assault like that, and you will want to know who is attacking you, too.

 

I would comment on your use of "pathetic," but you phrased it at the appropriate level for this family-oriented forum.

Some people obviously do not understand what the terrain ratings mean then....

<snip>

...It makes you human.

What GeoBain said. Thank you.

[+Map Only]

Snip

 

I'll thank you not to do that again, if I've got this about right.

 

Gee, your vehicle looks oddly simular to Pablo Mac's

 

Snip

 

Ok, ya got me. I am also Pablo Mac. I thought no-one would suspect me, but a sharp-eyed cop noticed the car.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now why does my post say Ringbone?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit to add: The bestest, cleverest sock pupets joined back in '02

Edited June 23, 2006 by Map Only

[+Mystery Ink]

Let me see if I got this right, because all I've got to work on is the cache page and your post here....

 

You single-handedly brought a cache to the attention of a LEO who yanked it for the safety of all who might have hunted it after you? A cache whose page spells out the risks involved? A cache someone placed and maintained and posted for us to enjoy? A cache found by tens of happy cachers who left notes and faces, with several thank yous?

 

I'll thank you not to do that again, if I've got this about right.

 

Gee, your vehicle looks oddly simular to Pablo Mac's

 

 

 

 

You can sure tell she doesn't know the difference between a Jeep Rubicon and a Toyota SUV.

Maybe she needs to get her facts right.

[+grey_wolf & momcat]

I have never seen any law, federal or state, or ever heard of such, that makes anything similiar to bridge caches illegal. Now, if you want to do a bit of research and back up your "garantee" then please post the federal or state statute that you believe covers such illegality.

 

Wadcutter is absolutely correct. Now, MomToo!, if you think that it is "illegal" to place a cache under a bridge per GC.com's "Cache Listing Guidelines"

["Caches near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports."], then you're wrong again.

 

I personally found and logged this cache, and it is under a Residential STREET bridge and not a HIGHWAY bridge. Plus the reviewer didn't have a problem approving this cache, and it was even outlined in the cache title (Trouble at a Bridge Over Water #6). The cache title addresses the "Bridge" issue, and "Trouble" addresses the difficulty. Not to mention the D/T rating on the cache page.

 

MomToo!, if you don't like a particular cache, DON'T DO IT! But don't wreck it for those that want to play the game.

 

D/T ratings are 3, when it requires a combination of climbing, scaling and crawling together with slippery terrain and possible jail time, the "3" is NOT an appropriate rating!! Your comments are just rediculous, John Denver tribute cache wasn't near anything remotely connected to John Denver, and yet it was named John Denver????? There are caches on school property (at least 3 schools I know of in the adjacent town right now), but just because they are there does not mean they don't violate the law!! Why would anyone assume because the name had "bridge" in it that the issue of legal or not legally placed on a bridge had been addressed, because obviously it had not? I dont care how many caches you have gone to under bridges, if you aint got permission from the governing body they are illegal and against geocaching rules, oh and lets not forget.......this WAS PROVEN to be an ILLEGAL cache which also violated geocaching rules!

 

I suppose that you also understand that your GPSr doesn't always show exactly 1ft from where another GPSr might. Sometimes you think you know where something is located only to find it 25+ feet away when you put it down and go into geosense mode.

[+Map Only]

Let me see if I got this right, because all I've got to work on is the cache page and your post here....

 

You single-handedly brought a cache to the attention of a LEO who yanked it for the safety of all who might have hunted it after you? A cache whose page spells out the risks involved? A cache someone placed and maintained and posted for us to enjoy? A cache found by tens of happy cachers who left notes and faces, with several thank yous?

 

I'll thank you not to do that again, if I've got this about right.

 

Gee, your vehicle looks oddly simular to Pablo Mac's

 

 

 

 

You can sure tell she doesn't know the difference between a Jeep Rubicon and a Toyota SUV.

Maybe she needs to get her facts right.

 

I dunno,

 

Green cars, ARB bumpers, winches, mac users, something is looking familiar.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dad?

[+Pablo Mac]

I just got a call from the friend that MomToo! and I have in common, and they said they have read this entire thread and verified that...well, I'll just leave it at this: they agree with the vast majority of posts in response to hers here so far. Quite the...uh, interesting lady.

[+Audion64]

I dont know for sure but after 9/11 I can garantee you most of the bridge caches are illegal.

 

You're right - You don't know for sure. In fact, you could have just left it as "I don't know". You also shouldn't "garantee" something you know nothing about.

I spent 35+ yrs in law enforcement and over 26 yrs in the military doing security assessments and involved heavily in post-9/11 security plannings at a statewide level involving some high security type installations and buildings. I have never seen any law, federal or state, or ever heard of such, that makes anything similiar to bridge caches illegal. Now, if you want to do a bit of research and back up your "garantee" then please post the federal or state statute that you believe covers such illegality.

 

As far as the "dangerous" part, I believe others have covered that well. No one forces anyone to seek any cache that the seeker may feel is too dangerous. If you think it's too dangerous for you, then by all means pass it up. There is no law forcing you to seek any specific cache. And that I can positively "garantee".

 

Sounds like someone is being too much Mom Too.

 

From the State of California Vehicle Code:

 

 

Trespass Prohibited

 

23332. It is unlawful for any person to be upon any portion of a vehicular crossing which is not intended for public use without the permission of the Department of Transportation. This section does not apply to a person engaged in the operation, maintenance, or repair of a vehicular crossing or any facility thereon nor to any person attempting to effect a rescue.

 

And I will go so far as saying, I WILL bet that most other states have similar statutes on the books. I guess if we get caught though we can just tell em that some guy who is a geocacher and used to be a cop told us it was all okie dokie.... that and a 100 dollars bail money will get ya outta jail.