Jump to content

Do cache admins see deleted NBA notes?


Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

Hi all. A month or so ago we posted a note on a cache, asking if the owner had permission to hide it, since it was clearly on private property ("For Sale" signs posted, fences all around). He just now deleted that note. So we then posted a "Needs to Be Archived" note so future cachers don't get in trouble with the law. He just deleted our NBA note, as well.

 

Will admins still see my deleted NBA note, or should I email them directly?

 

Thanks,

MW.

Link to comment

How do you know it needs to be archived? Are you assuming that the hider has no permission just because they deleted your note?

 

I know it needs to be archived, because I walked up and down the fence line for hundreds and hundreds of feet, looking for a legit way in. The only gateway into the property (closed and locked) had a giant "For Sale" sign on it. For land to be for sale, it has to be owned. And since the cache owner clearly doesn't own the land (I asked nicely and my note was deleted), it needs to be archived for being on private property w/o permission. Seems clear to me.

 

Now, any chance you know the answer to my question?

 

MW.

Link to comment
I know it needs to be archived, because I walked up and down the fence line

I wonder how that would stand up in court....

I can't help but think that you're twisting logic way past its breaking point. Obviously the land belongs to somebody. "Duh" You're making assumptions without any data other than your own observations. It's quite possible that there might be a permission issue with this cache, but given what you've offered, I've seen nothing even remotely resembling proof. Could the cache owner and the property owner be one and the same? Yes. Could the cache owner be friends with the property owner? Yes. Could the cache owner be a complete stranger and still have received permission to hide his cache on somebody else's property? Yes.

Personally, I think you got your feelings hurt when the cache owner rudely deleted your question, so you sicked the geocops on him.

So far all you've demonstrated is that the cache was on private property, (hence the fence & for sale sign), and that the cache owner is ill mannered. Those two combined, with no other supporting facts, does not constitute a reason to post a SBA.

Of course, you know what they say about opinions... :D

Link to comment
Independent of the current topic the answer is Yes your Reviewer does see the log, deleted or not.

To expand on the answer a bit, when you log a needs archived note, a copy goes to your reviewer who can evaluate it and act on it or not, depending on the situation. Regardless of whether or not it's been deleted, they still get the copy.

Edited by Quiggle
Link to comment
I know it needs to be archived, because I walked up and down the fence line

I wonder how that would stand up in court....

I can't help but think that you're twisting logic way past its breaking point.

 

I think it's a reasonable assumption that if the cache owner did have permission, he would have the sense to put something on the cache page to that effect, particularly if questions have been raised. Deleting the note with no response, public or private, would indicate that the owner does not have permission, and wants the issue to "go away."

 

I'm not sure that a "Needs to be archived" is the call of the finder, but at least it puts someone in authority on the issue, who hopefully will not be ignored (though if he is, can archive it directly.) At the very least, were I said reviewer, I'd require the owner put a "Private property, permission granted" note on the page, if that's the response he gets.

Link to comment
I know it needs to be archived, because I walked up and down the fence line

I wonder how that would stand up in court....

 

Ok, how would this stand up in court?

 

"Your honor, it is impossible that my client is guilty of criminal trespass. Yes, my client did willfully climb over a fence to access the property, but they were geocaching so it was not a crime."

Link to comment

Assuming there really is no way in without crossing the fence, the poster is right to post SBA on it. But I have learned that the SBA is like calling a young mother's baby "ugly". Posting a legitimate SBA or two is one of the quickest ways to become a pariah in the community. Perhaps it is better to just turn around, go home, and let somebody else deal with it. It is not a danger to others, all they have to do is turn around and go home, too.

 

The whole permission issue is a very sticky one on property that is not generally open to the public. Even with "written permission" (meaning permission expressed on a cache page), the seeker is still in no way protected from trespass charges. Simply putting a note of permission on an internet document does not make it legal.

 

A LEO investigating a complaint od a person entering onto gated, fenced, locked, posted premises is not going to give too much creedence to some random paper that the trespass suspect happens to be carrying. Especailly without the property owner's name, the written statement of permission is nothing but a piece of paper that a LEO is going to look at skeptically at best.

 

If there really is permission, signage, listing the property owner's name and contact information needs to be posted at the site for all to see indicating that geocachers have permission to enter the premises.

 

Inevitibly, trespass issues give caching a bad name.

 

There is plenty of publically accessible land where caches can be placed.

 

We really don't need caches like this.

Link to comment

Assuming there really is no way in without crossing the fence, the poster is right to post SBA on it. But I have learned that the SBA is like calling a young mother's baby "ugly". Posting a legitimate SBA or two is one of the quickest ways to become a pariah in the community. Perhaps it is better to just turn around, go home, and let somebody else deal with it. It is not a danger to others, all they have to do is turn around and go home, too.

 

 

Sorry, Confucius Cat, but that's the cowards way out. If you don't have the guts to post a SBA, at least e-mail the local reviewer and let him know about it.

Link to comment
Ok, how would this stand up in court?

 

"Your honor, it is impossible that my client is guilty of criminal trespass. Yes, my client did willfully climb over a fence to access the property, but they were geocaching so it was not a crime."

Well, I just read the trespass statute for the zillionth time just to be sure, but since you asked, I figured I'd read it again so my data was correct. Under Florida law, there is no exemption for geocaching in the trespass laws, and any lawyer who passed the bar exam would most likely be aware of that fact. Ergo, that particular statement would probably not come up in court. If that statement did happen to come up in court, I'm sure the Judge would educate the lawyer. Does that answer your question? What? Wadda ya mean it was rhetorical? :blink:

 

Assuming there really is no way in without crossing the fence, the poster is right to post SBA on it.

That's where I disagree. An SBA should be reserved for fairly drastic issues. Assumptions about permissions don't fit that bill, in my opinion. Personally, I think Mr. & Mrs. Wisearse are correct about their assumptions, but I believe they jumped the gun in posting an SBA. Had I been in their horseshoes, I would've posted the same note they did, asking about permission. Then, once the note was deleted, I would've contacted the property owner to see if they were aware of the cache. In most cases, finding a property owner is a 5 minute process involving a websearch of the areas property appraiser. In their specific case, it would've been even easier, since there was "For Sale" sign posted. Most of these come with a phone number.

 

At the end of that 5 minutes of effort, I would have facts, rather than assumptions.

 

If, unlikely as it might seem, the property owner did know about the cache, I would E-mail the local reviewer, let them know about the fence. That way they can suggest that the cache owner post something on the cache page letting folks know about it. If the property owner did not know about the cache, and does not give permission for it, that when an SBA should be posted, detailing the process involved and the data collected.

Link to comment

Assuming there really is no way in without crossing the fence, the poster is right to post SBA on it. But I have learned that the SBA is like calling a young mother's baby "ugly". Posting a legitimate SBA or two is one of the quickest ways to become a pariah in the community. Perhaps it is better to just turn around, go home, and let somebody else deal with it. It is not a danger to others, all they have to do is turn around and go home, too.

 

 

Sorry, Confucius Cat, but that's the cowards way out. If you don't have the guts to post a SBA, at least e-mail the local reviewer and let him know about it.

 

Coward or cache cop. Cache cop or coward. :angry:

 

Outcast either way you go.

Link to comment
That's where I disagree. An SBA should be reserved for fairly drastic issues. Assumptions about permissions don't fit that bill, in my opinion. Personally, I think Mr. & Mrs. Wisearse are correct about their assumptions, but I believe they jumped the gun in posting an SBA. Had I been in their horseshoes, I would've posted the same note they did, asking about permission. Then, once the note was deleted, I would've contacted the property owner to see if they were aware of the cache.

 

That makes sense, you won't do anything so "drastic" as to log an SBA so the issue can be addressed by the reviewer, but you will rat out the cache owner and expose him to prosecution and risk giving geocaching a black eye with the authorities.

Link to comment

Hmmmm lets see... was an SBA justified?

 

We have a cache placed obviously on private property. A cache owner who is being totally unresponsive to the simple question "Do you have permission?".

 

On top of that, we have the property is for sale, meaning that very shortly any permission that was granted will most likely be invalid.

 

Now given all this, *yes* it is possible that the cache in question is perfectly legit, and all the i's have been dotted, and the ts crossed, *but* it certainly seems suspect.

 

I'd say its time to get a reviewer involved. That's what they are there for... to review things. If everything is above board, the cache will go on just fine, no harm done.

 

I'd say those who think an SBA wasn't justified just don't want to see a cache ever be archived, guidelines be damned.

Link to comment

You were right to SBA the cache.

 

If the land owner put up a fence, it is understood that trespassing is against the owner's wishes. This is even if he/she has not put up a "No Trespassing" sign.

 

I wouldn't publish a cache that requires someone to go past a locked gate or jump a fence. I wouldn't go for a cache that required me to do so.

 

It'd be a shame for someone to give Geocaching a black eye for this.

Link to comment

Hmmmm lets see... was an SBA justified?

 

Hmmm lets see..... indeed. To answer your question; "No", the SBA was not justified. It would be justified if the cacher had spent 5 minutes gathering facts, but until they had said facts, there was no definitive way to determine if their concerns were justified.

 

I'd say those who think an SBA wasn't justified just don't want to see a cache ever be archived, guidelines be damned.

Guidelines, huh? Can you point out to me where in the guidelines it says, "Please post an SBA every time you don't feel comfortable about a cache location?" No? I didn't think so. If you would accuse me of never wanting a cache archived, then I could only reply that your reading skills are not up to the task of decyphering simple English. I made it quite clear that there are numerous situations that would support an SBA posting, but assumptions about locations aren't one of them. Location assumptions should be resolved with a note to the local reviewer, not with an SBA. Factual location concerns should be resolved with an SBA. See how simple it is? Regardless of how obfiscated this debate becomes, the original issue was a cacher wanting justification for posting an SBA when they did not have all the facts. If a cache violates a guideline, an SBA is most certainly appropriate, but in this case, the cacher didn't know if a violation occured. Knowing and believing are two entirely different things.

Link to comment
That makes sense, you won't do anything so "drastic" as to log an SBA so the issue can be addressed by the reviewer, but you will rat out the cache owner and expose him to prosecution and risk giving geocaching a black eye with the authorities.

No, I believe what I said was, I would get the facts before posting an SBA. All this other nonsense came from you.

Link to comment
That makes sense, you won't do anything so "drastic" as to log an SBA so the issue can be addressed by the reviewer, but you will rat out the cache owner and expose him to prosecution and risk giving geocaching a black eye with the authorities.

No, I believe what I said was, I would get the facts before posting an SBA. All this other nonsense came from you.

 

You said you would contact the property owner to ask him if he knew if the cache was there. You don't see potential issues coming out of that, depending on how ticked off the property owner is?

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Y'all need to take a deep breath!

 

An SBA is a note that, paraphrased, says "I believe there is a serious problem here, will the Reviewer please look into it?"

 

That's all. No slam at the owner, no ridicule of the cache, no insult, just a simple request for a Reviewer to, well, review it!

 

If the cache then gets archived, it means that indeed it needed to be archived, if not, then it's either fixed or the problem wasn't something the Reviewer felt needed dealing with.

 

Ed

Link to comment

 

On top of that, we have the property is for sale, meaning that very shortly any permission that was granted will most likely be invalid.

 

Now, I'm sure the flaming will begin shortly since I'm quite new to geocaching, but I think ibycus's line above says it all.

 

Suppose that the property owner did give permission to the cache owner to place the cache. Now, obviously the current owner will not be in control much longer, and as soon as the property is sold there is no longer any permission to have a cache.

 

I would, myself, err on the side of caution before issuing a SBA log, but in this case I don't think it's fair to say that the OP went too far with such a post. If the cache owner refused to acknowledge the OP's first post, then so be it...let the reviewer deal with it.

 

Mike (from Mike & Kate)

Link to comment
On top of that, we have the property is for sale, meaning that very shortly any permission that was granted will most likely be invalid.

Now, I'm sure the flaming will begin shortly since I'm quite new to geocaching, but I think ibycus's line above says it all.

I would have to agree with ibycus as well. That's a great point.

Link to comment

Y'all need to take a deep breath!

 

An SBA is a note that, paraphrased, says "I believe there is a serious problem here, will the Reviewer please look into it?"

 

That's all. No slam at the owner, no ridicule of the cache, no insult, just a simple request for a Reviewer to, well, review it!

 

If the cache then gets archived, it means that indeed it needed to be archived, if not, then it's either fixed or the problem wasn't something the Reviewer felt needed dealing with.

 

Ed

 

Yeah, but it don't seem like many cache owners themselves see it that way when an SBA is posted. I would submit that the reason the SBA got deleted is precisely because the owner interpreted it as an affront to his/her dignity, nay possibly even to his/her personhood.

 

The whole flap on when to SBA, who sees it and if the owner can just delete it and go on is pretty good evidence that we don't have what it takes to police ourselves.

 

As you say, there is no REASON to get feelings hurt, BUT THEY ALWAYS DO.

 

People in this game are far too "touchy". We could ALL do with a little INsensitivity training. (And yes, I am part of the "ALL")

Link to comment
You said you would contact the property owner to ask him if he knew if the cache was there. You don't see potential issues coming out of that, depending on how ticked off the property owner is?

Of course there are potential problems brewing there. That's not my point. I think the potential problems would be significantly greater if someone were arrested searching for the cache.

 

Just to clarify, I'm not arguing that this particular cache deserves to live. In fact, I'm one of those guys that does the arresting of folks who feel it is OK to hop fences for whatever reason. My argument is strictly about timing and effort.

 

Unlike Ed, I do believe that an SBA is a slap in the face directed to a cache owner. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, sometimes folks could benefit from a good slap, particularly cachers who grossly violate those guidelines designed to keep this game alive.

 

Personally, based upon the OP's description, I think their assumption was accurate, and in due time, that cache will go the way of the Dodo, as it should. It is my opinion, based strictly upon what the OP observed, that this cache is on private property without permission. The key words here are opinion and assumption.

 

Because I believe an SBA is a slap in the face, I'll wait till I have facts before posting one. In this particular case, those facts would've been easy to acquire, hence my belief that the OP jumped the gun. A little bit of effort on the OP's part, combined with a hint of patience, and this issue would've been resolved a lot faster.

 

Image you're a reviewer. You get an SBA on a local cache saying something to the effect of:

"I was hunting your cache, GC****, and I believe it's behind a fence. It must be on private property. It should be archived".

At that point, the reviewer doesn't have a whole lot to work with. They'll probably contact the cache owner, and wait a certain amount of time for an answer before taking action. During the interim, the cache is still sitting on private property, behind a fence, luring cachers to a potential criminal arrest. True, that's not really the reviewers problem, since Groundspeak is just a listing service, but it's something they could prevent if the reviewers had the proper tools in hand.

 

Now imagine your the same reviewer, and you get an SBA saying something like:

"Hi, I'm Pete, from the caching team of JoeyBagOfDonuts. I was at your cache today, # GC****, and noticed it was behind a fence and a "For Sale" sign. I posted a note explaining my concerns, and you deleted it. Since I couldn't get a response from you, I looked up the property in question at the Anywhere County Property Appraiser's website, and saw that it currently belongs to Billy Bob Bubba, of 123 Main St, Sometown Fl. 32123. I called Billy Bob on the phone number listed on the "For Sale" sign, and asked him if he had given anyone permission to hide a Tupperware container on his land. His answer was a very polite "No". Billy Bob would like for either you, or someone from Groundspeak to call him, so that this cache can be removed from his property. If you don't have his number, I'll post it here for you. 407-555-1234."

In that instance, with all the details provided in the SBA, the cache would probably be archived without waiting for the owner's response, and hopefully, no one would go hunting for it.

 

Effort & timing. They're not such bad concepts, are they?

 

Edit to add: Almost forgot the obligatory, "You Da Man, Briansnat" posting.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

Hi all,

 

Hi all. A month or so ago we posted a note on a cache, asking if the owner had permission to hide it, since it was clearly on private property ("For Sale" signs posted, fences all around). He just now deleted that note. So we then posted a "Needs to Be Archived" note so future cachers don't get in trouble with the law. He just deleted our NBA note, as well.

 

Will admins still see my deleted NBA note, or should I email them directly?

 

Thanks,

MW.

 

When i looked at your post the first thing that came to mind was that you jumped the gun with the SBA log. But in this case, the cache owner brought this on himself. He could have easily contacted and let you know what was going on but instead, he deleted your first note with no explanation. Still iffy but you probably did the right thing with the SBA as this will hopefully get the reviewer and the owner together to straighten it out. As said above, i figured the SBA log gets to the reviewer no matter what.

Link to comment

Clan Riffster apparently believes everyone should independently re-invent the wheel! If the cache hider has permission, isn't it easiest and best to contact that geocacher, rather than bring the matter to the attention (or re-attention) of outsiders? If an SBA "feels" like a slap in the face, I can only wonder what a real slap in the face feels like, a fatal wound [to the ego], perhaps?

Link to comment

Yes, volunteer reviewers see the "Needs Archived" (SBA) logs, even if the cache owner deletes them. This is because of e-mail notifications that have been set up. I would guess that deleting the log might reflect negatively on the cache owner in some instances when the reviewer is deciding which course of action to take in response to the log.

Edited by The Leprechauns
Link to comment

Clan Riffster apparently believes everyone should independently re-invent the wheel! If the cache hider has permission, isn't it easiest and best to contact that geocacher, rather than bring the matter to the attention (or re-attention) of outsiders?

Salmoned apparently believes everyone is incapable of reading. As noted several times, my first action would be an attempt to contact the owner, as the OP did. Any action described after that attempt, was due to the owner rudely ignoring a simple request. Reinvent the wheel? Brother, do you know how a telephone works? Are you capable of operating such a complex device? Are you familiar with computers? I'm not talking programing or hardware, just basic function. Can you perform simple tasks online? How is making a phone call or going to a website reinventing the wheel? Are you that afraid of effort?

Link to comment

Can you guys take it to PM?

 

Private Discussions: Sometimes, a discussion thread strays off into a friendly dialogue or a heated debate among a very small number of users. For these exchanges, use the private discussion feature that is provided through the Groundspeak forums, or the Geocaching.com e-mail system. Public forum posts should be reserved for matters of interest to the general community.
Link to comment
Ok, how would this stand up in court?

 

"Your honor, it is impossible that my client is guilty of criminal trespass. Yes, my client did willfully climb over a fence to access the property, but they were geocaching so it was not a crime."

Well, I just read the trespass statute for the zillionth time just to be sure, but since you asked, I figured I'd read it again so my data was correct. Under Florida law, there is no exemption for geocaching in the trespass laws, and any lawyer who passed the bar exam would most likely be aware of that fact. Ergo, that particular statement would probably not come up in court. If that statement did happen to come up in court, I'm sure the Judge would educate the lawyer. Does that answer your question? What? Wadda ya mean it was rhetorical? :unsure:

 

The above is a quote...below is MHO.

 

I'm not sure where the Wisearse's came across this particular cache, but since they do a lot of local caching, I'm inclined to think this was a SoCal cache. I'm pretty well-versed on California trespass laws and geocachers are not exempt here, either. If I was called to an area for someone who had jumped a locked gate that was clearly posted with a No Trespassing sign, I'm pretty sure it would off to jail with the offender.

 

Most on-duty police officers I've encountered while geocaching are very cool with the idea. I think it is in the best interest of the game and the welfare of ALL involved if we all try to keep it that way!

Edited by 3blackcats
Link to comment

I once did a cache that the GPS said was 35 feet inside a fenced in self storage area. I did not climb the fence. It was an evil micro and I just assumed it was magnetized and stuck somewhere on the fence. Unless the OP trespassed and found the cache why is it just assumed it is where his GPS says? If you haven't found the cache how can you be sure it need to have an SBA filed on it?

Link to comment
Ok, how would this stand up in court?

 

"Your honor, it is impossible that my client is guilty of criminal trespass. Yes, my client did willfully climb over a fence to access the property, but they were geocaching so it was not a crime."

Well, I just read the trespass statute for the zillionth time just to be sure, but since you asked, I figured I'd read it again so my data was correct. Under Florida law, there is no exemption for geocaching in the trespass laws, and any lawyer who passed the bar exam would most likely be aware of that fact. Ergo, that particular statement would probably not come up in court. If that statement did happen to come up in court, I'm sure the Judge would educate the lawyer. Does that answer your question? What? Wadda ya mean it was rhetorical? :laughing:

 

Clan,

I must have read your post wrong. I'm not as forum savvy as most so I'll just have to say that your original post I was commenting on was post #5 of this thread. After reading a couple of more times I see what you are getting at. Somehow I was reading your response as a "jump the fence" response, and my post was a little smart arse. I'm pretty sure we're on the same page.

 

Mr and Mrs Wisearese,

I would have contacted the cache owner first. A lesson learned through personal experience. <_<

Link to comment

For points of contention, taking it to the cache hider first, then TPTB in the geocaching community seems more reasonable, logical and prudent than going from the cache hider directly to "outsiders". Just my take on the matter. Sorry if the wheel being re-invented wasn't clear.

Edited by salmoned
Link to comment

I had a similar situation come up recently, except it was the police that told me I was not to go where the cache was. To make it better it was on Tribal land, a specific no no. Link to the cache in question That was last weekend and no action has been taken yet.

 

Did you read the encrypted note posted a month before you went there? It states clearly that the cache is illegally placed on Tribal land; I have to wonder if the person who posted it also notifed the tribal police.

 

And reading back through the logs, there are NUMEROUS notations that others had concerns over the cache being placed where signs clearly told them not to go, going back to 2003. There's also a note in '02 saying that the cache is placed on off-limits land and is being archived, then a note a month later saying "apparently permission was obtained. All in all, though, I'm surprised that thes cache is still in existence.

 

I'm also surprised at the large number of people who chose to trespass AFTER reading the sign, just to get the cache. :-P

Link to comment

I had a similar situation come up recently, except it was the police that told me I was not to go where the cache was. To make it better it was on Tribal land, a specific no no. Link to the cache in question That was last weekend and no action has been taken yet.

 

Did you read the encrypted note posted a month before you went there? It states clearly that the cache is illegally placed on Tribal land; I have to wonder if the person who posted it also notifed the tribal police.

 

And reading back through the logs, there are NUMEROUS notations that others had concerns over the cache being placed where signs clearly told them not to go, going back to 2003. There's also a note in '02 saying that the cache is placed on off-limits land and is being archived, then a note a month later saying "apparently permission was obtained. All in all, though, I'm surprised that thes cache is still in existence.

 

I'm also surprised at the large number of people who chose to trespass AFTER reading the sign, just to get the cache. :-P

Looking at this specific cache and digging deeper, the cache owner has not logged in since before your SBA note. In fact, they have not logged in since July 27. Looking at their last find, it is in Iraq. My guess is that the cache owner hasn't even seen your SBA note yet and might be busy with more pressing issues -- like not getting killed.

 

Since your note was posted 10 days ago, you should give it some time. The reviewer may very well be attempting to see if emails will be answered. While your concerns are valid, you should give these issues some time. Another guess would be that the cache will probably be disabled soon to allow the cache owner to respond to these issues.

Link to comment

If you haven't found the cache how can you be sure it need to have an SBA filed on it?

 

Exactly; Unless it is well beyond the margin of error of the GPS. Then it might just be bad coords and not a reason for SBA but still worth the owner investigating. Or, as noted by others there might be a legal way in.

 

But then, if you HAVE found the cache and you have VERIFIED that you had to trespass to get it, you just admitted in writing to commiting trespass.

Link to comment

 

Looking at this specific cache and digging deeper, the cache owner has not logged in since before your SBA note. In fact, they have not logged in since July 27. Looking at their last find, it is in Iraq. My guess is that the cache owner hasn't even seen your SBA note yet and might be busy with more pressing issues -- like not getting killed.

 

 

Prompted by this post, I looked at the owner's profile & found cache logs. I also skimmed back through ALL the logs for the cache. The following is what I noted:

 

1. The owner's listed occupation and the places he's found/placed caches are consistent with either being in the military or being a military contractor - most are locations with military bases nearby (including, IIRC, the area where the cache is placed).

 

2. The cache find in Iraq, in February of this year, is the only one he's had in more than two years. He had none in 2005 or 2004, and only the one for '06. And he only found three in all of 2003, of which one was in November in Germany, two in December in Florida. That fits with being posted overseas, and getting in a bit of caching while on leave.

 

3. The cache was archived in October of 2002 for being on forbidden territory (after 5 months of fairly heavy activity), then un-archived in November 2002 with a note that "apparently permission was obtained".

 

4. Looking through the logs for the cache, it seems likely that the "No Hiking" signs went up sometime in the summer of 2003; the first mention of them is in August of that year, and they're mentioned consistently after that. I have to wonder if they went up in response to the caching activity, since from the logs it appears that few people would enter the area otherwise.

 

It seems very likely that the owner has been overseas and hasn't had much time or opportunity to pay attention to geocaching - let alone been in the same state as the cache - since well before the problems began with the cache area having signs showing it as off-limits.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...