What would you do?!

[+Shawn&Holly]

Has anybody confirmed the "lady" in question was a school board employee? No? Has anybody checked to see if the property was indeed private? No? You're wanting to fire off a hypothetical SBA as a knee jerk reaction to being confronted. Just because somebody confronts you does not mean a cache Should Be Archived.

 

You are correct. Just because someone is confronted doesn't mean that a cache should be archived. But if the person confronting claims to be a representative of the land owner and that the public is not welcome there, the responsible thing to do is to archive the cache and let the cache owner work things out. Its best that we err on the side of caution when dealing with potential irate landowners and their representatives. You never know who they know and all you need is one connected landowner and you might find yourself dealing with a situation like there was in SC last year.

 

If the lady in question was out of line and the geocache is welcome on the property, it can be reactivated with the click of a mouse. Its not like issuing an SBA blows up the cache.

Exactly, if permission was granted, then there should be no problem in allowing the cache to stay or if archived, having it reactivated. Public property vs private property is the underlying problems we currently face here in Ontario Provincial parks and Parks Canada National sites, my tax dollars fund these properties and I even own a cache at the edge of a provincal park at a rest stop. When speaking with the park superintendant I found out the rest stop was actually part of the parks property and they were considering having my cache removed (thought it was DOT and the staff at the info center saw no problem with the cache and its location, some staff even logged a find). Knowing this, I asked the superintendant directly for permission to leave the cache in place to which he noted it was not currently causing a problem and allow it and another outside the gate but on property to stay. When asked if I could place another cache inside the park, or even outside the gate, I was told no and he does monitor the site for new caches. I hope we can work out a proper agreement with both park systems, but I am not permitted to hide a cache on publically funded property as per the property managers wishes.

[+Renegade Knight]

....You are correct. Just because someone is confronted doesn't mean that a cache should be archived. But if the person confronting claims to be a representative of the land owner and that the public is not welcome there, the responsible thing to do is to archive the cache and let the cache owner work things out. Its best that we err on the side of caution when dealing with potential irate landowners and their representatives. You never know who they know and all you need is one connected landowner and you might find yourself dealing with a situation like there was in SC last year....

Exactly, if permission was granted, then there should be no problem in allowing the cache to stay or if archived, having it reactivated. Public property vs private property is the underlying problems we currently face here in Ontario Provincial parks and Parks Canada National sites, my tax dollars fund these properties and I even own a cache at the edge of a provincal park at a rest stop. When speaking with the park superintendant I found out the rest stop was actually part of the parks property and they were considering having my cache removed (thought it was DOT and the staff at the info center saw no problem with the cache and its location, some staff even logged a find). Knowing this, I asked the superintendant directly for permission to leave the cache in place to which he noted it was not currently causing a problem and allow it and another outside the gate but on property to stay. When asked if I could place another cache inside the park, or even outside the gate, I was told no and he does monitor the site for new caches. I hope we can work out a proper agreement with both park systems, but I am not permitted to hide a cache on publically funded property as per the property managers wishes.

 

If permission was granted the cache is fine regardless of what any one seeker's experience was. There is one cache owner and an infinite number of potential finders all of whom are able to question the permission of the cache, find a way to get iinto trouble on their own through no fault of the hider etc.

 

As an owner I don't have time to jump through a hoop every time some busybody questions my cache, it's placment, it's permission or anything else any busybody can come up with. My ratio of busybodys to legitimate issues is that there are more busybodys than legitimate concerns.

 

The proper thing to do is contact the cache owner, Refrain from the SBA log unless there is absolutly no other choice. If you have to ask then there was another choice.

 

Once archived a cache has to meet current standards. Archiving the cache could very well end the cache. It's also more work for everone involved as the reviewers have to re-examine it again before they can list it. This is in addition to their normal approval workload.

 

Always, always, always give the owner first shot at dealing with their cache. They placed it, they assured this sit that it had adequate permisison and they are the ones who are responsible.

Edited November 17, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+TotemLake]

Once archived a cache has to meet current standards. Archiving the cache could very well end the cache. It's also more work for everone involved as the reviewers have to re-examine it again before they can list it. This is in addition to their normal approval workload.

It also opens up the area to another cache to be hidden. So while the owner is trying to resolve the issues surrounding their cache, they can literally lose the ability to reactivate it to another cache newly activated in the area.

 

Unless there is a life or limb issue, use the SBA with due caution. Alleged tresspassing without appropriate signage is not life or limb unless someone pointed a gun at ya.

[+Shawn&Holly]

Once archived a cache has to meet current standards. Archiving the cache could very well end the cache. It's also more work for everone involved as the reviewers have to re-examine it again before they can list it. This is in addition to their normal approval workload.

It also opens up the area to another cache to be hidden. So while the owner is trying to resolve the issues surrounding their cache, they can literally lose the ability to reactivate it to another cache newly activated in the area.

 

Unless there is a life or limb issue, use the SBA with due caution. Alleged tresspassing without appropriate signage is not life or limb unless someone pointed a gun at ya.

 

I think being threatened to be arrested and charged with trespassing is due cause as with my past experiences in open to public areas, one a parking lot of a motel by the motel manager (I was within 5 feet of the street and the cache stated to park in the parking lot instead of the side of the road and had full permission of the motel which I showed to the motel manager) and second a rest stop where I had not even made it to the cache site, just a picnic table. As far as opening up the area to a new cache and losing the spot, I think if the reviewer archives the cache will notice it if another cache is placed to close and would most likely double check permission and give presidence to the existing cache if permission is pending. Only in the most extreme cases I would SBA a cache, in 5 years as a cacher, I have only requested 3 caches due to trespassing to alert the local reviewer and other cachers of a problem with the cache, I don't think anyone needs to be arrested finding a cache, if someone pointed a gun at me, I would be making a few phone calls also.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I think being threatened to be arrested and charged with trespassing is due cause ...

 

Your bad luck seeking a cache with full permission to be there is a reflection on the cache owners hide? Morons abound in the world. Here some people close off public roads because it's convienent for them. Then they chase off those who are using a legitimate trail. It's fair to point out the problem, it's unfair to blame the problem on the cache. The cache isn't creating the danger, the moron doing the yelling is.

 

Your sparring use of the SBA log is a good thing.

Edited November 17, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+VeryLost]

I think being threatened to be arrested and charged with trespassing is due cause as with my past experiences in open to public areas [...] a rest stop where I had not even made it to the cache site, just a picnic table.

 

Your own example underscores the foolishness of automatically accepting some random person's claim of "trespassing" or "private property". Surely the picnic tables at a rest stop qualify as public property, or at least property intended for public use! Anyone trying to tell me otherwise at a rest area picnic table had darn well better be wearing a badge and carrying a sidearm; otherwise, I'm just going to treat them like the whack job they are.

[+Shawn&Holly]

...I think being threatened to be arrested and charged with trespassing is due cause ...

 

Your bad luck seeking a cache with full permission to be there is a reflection on the cache owners hide? Morons abound in the world. Here some people close off public roads because it's convienent for them. Then they chase off those who are using a legitimate trail. It's fair to point out the problem, it's unfair to blame the problem on the cache. The cache isn't creating the danger, the moron doing the yelling is.

 

Your sparring use of the SBA log is a good thing.

 

Nope, of the one I found, the hide was good, the permission was no longer valid due to change of ownership and the cache was relocated across the street off property where I placed the original cache next to the replacement cache for the cache owner to pick up. The rest stop, never found the cache and the employee who tossed us out off the property was new, there, permission had to be re-verified, with talking with the cache owner, the previous attendants use to help cachers find the cache, only posted a SBA due to indicated police action.

[+Shawn&Holly]

I think being threatened to be arrested and charged with trespassing is due cause as with my past experiences in open to public areas [...] a rest stop where I had not even made it to the cache site, just a picnic table.

 

Your own example underscores the foolishness of automatically accepting some random person's claim of "trespassing" or "private property". Surely the picnic tables at a rest stop qualify as public property, or at least property intended for public use! Anyone trying to tell me otherwise at a rest area picnic table had darn well better be wearing a badge and carrying a sidearm; otherwise, I'm just going to treat them like the whack job they are.

I was stopped at the picnic table as it was night and I had a flashlight, I asked if it was ok to be where I was, he said it was but not at night. The cache itself was in the woods, I explained what geocaching was, and was going to show him what I was looking for, the moment I stepped into the woods he said I was now trespassing on private property, I stopped looking at that point as it was not worth pushing the issue and getting the state troopers involved. The cache page never indicated a time not to look for a cache, we often travel late and I jump out at rest stops to pick up a cache or 2 along the way.

[Clan Riffster]

So yes, to alert the cache owner and reviewer I would post a SBA log, this does not get the cache automatically archived, but does alert the owner and reviewer of a problem that needs immediate attention

Elementary school hall monitors would love you, Brother.

Sending an E-mail to the owner & the reviewer would also accomplish your stated goal of alerting them about a problem.

[+Shawn&Holly]

So yes, to alert the cache owner and reviewer I would post a SBA log, this does not get the cache automatically archived, but does alert the owner and reviewer of a problem that needs immediate attention

Elementary school hall monitors would love you, Brother.

Sending an E-mail to the owner & the reviewer would also accomplish your stated goal of alerting them about a problem.

But it would not alert the next cacher after me and is also my goal.

[Clan Riffster]

I'm operating on your assumption that the next cacher reads your log describing the horrid confrontation with the wacko. If they did not read your log, then the next cacher would not see your inapprobriately logged SBA note either.

[+Shawn&Holly]

I'm operating on your assumption that the next cacher reads your log describing the horrid confrontation with the wacko. If they did not read your log, then the next cacher would not see your inapprobriately logged SBA note either.

I don't think employees or property owners are wacko and I don't think my SBA logs were inapprobriately posted, thanks, I do hope that the next cacher will not run into the same issue once resolved. If I do run into a wacko and I have a right to be there, I just email the cache owner with the problem and mention it in my find/dnf log.

[+Sommers]

It's inappropriate and immature but flipping the bird to deserveing little old ladies works for me....

[+Renegade Knight]

....Nope, of the one I found, the hide was good, the permission was no longer valid due to change of ownership and the cache was relocated across the street off property where I placed the original cache next to the replacement cache for the cache owner to pick up. The rest stop, never found the cache and the employee who tossed us out off the property was new, there, permission had to be re-verified, with talking with the cache owner, the previous attendants use to help cachers find the cache, only posted a SBA due to indicated police action.

 

You make way to many assumptions. First permission may very well have still been valid. When you buy a business where the prior owner gave permission for the cache, you are going to get the cache on your new property. This isn't subject to debate. It's reality. If you have rats living under your floorboards you are going to get them as well. The cache owner should re-introduce the new onwner to the cache but they first need to know that the business changed hands. As for the new employees "needing to know" you are right about that as well. However the person who's manages the property doesn't always remember and the cache owner isn't obligated to teach geocaching 101 to each employee even if they are willing. You relocating the cache may or may not have been the right thing to do and I'm completly unsure of what you mean by replacment cache. I don't recall any police action that you mentioned but apparenly you had some fun in that regard as well. 1000 caches here. No police*. Some people have all the luck.

 

*Edit: That's not litterally true. Cachers in front of me and behind me have been stopped. Just not me and those with me.

Edited November 17, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+Shawn&Holly]

....Nope, of the one I found, the hide was good, the permission was no longer valid due to change of ownership and the cache was relocated across the street off property where I placed the original cache next to the replacement cache for the cache owner to pick up. The rest stop, never found the cache and the employee who tossed us out off the property was new, there, permission had to be re-verified, with talking with the cache owner, the previous attendants use to help cachers find the cache, only posted a SBA due to indicated police action.

 

You make way to many assumptions. First permission may very well have still been valid. When you buy a business where the prior owner gave permission for the cache, you are going to get the cache on your new property. This isn't subject to debate. It's reality. If you have rats living under your floorboards you are going to get them as well. The cache owner should re-introduce the new onwner to the cache but they first need to know that the business changed hands. As for the new employees "needing to know" you are right about that as well. However the person who's manages the property doesn't always remember and the cache owner isn't obligated to teach geocaching 101 to each employee even if they are willing. You relocating the cache may or may not have been the right thing to do and I'm completly unsure of what you mean by replacment cache. I don't recall any police action that you mentioned but apparenly you had some fun in that regard as well. 1000 caches here. No police*. Some people have all the luck.

 

*Edit: That's not litterally true. Cachers in front of me and behind me have been stopped. Just not me and those with me.

The cache owner relocated his cache after we were told to leave the property and were not permitted to rehide the cache, the cache in question is here GCGE6Z, not making any assumptions, we were told ownership changed, previous owners had given permission as per the cache page description (this has been changed when the cache was relocated off property), it does not mean the new owners will be thrilled about it. The cache owner talked with the new owners and then the cache owner relocated his cache. I just returned the original cache to the new location beside the replacement cache as it was not my cache and I did not want to remove it in the first place, had little choice in the matter, interesting story when told in person. If you buy a property with rats under the floorboards, just because they came with the house does not mean you have to accept them and not have them exterminated and removed. I did mention that the police or in PN, state troopers were to be called, that is when I left, not worth the hassle for me or anyone else.

[+Renegade Knight]

...If you buy a property with rats under the floorboards, just because they came with the house does not mean you have to accept them and not have them exterminated and removed....

 

Absolutly true. If you buy land and now have a cache on it, you may or may not allow it to remain. But you do get the cache as part of the deal and you are going to have to make a decision on it. If a court were to rule on it (silly as the idea is) I'd be they would rule that the cache has permission as per the prior owner until the new owner makes a conspicous change. An example being that the old owner allowed people to walk on a trail to the ocean. The new owner would be assumed to be allowing that same access if they never say anything.

 

I was reading another post about night caching. A common issue is being in a park at night. Some people like to night cache, the risk they run is that a lot of parks close at dusk. That doesn't reflect badly on the cache owner. The cache owner needs to be able to let seekers follow the law as they would and let those people face the consequences of their actions. They can't literally list all the issues that could come up.

[+PAWSitraction]

Instead of being a cache cop and logging an SBA on arguably skectchy information, why not notify the owner and the reviewer by logging a Needs Maintenance and put the private property concerns there? This notifies everyone that there MAY be a problem without sayng that YOU know for a fact that this cache needs to be archived.

Just FYI, a "Needs Maintenance" log does not notify the reviewer. It's like any other log except SBA - notification goes to the owner and any other person watching the cache.

The ONLY log type that automatically goes to the reviewer is SBA. Which is why AlabamaRambler is suggesting using the SBA log as a "notify reviewer this cache needs more looking at".

[+mark&beth]

Thanks for all of your input, it seems we've sparked quite the debate which is always a good thing!

 

An update to this story, the cache has since been disabled by a reviewer until the owner can settle the issue with the school board.

 

We feel kind of bad b/c it got disabled b/c the owners are quite crafty with their caches, especially their micros. So I'm hoping they can work something out so the next group of cachers to wander in there don't get crapped on like we did, oh well... such is life i guess.

[Not So Lost Puppies]

I was reading another post about night caching. A common issue is being in a park at night. Some people like to night cache, the risk they run is that a lot of parks close at dusk. That doesn't reflect badly on the cache owner. The cache owner needs to be able to let seekers follow the law as they would and let those people face the consequences of their actions. They can't literally list all the issues that could come up.

 

Correct that they can't list ALL the issues that could come up, but if there are posted or known hours that a park is closed, then those should be listed in the cache description. Those that want to ignore those hours can go ahead and do so, but others that may night cache while following posted hours should be able to know ahead of time that the park is closed.

[Clan Riffster]

I don't think my SBA logs were inapprobriately posted, thanks

I seem to recall a quote about opinions and body parts, but it probably wouldn't go over very well in this forum. If pushing the SBA button is your thing, by all means, don't let me infringe upon your right to do so. Dial Geo-911 to your heart's content. All I would ask is, if you find yourself caching in Central Florida, don't hit the SBA on one of mine because someone gave you a dirty look or spoke harshly to you. We have some of the finest reviewers in the country here, and they will assure you none of my caches should be archived.

[+Shawn&Holly]

I don't think my SBA logs were inapprobriately posted, thanks

I seem to recall a quote about opinions and body parts, but it probably wouldn't go over very well in this forum. If pushing the SBA button is your thing, by all means, don't let me infringe upon your right to do so. Dial Geo-911 to your heart's content. All I would ask is, if you find yourself caching in Central Florida, don't hit the SBA on one of mine because someone gave you a dirty look or spoke harshly to you. We have some of the finest reviewers in the country here, and they will assure you none of my caches should be archived.

I would not call 2 times in 5 years my thing, if I look for one of your caches and the property owner calls the cops on me for being there, I will most likely log an SBA, if you have permission for all of your caches, then there should not be any problems. Since I was not at the cache the OP stated, I would have to say from the given I might log an SBA log or I might email the cache owner, all depends on where everything is at, school board property, which is not indicated on the maps or description might also change things when I got yelled at. I don't do anything out of the ordinary and try to keep to the trails as close as possible, just have bad luck and timing I guess, just apoligize and leave politely.

[+Renegade Knight]

I was reading another post about night caching. A common issue is being in a park at night. Some people like to night cache, the risk they run is that a lot of parks close at dusk. That doesn't reflect badly on the cache owner. The cache owner needs to be able to let seekers follow the law as they would and let those people face the consequences of their actions. They can't literally list all the issues that could come up.

 

Correct that they can't list ALL the issues that could come up, but if there are posted or known hours that a park is closed, then those should be listed in the cache description. Those that want to ignore those hours can go ahead and do so, but others that may night cache while following posted hours should be able to know ahead of time that the park is closed.

Why? Getting to the cache legitimatly is part of the challenge. The cache owner sets up the experience. They may or may not tell you the correct path to the cache. They may or may not tell you where to park, or what hours to try and find the cache. The finders job is to find the cache. How is up to them. Ignoring that most parks that post hours post "Dawn to Dusk" and that's fairly universal.

[+Renegade Knight]

Instead of being a cache cop and logging an SBA on arguably skectchy information, why not notify the owner and the reviewer by logging a Needs Maintenance and put the private property concerns there? This notifies everyone that there MAY be a problem without sayng that YOU know for a fact that this cache needs to be archived.

Just FYI, a "Needs Maintenance" log does not notify the reviewer. It's like any other log except SBA - notification goes to the owner and any other person watching the cache.

The ONLY log type that automatically goes to the reviewer is SBA. Which is why AlabamaRambler is suggesting using the SBA log as a "notify reviewer this cache needs more looking at".

I'll have to remember that. So the NM log is a more complicated regular log or note. It sets an attribute that you have to remember to turn off by using a "I maintained it log" whcih in my area I don't use for good reason.

[+halffast]

I would have called her the big B word and then my wife would have hit me in the mouth and then she would tell the lady to have a wonderful day.

[Clan Riffster]

What if we were to push this to the very extreme:

(replace the geocacher with a hiker & this is an actual scenario I responded to)

 

Let's say a geocacher was wandering around doing what we do best, and entered a wooded area that appeared to be public land, in search of a cache. Suddenly a person charges out of the woodline with a handgun and starts firing at the cacher, yelling words to the effect of "GET OFF MY **** PROPERTY".

 

Should that cache be archived?

 

In my opinion, "No". The wacko with the gun needs to be dealt with.

[+diesel69]

<snip>

Public access to a property does not make it public property.

 

Likewise public property does not necessarily make it public access.

[+rainbow3]

I prefer the response of "Go f*@$ yourself!" Sometimes people just need to be told that.

[AngryZombie]

Maybe the Angry Lady was part of GeoCache Puzzle?! Now that would be good.

[knowschad]

I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned that this may simply be a cache *access* issue. It may be that all that is required is for the cache owner to post trail access or parking coordinates.

 

The GPS navigates to the spot nearest the cache, but that does not mean that it is where we are supposed to enter the cache site. My Nuvi frequently wants me to pull over on busy freeways to grab a cache that is only 100 feet away.

 

The woman doing the yelling very well may be 100% within her rights, and may well have politely asked the first few cachers to leave. But after many visits, her patience may be growing thin.

 

I would first contact the cache owner and ask if there is a better spot to enter the cache site. If I didn't get a response in a reasonble amount of time, or if I received a "yes" answer, then I may very well consider a SBA log, but to do that immediately, based on the cacher's guesses about where they should enter the area would be very premature and wrong.

[+gof1]

What if we were to push this to the very extreme:

(replace the geocacher with a hiker & this is an actual scenario I responded to)

 

Let's say a geocacher was wandering around doing what we do best, and entered a wooded area that appeared to be public land, in search of a cache. Suddenly a person charges out of the woodline with a handgun and starts firing at the cacher, yelling words to the effect of "GET OFF MY **** PROPERTY".

 

Should that cache be archived?

 

In my opinion, "No". The wacko with the gun needs to be dealt with.

 

I think that in this type of scenario the cache should be archived. At the very least until the wacko can be dealt with by the authorities. There is no cache worth someone getting shot over. I will, however, agree that the problem is with the wacko. The cache may or may not be "legal" but the guy with the gun is a hazard to the world in general, not just cachers.

[Mushtang]

I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned that this may simply be a cache *access* issue.

I'm surprised a 3 year old thread got brought up like this.

[+wkmccall]

Sounds like you were the victim of an annoying busybody... welcome to the club! I was chased out of a neighbourhood the other day, while parked on a public road, by a self-proclaimed blockwatch captain who escorted me out of the area and followed me for 10 minutes in his car to make sure I wasn't going to circle back and return to pillage their homes

 

Something that comes in handy is to prepare a standard answer ahead of time that you can automatically respond with that will put muggles in their place. Such responses could include "I'm a biologist studying the effect of (insert pest here) in the local area for my master's thesis", or "I'm a bridge inspector" (this one works well if you wear an orange vest and hard hat and carry a clipboard). If you sound like you're doing something official, most people will leave you alone.

 

Another good one is to have a gas mask handy and have it on when someone comes to your vehicle. I found that most people will turn and walk away even before they get to you..... :D

[knowschad]

I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned that this may simply be a cache *access* issue.

I'm surprised a 3 year old thread got brought up like this.

 

Wasn't me that dug up that bone. But I did fail notice that it was a 3 year old bone. Still, I'm surprised that nobody three years ago considered the access aspect of the problem.

[+gof1]

The thread may be old but the topic is still relevant to today's caching.

[Mushtang]

I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned that this may simply be a cache *access* issue.

I'm surprised a 3 year old thread got brought up like this.

Wasn't me that dug up that bone. But I did fail notice that it was a 3 year old bone. Still, I'm surprised that nobody three years ago considered the access aspect of the problem.

You're right, and I worded it badly. I only quoted you because of the phrase you used that I wanted to play on.

 

I would have been clearer if I'd said, "I'm surprised a 3 year old thread got brought back like it did".

 

As in, the joke about the angry lady being part of the puzzle. I've always wondered how old threads like this get bumped? Sometimes they're linked inside a new thread and someone replies - forgetting they followed a link. I'm not sure if that's what happened here or not.

[+Renegade Knight]

Firstly I would laugh at the experience!

 

There are all kinds of jerks in this world, but even the most unpleasant can be seen as humerous!

 

Imagine having to live with someone like that and it will make you realize just how much you appreciate your spouse!

 

Then I would file an SBA note.

 

Caches are clearly prohibited on school grounds.

 

Anytime placement permission is called into question the Reviewer should be alerted so they can investigate and make a decision....

 

I agree with the turn it into humorouse. When I meet people like that I always find myself picturing who the heck would marry them. Then I can't help but snicker to myself.

 

As for how proceed I'd let the cache owner (via your log or an email) know about the incident. They may need to take a look at the cache. The owner always needs first shot at fixing or looking into their own cache.

Answer then is above.

 

Answer now (from not noticing the OP date).

...My question is what should (or would) you do if you were placed in a similar situation???

 

First. Listen. They are venting, and you thought it's no fun are who they have chosen to vent too. If you listen to them to the end often they realize that you have just done them a courtesy (though they can't normally place a finger on what exactly) and cool off. Then you can ask questions (based on their venting rant) and help them solve their problem. That you negotiate on the spot. Maybe you take the container with you, maybe you offer to talk to the cache owner to fix it, maybe you show them what cacheing is and show them the cache.

 

In your shoes and working under the assumption that nothing was solved on the spot I'd email the cache owner your expereince and give them the chance to fix the cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned that this may simply be a cache *access* issue. ...

 

Potentially an access issue. Potentially a permission issue. 100% a disgruntled muggle in the vicinity issue which is a real problem for any cache with or without permission and with or without legitimte access.