No Trespassing signs

[+BiT]

In the past few months I have found two caches (Timberview and I Wanna Go Home!) that are in areas that are posted as 'No Trespassing'. Today I found the third. On the prior two caches I posted notes as well as pictures, but the owners continued with the caches. When I found the third (Fork it all! ) today I posted a SBA to that cache as well as the prior two.

 

First the cache should not have been placed there.

 

Second, after the owner was notified that the cache was inappropriately placed it should have been archived.

 

Last, I hate being the GeoPolice but I thought this should not be happening.

 

Why do you think this is happening? That is why do people place cache beyond NT signs? Then, why are they kept active after notification?

 

What are you thoughts?

 

Just curious, BiT.

[+briansnat]

That is why do people place cache beyond NT signs?

 

I can think of a two reasons (the second applies to several of my caches).

 

1. The cache owner has permission (this should be noted on the page but isn't always).

 

2. The sign is no longer valid, as in when formerly private property is purchased by the government and turned into a park and they never bothered to take down the signs.

[+TrailGators]

In the past few months I have found two caches (Timberview and I Wanna Go Home!) that are in areas that are posted as 'No Trespassing'. Today I found the third. On the prior two caches I posted notes as well as pictures, but the owners continued with the caches. When I found the third (Fork it all! ) today I posted a SBA to that cache as well as the prior two.

 

First the cache should not have been placed there.

 

Second, after the owner was notified that the cache was inappropriately placed it should have been archived.

 

Last, I hate being the GeoPolice but I thought this should not be happening.

 

Why do you think this is happening? That is why do people place cache beyond NT signs? Then, why are they kept active after notification?

 

What are you thoughts?

 

Just curious, BiT.

I would say that there is a hole in the net down there. Good for you for SBAing these.

[+TrailGators]

That is why do people place cache beyond NT signs?

 

I can think of a two reasons (the second applies to several of my caches).

 

1. The cache owner has permission (this should be noted on the page but isn't always).

 

2. The sign is no longer valid, as in when formerly private property is purchased by the government and turned into a park and they never bothered to take down the signs.

That begs a question:

 

What should a cacher do if he comes up to an NT sign if the cache owner has not indicated that he has permission, or that the sign is invalid on the cache page? I myself would turn around since no cache is worth getting a fine for.

[+Confucius' Cat]

What should a cacher do if he comes up to an NT sign if the cache owner has not indicated that he has permission, or that the sign is invalid on the cache page? I myself would turn around since no cache is worth getting a fine for.

That is the only sensible response.

 

There is no way to know for sure whether a NT sign is valid or not. Practically speaking, anyone can post a sign - anywhere. I have even heard of unscrupulous hunters doing this on public land to make their own "private hunting preserves".

 

The only reasonable thing to do is assume the signs are valid unless you specifically know they are not. Even then I would obey until i could get them removed by someone of authority.

 

As far as pointing it out to the cache owners, I'm more than a little cynical on this point. I figure the owner knows about it so what's my point in pointing it out? (I have come to that cynical point after encountering SO MANY of these and having been "blasted" for pointing it out on several occasions)

 

Even if the cache owner states it is HIS property, i still will not cross a NT sign, just in case I might be at the wrong place. There are no doubt MANY great caches on cachers' property and the NT signs are placed for everyone except cachers, but I will pass on them unless the owner makes it obvious that i am at the right location.

 

I won't deal with the cache owner's "friendly dogs" either, but that's another issue.

[+Renegade Knight]

First if the cache has permission so do the seekers regardless of the signs.

 

Second if the sign doesn't belong there and the cache does, all is well.

 

Third even if the sign is legit there may be a way in that isn't tresspassing.

 

Here I've seen no trespassing sings on one trial and not the next when they both connect on public land 500' behind the sign. I've heard tell of farmers and ranchars who finding themsleves dealing with the nuisance of public access on their lands (paid for by the government) or on their leased lands (grazing etc.) put up signs that don't belong.

[+Renegade Knight]

...What should a cacher do if he comes up to an NT sign if the cache owner has not indicated that he has permission, or that the sign is invalid on the cache page? I myself would turn around since no cache is worth getting a fine for.

 

If I figuer the sign is legit and I can't see a way to the cache that looks legit I'll leave and ask the owner what's up.

[+Moore9KSUcats]

Finally go tout here with littlecrazy and saw all the NT signs. Are we OK to go in here? Do we know someone. It was hard to cross those signs after my son pointed them out. cc

 

Interesting post from one of those caches in question. That cacher makes a valid point.... should we be teaching our children it is ok to ignore laws when a sign clearly points out it is illegal to be there? Now, if the cacher indeed HAS permission, and it is stated on the cache page, be sure to have the cache page printed out in case you are questioned by a hopefully friendly law official.

 

Otherwise, I also turn around and go on to another cache. Yes, there may be a legal access point without signs, but if so, please point them out to the public.

[+TrailGators]

...What should a cacher do if he comes up to an NT sign if the cache owner has not indicated that he has permission, or that the sign is invalid on the cache page? I myself would turn around since no cache is worth getting a fine for.

 

If I figuer the sign is legit and I can't see a way to the cache that looks legit I'll leave and ask the owner what's up.

I know you hate SBA logs RK, and I don't want to fight about them. But in this case the OP posted a note on the cache page, which emailed the cache owner as well as warning future cachers. Then nothing was done so he posted an SBA log. This seems like an appropriate use of this tool in this case....

[+Team Dromomania]

 

Third even if the sign is legit there may be a way in that isn't tresspassing.

 

 

This has happened to me at GCD61. I first attempted a creek approach but ran into new "no tresspassing" signs. I turned back. After reading the logs I see that others have been making the approach from a "road" runing along side the creek. I returned and found the road about 50 feet away from my first approach. Just BEFORE I reached the No Tresspassing signs I found the cache.

[+Team Dromomania]

[Yes, there may be a legal access point without signs, but if so, please point them out to the public.

 

Some owners figure that's part of the hunt. GC3828 is a good example. Nobody has figured out how to get to the cache without tresspassing signs for the past 2 1/2 years.

[+Renegade Knight]

[Yes, there may be a legal access point without signs, but if so, please point them out to the public.

 

Some owners figure that's part of the hunt. GC3828 is a good example. Nobody has figured out how to get to the cache without tresspassing signs for the past 2 1/2 years.

 

True enough. It is part of the hunt. Some owners will guide you in like a 747 coming in for a landing. Others are going to let you work on your own like a bush pilot. Not everone is cut out to be a bush pilot.

[+BiT]

**First if the cache has permission so do the seekers regardless of the signs.

 

There was no indication on the cache page(s) that this was the case even after posting a note and asking if this was a possibility.

 

**Second if the sign doesn't belong there and the cache does, all is well.

 

The signs are obviously placed to keep people from trespassing.

 

**Third even if the sign is legit there may be a way in that isn't trespassing.

 

They, the caches, were basically in the center of the parcel and the signs were on the frontage of those parcels. On the other case, the sign was on the only entrance into the neighbourhood give the cache page and terrain rating.

[+Renegade Knight]

**First if the cache has permission so do the seekers regardless of the signs.

 

There was no indication on the cache page(s) that this was the case even after posting a note and asking if this was a possibility.

 

**Second if the sign doesn't belong there and the cache does, all is well.

 

The signs are obviously placed to keep people from trespassing.

 

**Third even if the sign is legit there may be a way in that isn't trespassing.

 

They, the caches, were basically in the center of the parcel and the signs were on the frontage of those parcels. On the other case, the sign was on the only entrance into the neighbourhood give the cache page and terrain rating.

 

I had thought you were asking a general question and gave a general answer as to why the sighting of a no tresspassing sigh does not automaticly mean a cache should be archived.

 

It's worth expanding on one point.

A No Trespassing sign is not always placed to prevent trespassing. They can be placed by someone to keep people they don't want in an area out even though they have no right whatsoever to do so and the people who would access that area have every right to do so. This is not unheard of. In other cases the sign could be 'expired' meaning that access is allowed now, but all the signs were not collected from a time when access wasn't allowed. Sometimes it's not as cut and dry as it would seem. Sometimes it is.

[+calkan]

I learned my lesson with No Trespassing signs.

My friend, Relish and I went looking for a cache which was on private property. The land owner had given permission to the cache owner for the placement of the cache.

When we went looking for this particular cache, we came across a NO TRESPASSING! sign. Reading the log description on the web page on this cache, it seemed like we were welcome to proceed. WRONG! We drove through the gate and continued on to find the cache. While we are signing the log book, I hear a vehicle come roaring up and come to a sudden stop behind our vehicle which was parked only feet from where the cache was. As I tried to be inconspicuous, I could see a tall figure out of the corner of my eye, standing on the edge of the road glaring at me. I looked up and low and behold saw the biggest, meanest looking cowboy that Montana produced. I gave him my biggest smile and said hi!. He glared at me and I nudged my geocaching buddy to hurry and sign the log. I knew we were in trouble. He barked at us..."what the %&^% are you doing?" I politely replied and tried to explain the circumstances along with the alien word "Geocaching". My mind raced as I tried to think of the cache owners name. The name popped into my head as if God was trying to save our lives, and I blurted the cache owners name to him and that we had understood that permission was given for this cache. At this point the big mean looking cowboy wanted to know what was in the box? and I started naming off the contents. "a log book, pencil, rubber duck, plastic car, refrigerator magnet, tennis ball, rubber wrist band, a pin and other items" I knew I had disarmed him with the random silliness of items I was giving him. I was worried about getting my butt kicked all over the place, but at this point I knew the cowboy thought we were completely nuts. He asked us where we were from and I told him. He turned on his heels, got in his pickup and roared away. I guessed that the land owner had second thoughts about Geocachers on his property. I told my partner the cache would be archived soon. It was...the same evening after we returned home. The cache owner sent us an apology, but I am more gun shy than ever.

So to make a long story short. If you come on a "No Trespassing sign" and you go beyond the sign...you are trespassing. Be ready for the wrath to follow. Private land owners are a touchy bunch. Treat them with respect.

Edited December 18, 2006 by calkan

[+Renegade Knight]

....First the cache should not have been placed there.

Second, after the owner was notified that the cache was inappropriately placed it should have been archived.

Last, I hate being the GeoPolice but I thought this should not be happening....

What are you thoughts?

 

To answer your specific question about your 3 caches.

 

First, you have made a judgment based on incomplete information.

Second, you have made a second judgment that the owner should have archived the cache based on your reccomendation, but haven't allowed for the fact that the owner could have a different conclustion, know something you don't, or may have fully gotten permssion in the meantime but didn't cc you on the emails.

Lastly, your role as a finder is one of advisor. You advice the cache owner as to the status of the cache and allow them to deal with any issues that arrise. You only need to act as GeoPolice if the property owner is standing in front of you yelling at you about the cache. Then you do what it takes to solve the problem on the spot and you follow through with it.

 

Yes it would be nice if the cache owner posted they had permssion as do seekers of the cache. Yes it would be nice if the owenrs said "this field is a larger parcel of ground made from two smallers ones. The West half is private and that owner has posted it no trespassing, but the East half is owend by old Widow Gray who like geocaching and welcomes cache seekers"

 

If you would take on the role of geo-police it's not enough to "Think" you know whats gonig on, you need to know what's going on to make the best decision. Even then leave it to the cache owner or use the SBA log to state your case (and I'd still rather you just email the reviewer in the area) so the reviewer who's going to have to make the decision has good info.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I guessed that the land owner had second thoughts about Geocachers on his property. I told my partner the cache would be archived soon. It was...the same evening after we returned home. The cache owner sent us an apology, but I am more gun shy than ever.

So to make a long story short. If you come on a "No Tresspassing sign" and you go beyond the sign...you are tresspassing. Be ready for the wrath to follow. Private land owners are a touchy bunch. Treat them with respect.

 

Or you got a nosy neighbor who pokes their nose into everbody's business. It would not make the cache any more fun but if the cache owner got permission they did what they were supposed to do. That you emailed them so they can figure out what to do next was good. The last thing I want on a cache even with explicit permssion is some Busybody roaring down in their truck, guns in the rack and yelling at my cache finders.

 

In spite of anything I say about the validity of a no trespassing sign I assume they are 100% valid unless I know otherwise. Then it helps to know the story that made it otherwise. On one of my quests to find Idaho's Rock Arch up by Arco the locals warned me what road to take, and that the nearby rancher may have posted it, but it was a public access. I would not have wanted to bump into the rancher but I did want to get to the rock arch.

[+Confucius' Cat]

On one of my quests to find Idaho's Rock Arch up by Arco the locals warned me what road to take, and that the nearby rancher may have posted it, but it was a public access. I would not have wanted to bump into the rancher but I did want to get to the rock arch.

The problem with this is to try to determine who's telling the truth.

 

Especailly for an out-of-towner, it is best to just pass on it- unless you can get an escort from the local DNR perhaps.

 

My perception of handing an inquirer the cache page even if it says "on my property" or "permission granted" is that the inquirer might, quite rightly, ask "who the **** is Snizzlekratz"? The cache page falls well short of a legal document... especially with the pseudonym owner infromation.

[+TrailGators]

In the past few months I have found two caches (Timberview and I Wanna Go Home!) that are in areas that are posted as 'No Trespassing'.

I looked through the logs of the Timberview cache. It was found by 85 different cachers and besides BiT only one other cacher mentioned the NT signs in his log. He even said he was nervous about it. Back in September BiT posted a note with his concern and the owner replied that "the land was owned by the school district and is commonly used by residents of the area." Anyhow, most people seem to have no problem with ignoring the NT signs. Now that BiT has forced the issue with a SBA log the owner will have to prove she has permission or archive the cache. My guess is that the school district posted the NT signs as a CYA in case someone got hurt on that land.

[+Confucius' Cat]

In the past few months I have found two caches (Timberview and I Wanna Go Home!) that are in areas that are posted as 'No Trespassing'.

I looked through the logs of the Timberview cache. It was found by 85 different cachers and besides BiT only one other cacher mentioned the NT signs in his log. He even said he was nervous about it. Back in September BiT posted a note with his concern and the owner replied that "the land was owned by the school district and is commonly used by residents of the area." Anyhow, most people seem to have no problem with ignoring the NT signs. Now that BiT has forced the issue with a SBA log the owner will have to prove she has permission or archive the cache. My guess is that the school district posted the NT signs as a CYA in case someone got hurt on that land.

I don't think it is anything unusual for many cachers to ignore or perhaps conveniently "not notice" NT signs.

 

I have seen this on many caches with prominently posted signs. On one hand, if you did see the signs and went ahead on and found the cache, signed the book, and logged online, you just provided documentary evidence of your violation of law (assuming the signs are legit). For someone to mention seeing the signs in their FIND log, would be a prima-facie admission of guilt. Otherwise, if you do not mention seeing the signs, you have maintained "plausible deniability" and in most cases a successful prosecution would require proof that you KNOWINGLY trespassed, which your log does not provide.

 

"Commonly used" does not constitute legal permission and signs posted to CYA are still legitimate notice against trespass. It is a bad deal and if the owner does not have permission the cache SHOULD be archived. Do we really need questionable caches? Is it really worth it, all things considered, to place caches where people are justifiably concerned about their right to be there?

[+welch]

That is why do people place cache beyond NT signs?

 

I can think of a two reasons (the second applies to several of my caches).

 

1. The cache owner has permission (this should be noted on the page but isn't always).

 

2. The sign is no longer valid, as in when formerly private property is purchased by the government and turned into a park and they never bothered to take down the signs.

3. The cache hunter has take an uncommon route and is no longer in the park (or never was?).

 

Parks are rarely perfect squares, if its an oxbow or other 'odd' shape it may require following certain paths to stay in the park.

If I found an NT I think I'd leave. Then contact the owner for info and try a different approach (in whichever order seems more prudent.)

[+TrailGators]

If I found an NT I think I'd leave. Then contact the owner for info and try a different approach (in whichever order seems more prudent.)

So if the cache owner replied that "the land was owned by the school district and is commonly used by residents of the area." Then what would you do?

[+briansnat]

That is why do people place cache beyond NT signs?

 

I can think of a two reasons (the second applies to several of my caches).

 

1. The cache owner has permission (this should be noted on the page but isn't always).

 

2. The sign is no longer valid, as in when formerly private property is purchased by the government and turned into a park and they never bothered to take down the signs.

3. The cache hunter has take an uncommon route and is no longer in the park (or never was?).

 

Parks are rarely perfect squares, if its an oxbow or other 'odd' shape it may require following certain paths to stay in the park.

If I found an NT I think I'd leave. Then contact the owner for info and try a different approach (in whichever order seems more prudent.)

 

and:

 

4. There is a legal route to the cache, but this one ain't it.

[Dinoprophet]

tune of "Auld Lang Syne"

 

This cache is on a private lot,

I can never log a find.

It should be archived on the spot;

There's a No Trespassing sign.

 

A No Trespassing sign, oh dear!

A No Trespassing sign!

"All violators will be shot,"

Says the No Trespassing sign.

 

(from the old Caching Christmas Songs thread)

[+nikcap]

That is why do people place cache beyond NT signs?

...

 

2. The sign is no longer valid, as in when formerly private property is purchased by the government and turned into a park and they never bothered to take down the signs.

 

 

This is true in New Jersey

 

However, sometime the State adds new signs to State Parks and Wild Life Management areas.

I had a issue with a No Trespassing sign that showed up at the entrance to a state park where I have a cache.

I spoke to the NJDEP and State Parks department. There explanation was that trespassing is essentially any thing that not listed in the park rules. (Ie, camping, night hiking, using motorized vehicles, dumping, etc)

Placing the sign bumped the offense from a defiant trespass to criminal trespass.

 

For the post part, it's only confused cache seekers and I still see ATV and new garbage appearing in the area.

[+Renegade Knight]

If I found an NT I think I'd leave. Then contact the owner for info and try a different approach (in whichever order seems more prudent.)

So if the cache owner replied that "the land was owned by the school district and is commonly used by residents of the area." Then what would you do?

School districts often do own tracts of land for future schools. These tracts will have the same general policy as other school propety. Public use is allowed subject to not interfering with the schools function. (Your local school district may vary...)

 

Raw land with no school to mess with, what's not to love?

Edited December 18, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

On one of my quests to find Idaho's Rock Arch up by Arco the locals warned me what road to take, and that the nearby rancher may have posted it, but it was a public access. I would not have wanted to bump into the rancher but I did want to get to the rock arch.

The problem with this is to try to determine who's telling the truth.

 

Especailly for an out-of-towner, it is best to just pass on it- unless you can get an escort from the local DNR perhaps....

 

In that case the road was fine, wasn't posted or blocked like the locals warned me about (the BLM here does enforce public access to thier lands) and what turned me back that time was the road became more than my Dinky Nissan Sentra could handle. Later I went back with a truck and we found the arch and had a great day. Later still a cache was placed there. That brings us back to the potential for an annoyed rancher to block things off. The cache gets maybe one visit a year.

[+TrailGators]

If I found an NT I think I'd leave. Then contact the owner for info and try a different approach (in whichever order seems more prudent.)

So if the cache owner replied that "the land was owned by the school district and is commonly used by residents of the area." Then what would you do?

School districts often do own tracts of land for future schools. These tracts will have the same general policy as other school propety. Public use is allowed subject to not interfering with the schools function. (Your local school district may vary...)

 

Raw land with no school to mess with, what's not to love?

OK now for the $64,000 dollar question:

Why does the school post NT signs all around a vacant lot if public use is allowed?

Maybe it's a way to identify people that can't read so they can send them to school?

[Not So Lost Puppies]

I have a note to add to this discussion... You also need to know the laws of the area you are caching in...

 

In Wisconsin, land owners are not required to post their property as No Trespassing. It is the responsibility of hunters, hikers, ATV riders, etc. to know where they are and not go onto private property without permission.

[+TrailGators]

I have a note to add to this discussion... You also need to know the laws of the area you are caching in...

 

In Wisconsin, land owners are not required to post their property as No Trespassing. It is the responsibility of hunters, hikers, ATV riders, etc. to know where they are and not go onto private property without permission.

Good point! Of course most landowners in Wisconsin post their land to stop it from being invaded by a bunch of people in orange clothing around Thanksgiving.

 

So now this thread has a bunch of people giving a bunch of reasons why an actual NT sign may be invalid (which we wouldn't know unless there was a note on the cache page or we did some research on our own). We have other people saying you should always assume the sign is correct and either heed the sign or find a legal way to the cache. Now we had another adding that no sign doesn't mean you can trespass! So I guess the moral of the story is the cache owner should do all this work so everyone else doesn't have to! The cache owner should also post all pertinent info on the cache page!

[Not So Lost Puppies]

I have a note to add to this discussion... You also need to know the laws of the area you are caching in...

 

In Wisconsin, land owners are not required to post their property as No Trespassing. It is the responsibility of hunters, hikers, ATV riders, etc. to know where they are and not go onto private property without permission.

Good point! Of course most landowners in Wisconsin post their land to stop it from being invaded by a bunch of people in orange clothing around Thanksgiving.

 

So now this thread has a bunch of people giving a bunch of reasons why an actual NT sign may be invalid (which we wouldn't know unless there was a note on the cache page or we did some research on our own). We have other people saying you should always assume the sign is correct and either heed the sign or find a legal way to the cache. Now we had another adding that no sign doesn't mean you can trespass! So I guess the moral of the story is the cache owner should do all this work so everyone else doesn't have to! The cache owner should also post all pertinent info on the cache page!

 

I agree that if there may be any question as to the question about private property trespassing related to common hunting of a cache, that it should be made clear in the cache descriptoin. If there is private property in the area, and there is a clearly legal public way in, it should either be shown, or at least mentioned in the cache description that there is a legal way into the cache. I have seen that listed on some, and thanks to those who listed it!

 

I'm not saying the owner must always list the exact path to find the cache, but at least let us know there is a known public access route. And also let us know there is property we should not go onto. Yes, it is the cache hunters responsibility to find the proper way in, but its good to know there are wrong ways.

 

I also think that if it is on private property and permission has been granted, that it should also be noted if the neighbors know about it (and they should be told about it!). We've had to explain to a county sheriff's deputy what we were doing when I returned from a cache that had permission (owner's in-laws property) because the neighbors across the street called 911. (luckily my wife had stayed in the car with our dog so he didn't feel the need to find us in the woods - probably with gun drawn. story posted in other threads)

[+welch]

That is why do people place cache beyond NT signs?

 

I can think of a two reasons (the second applies to several of my caches).

 

1. The cache owner has permission (this should be noted on the page but isn't always).

 

2. The sign is no longer valid, as in when formerly private property is purchased by the government and turned into a park and they never bothered to take down the signs.

3. The cache hunter has take an uncommon route and is no longer in the park (or never was?).

 

Parks are rarely perfect squares, if its an oxbow or other 'odd' shape it may require following certain paths to stay in the park.

If I found an NT I think I'd leave. Then contact the owner for info and try a different approach (in whichever order seems more prudent.)

 

and:

 

4. There is a legal route to the cache, but this one ain't it.

Exactly

[+welch]

If I found an NT I think I'd leave. Then contact the owner for info and try a different approach (in whichever order seems more prudent.)

So if the cache owner replied that "the land was owned by the school district and is commonly used by residents of the area." Then what would you do?

 

That would depend, if I was not likely to return I'd forget it about it.

If I was likely to return or it was in my normal area (and I didn't believe the cache owner), I'd check with other residents of that area. If possiable any that live near the school or are/related to any teachers or people working at the school. If that didn't work (ie none of those people knew) I might check with the schools science dept / science club, or even the principal. Someones bound to know if the school district owns that praire/wooded/whatever property. (And if none of that list know, you could always go to your county assessors office)

[+TrailGators]

If I found an NT I think I'd leave. Then contact the owner for info and try a different approach (in whichever order seems more prudent.)

So if the cache owner replied that "the land was owned by the school district and is commonly used by residents of the area." Then what would you do?

If I was likely to return or it was in my normal area (and I didn't believe the cache owner), I'd check with other residents of that area. If possiable any that live near the school or are/related to any teachers or people working at the school. If that didn't work (ie none of those people knew) I might check with the schools science dept / science club, or even the principal. Someones bound to know if the school district owns that praire/wooded/whatever property. (And if none of that list know, you could always go to your county assessors office)

Man, that seems like a lot of work for one cache....

 

So in the context of this thread, what exactly are you recommending that BiT should do?

Edited December 18, 2006 by TrailGators

[+welch]

If I found an NT I think I'd leave. Then contact the owner for info and try a different approach (in whichever order seems more prudent.)

So if the cache owner replied that "the land was owned by the school district and is commonly used by residents of the area." Then what would you do?

If I was likely to return or it was in my normal area (and I didn't believe the cache owner), I'd check with other residents of that area. If possiable any that live near the school or are/related to any teachers or people working at the school. If that didn't work (ie none of those people knew) I might check with the schools science dept / science club, or even the principal. Someones bound to know if the school district owns that praire/wooded/whatever property. (And if none of that list know, you could always go to your county assessors office)

Man, that seems like a lot of work for one cache....

 

So in the context of this thread, what exactly are you recommending that BiT should do?

It sure could be

 

What I recommend would depend on the cache and how well BiT trusts/knows the cache owner.

 

btw- What is your recommendation?

[+Renegade Knight]

.... OK now for the $64,000 dollar question:

Why does the school post NT signs all around a vacant lot if public use is allowed?

Maybe it's a way to identify people that can't read so they can send them to school?

That means your school district probably has a bunch of anal board members worried about liability and a thousand other things that make it so they can't sleep at night and which makes them a good canditate to ban tag as a playground game. It also means that your school district isn't normal. There are incentives built into the system to encourage schools to allow the use of their facilties for public use. It also means No Trespassing. However I could be 100% wrong and it could be that they never removed the signs from when they bought the property. If the signs say "No Trespassing by order of the school board" well, that's pretty clear.

 

Our school district which is not known for being the best in the state allows the use of their property for playgrounds, baseball, community education classes and the like. Also here for most every new school there is always an adjoining parcel of land that isn't school district property. It's for the seminary that the LDS church is going to build. If the land owner sold it to the church first then the rest to the school district you can have a square parcel with a rectangular bite taken out of it that belongs to the church. In classic legal speak the real anwer is "it depends".

[+briansnat]

That is why do people place cache beyond NT signs?

...

 

2. The sign is no longer valid, as in when formerly private property is purchased by the government and turned into a park and they never bothered to take down the signs.

 

 

This is true in New Jersey

 

However, sometime the State adds new signs to State Parks and Wild Life Management areas.

I had a issue with a No Trespassing sign that showed up at the entrance to a state park where I have a cache.

I spoke to the NJDEP and State Parks department. There explanation was that trespassing is essentially any thing that not listed in the park rules. (Ie, camping, night hiking, using motorized vehicles, dumping, etc)

Placing the sign bumped the offense from a defiant trespass to criminal trespass.

 

For the post part, it's only confused cache seekers and I still see ATV and new garbage appearing in the area.

 

Here is a good example. See the No Trespassing sign. Pretty cut and dried, right?

 

 

But look more closely at the sign behind it. Also notice the blue hiking trail blazes on the tree.

 

So why would there be both signs there? So they can prosecute any hunters, ATVers, swimmers or anybody who is doing something that is not one of the approved uses.

Edited December 19, 2006 by briansnat

[+TrailGators]

If I found an NT I think I'd leave. Then contact the owner for info and try a different approach (in whichever order seems more prudent.)

So if the cache owner replied that "the land was owned by the school district and is commonly used by residents of the area." Then what would you do?

If I was likely to return or it was in my normal area (and I didn't believe the cache owner), I'd check with other residents of that area. If possiable any that live near the school or are/related to any teachers or people working at the school. If that didn't work (ie none of those people knew) I might check with the schools science dept / science club, or even the principal. Someones bound to know if the school district owns that praire/wooded/whatever property. (And if none of that list know, you could always go to your county assessors office)

Man, that seems like a lot of work for one cache....

 

So in the context of this thread, what exactly are you recommending that BiT should do?

It sure could be What I recommend would depend on the cache and how well BiT trusts/knows the cache owner. btw- What is your recommendation?

To be honest, after reading all the responses in this thread, I would now blow off these three caches and move on to ones that don't have issues. It seems like posting an SBA log to have the owner investigate the potential issue is frowned upon. So why waste time doing something that is not appreciated?

[+Confucius' Cat]

OK now for the $64,000 dollar question:

Why does the school post NT signs all around a vacant lot if public use is allowed?

Maybe it's a way to identify people that can't read so they can send them to school?

As an outsider, I would never assume that the posted land IS available for public use. As an outsider, I have nothing to go on except the posted signs- I am not privy to the local folklore and customs. Furthermore often the local customs only apply to locals- perhaps that is the reason the signs were left there? The locals "know" the land is "public" but they don't trust outsiders.

 

So now this thread has a bunch of people giving a bunch of reasons why an actual NT sign may be invalid (which we wouldn't know unless there was a note on the cache page or we did some research on our own). We have other people saying you should always assume the sign is correct and either heed the sign or find a legal way to the cache. Now we had another adding that no sign doesn't mean you can trespass! So I guess the moral of the story is the cache owner should do all this work so everyone else doesn't have to! The cache owner should also post all pertinent info on the cache page!

Well, either the cache owner does the work or they should not expect out of towners to hunt the cache. Trespass is a pretty serious matter. Not many travellers want to tour the local "Hilton".

 

If I found an NT I think I'd leave. Then contact the owner for info and try a different approach (in whichever order seems more prudent.)

So if the cache owner replied that "the land was owned by the school district and is commonly used by residents of the area." Then what would you do?

If I was likely to return or it was in my normal area (and I didn't believe the cache owner), I'd check with other residents of that area. If possiable any that live near the school or are/related to any teachers or people working at the school. If that didn't work (ie none of those people knew) I might check with the schools science dept / science club, or even the principal. Someones bound to know if the school district owns that praire/wooded/whatever property. (And if none of that list know, you could always go to your county assessors office)

Man, that seems like a lot of work for one cache....

 

So in the context of this thread, what exactly are you recommending that BiT should do?

It sure could be What I recommend would depend on the cache and how well BiT trusts/knows the cache owner. btw- What is your recommendation?

To be honest, after reading all the responses in this thread, I would now blow off these three caches and move on to ones that don't have issues. It seems like posting an SBA log to have the owner investigate the potential issue is frowned upon. So why waste time doing something that is not appreciated?

 

BINGO!

 

The research is too much unless you are really desperate to get that particular cache (for whatever reason). To do the research just so you can say, "XYZ violated the rules- PFFFFFFT!" is more than a little petty. And to post an SBA is bound to get you "labelled" in your community.

 

I would contend that the owner KNEW that the cache was placed improperly (if in fact it was). If not, the owner SHOULD have given warning to seekers, but is under no obligation to do so.

 

So, as with most other cache issues, the best thing is the good old "ignore" list.

[+welch]

OK now for the $64,000 dollar question:

Why does the school post NT signs all around a vacant lot if public use is allowed?

Maybe it's a way to identify people that can't read so they can send them to school?

As an outsider, I would never assume that the posted land IS available for public use. As an outsider, I have nothing to go on except the posted signs- I am not privy to the local folklore and customs. Furthermore often the local customs only apply to locals- perhaps that is the reason the signs were left there? The locals "know" the land is "public" but they don't trust outsiders.

 

So now this thread has a bunch of people giving a bunch of reasons why an actual NT sign may be invalid (which we wouldn't know unless there was a note on the cache page or we did some research on our own). We have other people saying you should always assume the sign is correct and either heed the sign or find a legal way to the cache. Now we had another adding that no sign doesn't mean you can trespass! So I guess the moral of the story is the cache owner should do all this work so everyone else doesn't have to! The cache owner should also post all pertinent info on the cache page!

Well, either the cache owner does the work or they should not expect out of towners to hunt the cache. Trespass is a pretty serious matter. Not many travellers want to tour the local "Hilton".

 

If I found an NT I think I'd leave. Then contact the owner for info and try a different approach (in whichever order seems more prudent.)

So if the cache owner replied that "the land was owned by the school district and is commonly used by residents of the area." Then what would you do?

If I was likely to return or it was in my normal area (and I didn't believe the cache owner), I'd check with other residents of that area. If possiable any that live near the school or are/related to any teachers or people working at the school. If that didn't work (ie none of those people knew) I might check with the schools science dept / science club, or even the principal. Someones bound to know if the school district owns that praire/wooded/whatever property. (And if none of that list know, you could always go to your county assessors office)

Man, that seems like a lot of work for one cache....

 

So in the context of this thread, what exactly are you recommending that BiT should do?

It sure could be What I recommend would depend on the cache and how well BiT trusts/knows the cache owner. btw- What is your recommendation?

To be honest, after reading all the responses in this thread, I would now blow off these three caches and move on to ones that don't have issues. It seems like posting an SBA log to have the owner investigate the potential issue is frowned upon. So why waste time doing something that is not appreciated?

 

BINGO!

 

The research is too much unless you are really desperate to get that particular cache (for whatever reason). To do the research just so you can say, "XYZ violated the rules- PFFFFFFT!" is more than a little petty. And to post an SBA is bound to get you "labelled" in your community.

...

 

If you did the research to say "XYZ violated the rules- PFFFFFFT!", then yea it would be petty. If on the other hand you did the research because... well its in your area, what else do you have to do? Unless maybe there are lots and lots of other caches around to find (or hide), then you don't really care because you aren't going back. Which is what I was talking a few posts back, "If I was likely to return or it was in my normal area..."

[+TrailGators]

The research is too much unless you are really desperate to get that particular cache (for whatever reason). To do the research just so you can say, "XYZ violated the rules- PFFFFFFT!" is more than a little petty. And to post an SBA is bound to get you "labelled" in your community.

I thought about this some more and what you are saying goes against what the guidelines say:

 

"This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been posted and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it." The OP did this.

 

"There may be some exceptions. If your cache fits within one of the above areas, please explain in notes to the reviewer section of the cache page. For example, if you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate it in the notes for the benefit of both the reviewer and people seeking out the cache." The caches owners of the caches cited by the OP did not do this.

 

If we set peer pressure aside, is there something that I'm missing? It seems like the OP simply followed the guidelines that we have all agreed to follow......

[+Renegade Knight]

Reviewer notes are not visible to the general public. I use them for information that I think a reviewer would need to know on the cache but for which I don't especially feel like detailing on the cahe page itself. The part you quote is an example of what you could use the notes for. Under those same guidelines you have also said you have adequate permission for the cache.

 

The cache page is to set up the cache experience. To tell a tale, to create an atmosphere. It's not about a long checklist of things that some of our more timid seekers may want to know. Unless you as a cache owner get a kick out of creating those kinds of listings.

 

The OP's not wrong, they asked what exeptions could exist and got answers. In their specific case they may be 100% right about the cache that sparked the question.

[+Renegade Knight]

....So now this thread has a bunch of people giving a bunch of reasons why an actual NT sign may be invalid (which we wouldn't know unless there was a note on the cache page or we did some research on our own). We have other people saying you should always assume the sign is correct and either heed the sign or find a legal way to the cache. Now we had another adding that no sign doesn't mean you can trespass!...

 

Most people would honor the sign until they knew what was going on. Like you said, we may know of exceptions, but the odds of knowing about any one cache and it's potential exceptions are slim. The laws on how to mark your property for no trespassing vary from state to state. I like what Norway did. Quite the opposite of the 'no signs still means no trespassing'. Can you picture a world where you can only go where you are explicity invited? We assume so much permission to travel that the fact that we are on private propety other than our own just to get by in daily life doesn't even cross our mind.

[Clan Riffster]

On a similar note;

I had a pair of caches hidden in a cypress swamp along the west shore of a local lake. Locals turned the lakeshore into their own personal ATV track, so the nearby property owners reacted by throwing up a bunch of "No Trespassing" signs. The problem was, they didn't put the signs on the property boundary.

This is a Google Earth shot of the area in question. The actual property border is listed on their deeds as the mean high water mark. I've noted the actual property border with the vertical white line west of the treeline. The "No Trespassing" signs were attached to the treeline. You would need to go past these signs to retrieve both caches. Although, technically, you wouldn't be trespassing, it would sure feel that way to those who were unaware of the high water mark issue. If a cop found you behind the signs, and wasn't aware of the real border, you might find yourself in court explaining Geocaching to a Judge. I decided prudence was the best course, and pulled both caches.

[+TrailGators]

Reviewer notes are not visible to the general public. I use them for information that I think a reviewer would need to know on the cache but for which I don't especially feel like detailing on the cache page itself. The part you quote is an example of what you could use the notes for. Under those same guidelines you have also said you have adequate permission for the cache.

However, the guidelines state these notes are for "benefit of both the reviewer and people seeking out the cache." So I would assume the guidelines are asking the cache owner to provide this important information as a note in the cache page itself, since the reviewer notes are all erased when the cache is approved. A footnote would not destroy the look of the cache page.

 

If the cache owner has mislead the reviewer and people seeking out the cache, then what accountability do they have if someone gets caught trespassing?

[+TrailGators]

....So now this thread has a bunch of people giving a bunch of reasons why an actual NT sign may be invalid (which we wouldn't know unless there was a note on the cache page or we did some research on our own). We have other people saying you should always assume the sign is correct and either heed the sign or find a legal way to the cache. Now we had another adding that no sign doesn't mean you can trespass!...

I like what Norway did. Quite the opposite of the 'no signs still means no trespassing'.

 

I like that too. If there weren't so many lawsuits, then it could be like that over here too!

[+BiT]

Okay, I thought this was a classic example of when to use the SBA feature, given that I had asked the owner to provide additional information and they failed to do so.

 

If a note would have been posted that they had checked with the school district and geocachers are permitted onto the property then maybe I would not have SBAed it. Then again it is on SCHOOL PROPERTY and would it then fall into the "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 again what if you are on the property and are stopped by the local police for trespassing. Is a print out of the cache page going to prevent you from getting a citation? Is the officer even going to consider calling the school to verify permission? If they do, what if they cannot get a hold of anyone of authority at the school?

 

Given all potential outcomes, would it be best to SBA?

Edited December 19, 2006 by Buckeyes_in_Texas (BiT)

[+Moose Mob]

If the land is clearly private, then it does need to be brought to the attention of the reviewer. Be careful though since sometimes it only seems clear. The cache hider may have addressed the issue in their cache listing. From there, it's a judgement call. Feel free to defer that to your friendly neighborhood reviewer.

[+ADKSherpa]

I did a cache on State grounds. There are No Trespassing signs all over but there is a sticker on the cache container by the State Park Service "OK"ing the cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

...If a note would have been posted that they had checked with the school district and geocachers are permitted onto the property then maybe I would not have SBAed it. Then again it is on SCHOOL PROPERTY and would it then fall into the "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 again what if you are on the property and are stopped by the local police for trespassing. Is a print out of the cache page going to prevent you from getting a citation? Is the officer even going to consider calling the school to verify permission? If they do, what if they cannot get a hold of anyone of authority at the school? ...

 

School property is public property. The entire issue with a cache at a school (as opposed to school lands with no school) is the potential for a responce to the discovery of the cache. Schools don't mess around and shut down and create all kinds of disruption when they even think something is suspiciouse. It's a great way for geocaching to get a black eye even if the cache was fine.

 

When I place a cache I'm responsible and I have assured this site and my finders that I have obtained adequate permssion. Every single finder has the ability to question the judgment of the cache owner. It gets old to hear people question variouse aspects of a cache that are covered. If there is any doubt at all, give the cache owner the beniefit and don't question their judgment. If there is no doubt by all means to the right thing.

 

As for the question about being picked up by the police the answer is going to be "it depends". Check Clan Riffster's post. If you are below the mean high water line you are good to go in spite of the signs. In fact the adjoining property owners are likely guilty of breaking a law or two for doing that to begin with. Joe Officer on the street may not know the nuance of the situation and you may get slapped into court if the property owners whine but once the judge hears the case you will win. On the other hand if the area is accessed by the public all the time...this issue will have long since been hashed out and the police will know about the adjoining land owners false claims.