Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Dents Son

Cemeteries

Recommended Posts

I absolutely believe in respecting the feelings of others especially people in mourning. I recently placed a cache in the oldest section of the cemetery my Father is buried in. This cache is 18 feet from the entrance. It is 3 feet from the 2nd and hardly used public access road. It is then less than 2 feet from the curb in the hollowed out pouch of an old cedar tree. No graves, monuments, headstones, adornments, flowers or grass are harmed.

Funerals in this section are no longer performed. The access roads are used by joggers, walkers, bicyclist, people walking pets and a rare visitor.

The reviewer published this cache. It got one positive find and was removed all in the same day. I contacted the lone finder who informed me that "It was a great cache BUT I had to inform the reviewer that it was in a cemetery" He went onto say "Don't feel bad, I had one in a cemetery and she banned it too."

This sounds alot like, "thanks for the find, of which I'll take credit. But if she banned mine she's banning yours too." I emailed the reviewer who pointed out that "although she had'nt been there herself she had complaints that the cache was too close to graves" and that since South Carolina and Tennessee? Geocachers had been banned from cemeteries she would'nt allow that to happen here."

If I thought for a second that this cache would offend anyone I'd never have placed it there. Being new to caching, How does a person defend their right to place a cache?

Share this post


Link to post

I absolutely believe in respecting the feelings of others especially people in mourning. I recently placed a cache in the oldest section of the cemetery my Father is buried in. This cache is 18 feet from the entrance. It is 3 feet from the 2nd and hardly used public access road. It is then less than 2 feet from the curb in the hollowed out pouch of an old cedar tree. No graves, monuments, headstones, adornments, flowers or grass are harmed.

Funerals in this section are no longer performed. The access roads are used by joggers, walkers, bicyclist, people walking pets and a rare visitor.

The reviewer published this cache. It got one positive find and was removed all in the same day. I contacted the lone finder who informed me that "It was a great cache BUT I had to inform the reviewer that it was in a cemetery" He went onto say "Don't feel bad, I had one in a cemetery and she banned it too."

This sounds alot like, "thanks for the find, of which I'll take credit. But if she banned mine she's banning yours too." I emailed the reviewer who pointed out that "although she had'nt been there herself she had complaints that the cache was too close to graves" and that since South Carolina and Tennessee? Geocachers had been banned from cemeteries she would'nt allow that to happen here."

If I thought for a second that this cache would offend anyone I'd never have placed it there. Being new to caching, How does a person defend their right to place a cache?

 

Ever since the South Carolina State Legislature threatened to (but never did) ban geocaching in cemeteries in 2005, the reviewers on this website are asking for explicit permission for cemetery caches in the U.S. I happen to live on the Canadian border, and I do not believe it applies there. It sounds like your cache was approved without the reviewer noticing it was in a cemetery. As far as what the first finder did, I have no comment. :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, that sounds a bit dirty to me. If there is a local ban, then I can see someone reporting it, but not take a smiley too.

 

Though new cemetery caches here in TN won't be published, the rest are grandfathered until/unless there are complaints. There is a proposed change to the law too, so lets hope it gets passed.

 

v/r

O-Mega

Share this post


Link to post

Being new to caching, How does a person defend their right to place a cache?

I suppose you could say you have a "right" to place a cache, but it is not correct that you have a "right" to have it published on any given cache listing site.

 

It is kinda like you have the right to free speech but nobody has an obligation to broadcast, print, or otherwise disseminate your speech- nor is anyone required to listen to it.

 

GC has specific guidelines which have been developed for the best interests of GC.com and hopefully for the best interests of the sport in general.

 

Now that i've gotten the legalism and semantics out of the way: Without seeing the cache myself, i cannot comment about whether it should or should not be listed (and since I am not a reviewer, my opinion is no more than just another cacher's opinion anyway).

 

From your description, I see no problem with the cache. It sounds like you did everything right.

 

We have a lot of cemetery caches and there are generally few problems with them.

 

Perhaps the issue in this case is PERMISSION. I believe it is the current policy to require evidence of specific or explicit permission for cemetery caches. It would be my guess that this is the reason that it seemed to make a difference when it was noted "It was a great cache BUT I had to inform the reviewer that it was in a cemetery." i.e. the fact that you perhaps didn't mention to the reviewer that it was in a cemetery allowed him to (mistakenly) publish it without the additional permission evidence.

 

Permission is a sore subject amongst many cachers and GC does not presently require "Specific" or "explicit" permission for most caches, only "adequate" permission, which is constantly debated. But "explicit" permission is required, for the most part at the discretion of the reviewer, in specific cases. I believe currently cemetaries are one of those places.

 

This new restriction has come about due to some bad publicity and attempted banning in South Carolina, among other cases.

 

Ultimately if your cache was archived, you should ask your question to the reviewer who did so in a private email.

 

Hope this makes the mud and muck a little more translucent. :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post

I am not sure why they are so upset about it. I have actually gone after and found a cache out here in Washington that was right in the middle of a very old cemetery that no longer has any new burials, but here in Washington State there have been no cemetery bannings to my knowledge. I would say that you might want to post an appeal to Groundspeak if you think it is really worth it and unfair that it wasnt posted.

Share this post


Link to post

the reviewers on this website are asking for explicit permission for cemetery caches in the U.S.

 

Can a reviewer confirm or deny this? The word "cemetery" is not even in the guidelines. I would think a requirement like that would be stated in the guidelines, and if not it needs to be. As far as I know any respectful hide is fair game in a cemetery, explicit permission or no, excluding TN until the proposed amendment hopefully goes through.

 

I know getting explicit permission is always a plus, but I find a lot of cemetery's in my area are so rarely used that if you don't tell, no one but cachers will ever know it's there.

Share this post


Link to post

There seems to be some generalizations being made in this topic, based on what people have observed in their local areas. This is completely understandable. Ask a mole and he will say "the world is a dark, dirty place." Ask an eagle and he will say "the world is a bright, airy place." And they are both correct.

Share this post


Link to post

There seems to be some generalizations being made in this topic, based on what people have observed in their local areas. This is completely understandable. Ask a mole and he will say "the world is a dark, dirty place." Ask an eagle and he will say "the world is a bright, airy place." And they are both correct.

 

Is there an official GC.com policy on getting explicit permission for any cemetery hide? This has come up in our local forums too but our local reviewer, for perfectly good privacy reasons, cannot respond there.

Share this post


Link to post

There seems to be some generalizations being made in this topic, based on what people have observed in their local areas. This is completely understandable. Ask a mole and he will say "the world is a dark, dirty place." Ask an eagle and he will say "the world is a bright, airy place." And they are both correct.

 

Is there an official GC.com policy on getting explicit permission for any cemetery hide? This has come up in our local forums too but our local reviewer, for perfectly good privacy reasons, cannot respond there.

 

I, for one, have most certainly seen some reviewers (not just in my State) using a boilerplate cut and paste response when rejecting cemetery caches. And I've also seen a reviewer in the Midwest who has a nice webpage of his musings on cache placements, who covered the S.C. incident and cemetery placements extensively. Go figure though, I don't have either of these things in front of me. :)

 

I assumed there was a "policy" for the U.S.A., and you know what they say when you assume.

 

P.S., The OP has only one hide, and I have a very difficult time connecting it with what he describes.

Share this post


Link to post

To the OP, was the cache page archived or somehow totally removed as though it never existed? The only cache hide listed under your profile is one called Case and Pickens, and it doesn't appear to be the one in question since people are still logging finds on it.

Share this post


Link to post

The OP's cache was retracted.

 

In checking the cache page to find out what happened to it, I noted that the basis for the retraction was the fact that the cache was reported to be 2 to 3 feet away from a headstone.

 

Like the OP's reviewer, I would have either retracted or archived the cache based on that information, unless rebutted. And permission is the best rebuttal. :)

Share this post


Link to post

A couple months back I removed my nicest cemetary cache at the request of a friend who is the cemetary manager. There was some night activity (and I don't think it was cachers) and he objected. So I archived that one immediately. It required a pleasant walk to three locations before finding the cache in the woods.

 

My oldest cemetary cache is a tiny place, township cemetary, full of groundhog holes. The cache is in the back fence, and it's about two years old.

 

The middle one is in a hole in a tree, with permission from the cemetary caretaker. No problems, small town cemetary. The local teenagers create problems here, but not the cachers.

 

I like cemetaries. Please place with permission and care.

Share this post


Link to post

The OP's cache was retracted.

 

In checking the cache page to find out what happened to it, I noted that the basis for the retraction was the fact that the cache was reported to be 2 to 3 feet away from a headstone.

 

Like the OP's reviewer, I would have either retracted or archived the cache based on that information, unless rebutted. And permission is the best rebuttal. :)

 

I guess the question at hand is which guideline is under violation that would cause you to deny the cache because it was near a headstone (minus explicit permission of course)?

 

Not that I disagree with the idea that caches in cemeteries should be mindful of the other visitors, but the confusion arises when these types of extra regulations aren't published anywhere.

 

edit to change my "are" to an "aren't"...what a difference that context makes

Edited by KoosKoos

Share this post


Link to post

There seems to be some generalizations being made in this topic, based on what people have observed in their local areas. This is completely understandable. Ask a mole and he will say "the world is a dark, dirty place." Ask an eagle and he will say "the world is a bright, airy place." And they are both correct.

 

Hmmm... thanks for the Confucian insight, but can you tell us if GC has a specific policy regarding caches in or near cemetaries? I read your other post saying what *you* would do in this case and we know what the other reviewer did. But shouldn't GC have a specific policy in this regards? In fact, shouldn't this be explicitly stated in the guidelines page?

 

I find that reviewers have a great deal of discretion in approving caches and many decisions appear to be arbitary. Isn't it in everyone's best interest if the "guidelines" are made clear *before* a cache is placed?

Share this post


Link to post

There seems to be some generalizations being made in this topic, based on what people have observed in their local areas. This is completely understandable. Ask a mole and he will say "the world is a dark, dirty place." Ask an eagle and he will say "the world is a bright, airy place." And they are both correct.

 

Hmmm... thanks for the Confucian insight, but can you tell us if GC has a specific policy regarding caches in or near cemetaries? I read your other post saying what *you* would do in this case and we know what the other reviewer did. But shouldn't GC have a specific policy in this regards? In fact, shouldn't this be explicitly stated in the guidelines page?

 

I find that reviewers have a great deal of discretion in approving caches and many decisions appear to be arbitary. Isn't it in everyone's best interest if the "guidelines" are made clear *before* a cache is placed?

 

I thing the more vague the better. I don't want to be restricted in my area because of issues up in South Carolina. It's not hard to contact your reviewer. If in doubt about any element to your hide, contact the reviewer.

 

The only hard, fast rule is that there are no hard, fast rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Can a reviewer confirm or deny this? The word "cemetery" is not even in the guidelines. I would think a requirement like that would be stated in the guidelines, and if not it needs to be. As far as I know any respectful hide is fair game in a cemetery, explicit permission or no, excluding TN until the proposed amendment hopefully goes through.

 

Hmmm... thanks for the Confucian insight, but can you tell us if GC has a specific policy regarding caches in or near cemetaries? I read your other post saying what *you* would do in this case and we know what the other reviewer did. But shouldn't GC have a specific policy in this regards? In fact, shouldn't this be explicitly stated in the guidelines page?

 

There is nothing in the guidelines that directly address cemeteries, but the guidelines do address caches that are hidden on private property. Many cemeteries are private property.

Share this post


Link to post
Can a reviewer confirm or deny this? The word "cemetery" is not even in the guidelines. I would think a requirement like that would be stated in the guidelines, and if not it needs to be. As far as I know any respectful hide is fair game in a cemetery, explicit permission or no, excluding TN until the proposed amendment hopefully goes through.

 

Hmmm... thanks for the Confucian insight, but can you tell us if GC has a specific policy regarding caches in or near cemetaries? I read your other post saying what *you* would do in this case and we know what the other reviewer did. But shouldn't GC have a specific policy in this regards? In fact, shouldn't this be explicitly stated in the guidelines page?

 

There is nothing in the guidelines that directly address cemeteries, but the guidelines do address caches that are hidden on private property. Many cemeteries are private property.

 

As are Walmart parking lots... :)

Share this post


Link to post

There seems to be some generalizations being made in this topic, based on what people have observed in their local areas. This is completely understandable. Ask a mole and he will say "the world is a dark, dirty place." Ask an eagle and he will say "the world is a bright, airy place." And they are both correct.

 

And what do you get when you ask a GC.com representative a straight question? :)

Share this post


Link to post

There seems to be some generalizations being made in this topic, based on what people have observed in their local areas. This is completely understandable. Ask a mole and he will say "the world is a dark, dirty place." Ask an eagle and he will say "the world is a bright, airy place." And they are both correct.

 

Is there an official GC.com policy on getting explicit permission for any cemetery hide? This has come up in our local forums too but our local reviewer, for perfectly good privacy reasons, cannot respond there.

 

Cemetaries are often private property, so yes.

 

*edit* oops, didn't read far enough. :)

Edited by egami

Share this post


Link to post

There's an interesting active thread on the general subject of permission. Several posters, beginning with the esteemed Isonzo Karst, have linked back to my seminal post on the subject of permission. Go re-read that post, then pretend you're a reviewer and ask yourself these questions:

 

1. Knowing that a cache is placed 50 feet away from the nearest headstone, in the woods behind the cemetery, and reading a respectful cache page full of interesting historic facts about the cemetery, is it reasonable for the reviewer to follow the presumption of permission?

 

2. Knowing that a cache is placed two feet away from the nearest headstone, is it reasonable for the reviewer to follow the presumption of permission?

 

3. Knowing that many commercial businesses are happy to have caches on their property, and in the absence of a known policy (e.g. Cracker Barrel) governing geocaching, is it reasonable for the reviewer to follow the presumption of permission for a cache hidden in a shopping center parking lot?

 

If you analyze the issue under the existing cache listing guidelines you will see that there is no reason to mention cemeteries explicitly in the guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post

A couple months back I removed my nicest cemetary cache at the request of a friend who is the cemetary manager. There was some night activity (and I don't think it was cachers) and he objected. ...

 

When I was a kid I was that night activity.

Share this post


Link to post

There seems to be some generalizations being made in this topic, based on what people have observed in their local areas. This is completely understandable. Ask a mole and he will say "the world is a dark, dirty place." Ask an eagle and he will say "the world is a bright, airy place." And they are both correct.

 

Is there an official GC.com policy on getting explicit permission for any cemetery hide? This has come up in our local forums too but our local reviewer, for perfectly good privacy reasons, cannot respond there.

 

Cemetaries are often private property, so yes.

 

*edit* oops, didn't read far enough. :)

 

Cemetareies are often public as well. I've paid my share of tax for a cemetary that containes none of my familily (and no tax on the ones that do...)

Share this post


Link to post

The OP's cache was retracted.

 

In checking the cache page to find out what happened to it, I noted that the basis for the retraction was the fact that the cache was reported to be 2 to 3 feet away from a headstone.

 

Like the OP's reviewer, I would have either retracted or archived the cache based on that information, unless rebutted. And permission is the best rebuttal. :)

It makes no sense to retract the listing in this case. It makes it looks like the reviewer made a mistake in not getting further clarification of a cemetery cache and is now retracting the cache so that no one can see this mistake. If a reviewer published a cache because it appeared to be valid based on the information the reviewer had at the time, and later the reviewer finds out new information, the cache should be archived so that everyone can see the reasons. Even if the review made a mistake, the cache should be archived and not retracted in most cases. Retracted caches look like cover-ups.

Share this post


Link to post

The OP's cache was retracted.

 

In checking the cache page to find out what happened to it, I noted that the basis for the retraction was the fact that the cache was reported to be 2 to 3 feet away from a headstone.

 

Like the OP's reviewer, I would have either retracted or archived the cache based on that information, unless rebutted. And permission is the best rebuttal. ;)

It makes no sense to retract the listing in this case. It makes it looks like the reviewer made a mistake in not getting further clarification of a cemetery cache and is now retracting the cache so that no one can see this mistake. If a reviewer published a cache because it appeared to be valid based on the information the reviewer had at the time, and later the reviewer finds out new information, the cache should be archived so that everyone can see the reasons. Even if the review made a mistake, the cache should be archived and not retracted in most cases. Retracted caches look like cover-ups.

 

It also keeps people from trying to find it anyway. That happens a LOT. Retraction was the best thing in this case. Even if you do not think so.

Share this post


Link to post

There's an interesting active thread on the general subject of permission. Several posters, beginning with the esteemed Isonzo Karst, have linked back to my seminal post on the subject of permission. Go re-read that post, then pretend you're a reviewer and ask yourself these questions:

 

1. Knowing that a cache is placed 50 feet away from the nearest headstone, in the woods behind the cemetery, and reading a respectful cache page full of interesting historic facts about the cemetery, is it reasonable for the reviewer to follow the presumption of permission?

 

2. Knowing that a cache is placed two feet away from the nearest headstone, is it reasonable for the reviewer to follow the presumption of permission?

 

3. Knowing that many commercial businesses are happy to have caches on their property, and in the absence of a known policy (e.g. Cracker Barrel) governing geocaching, is it reasonable for the reviewer to follow the presumption of permission for a cache hidden in a shopping center parking lot?

 

If you analyze the issue under the existing cache listing guidelines you will see that there is no reason to mention cemeteries explicitly in the guidelines.

 

I'd much rather pretend that one could get a straight answer to a straight question. Things usually work much better, and nicer, that way.

 

From what you infer above I would take it that caches are considered on a case by case basis and each cache would need to stand on its own. That's fine and well understood.

 

However...

 

What came up in our local forums was the case of a cache getting denied outright because it was in a cemetery and no permission was stated/obtained. The cacher quoted the reviewer thusly: "To be blunt, without having explicit permission, I won't publish this cache or other caches in cemeteries, unless you can show that there are NO maintainers for the cemetery.". They were told that multis/puzzles with no container should still be fine and refered to the situation in South Carolina as the reasoning behind the decision.

 

Knowing that, the question still stands: Is there an official GC.com policy on getting explicit permission for any cemetery hide?

 

Notice I do not mention the guidelines. Just official GC.com policy (maybe it would be more proper to call it 'unofficial' if it's not in the guidelines).

Share this post


Link to post

I'd much rather pretend that one could get a straight answer to a straight question. Things usually work much better, and nicer, that way.

I am sorry if you are not finding my posts helpful. I am happy to take the time to post them, but I can only do so much to answer what seems to be a local question. Since I don't have all the facts I will commend you to your local reviewers and make a graceful exit from this thread so as not to further confuse or frustrate.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd much rather pretend that one could get a straight answer to a straight question. Things usually work much better, and nicer, that way.

I am sorry if you are not finding my posts helpful. I am happy to take the time to post them, but I can only do so much to answer what seems to be a local question. Since I don't have all the facts I will commend you to your local reviewers and make a graceful exit from this thread so as not to further confuse or frustrate.

 

No need for you to be sorry. Your posts have been helpful. I will take your recommendation and contact our local reviewer. You should stick around, just in case. I'll go back into lurk mode. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

It also keeps people from trying to find it anyway. That happens a LOT. Retraction was the best thing in this case. Even if you do not think so.

Which is why the coordinates should be blanked on archived caches as I have suggested in the past.

 

This is a problem, as you said, with a LOT of caches.

 

While blanking the coordinates would not be perfect since many people will still have the complete cache page either printed out prior to archival (or retraction) or on a private html copy such as in GSAK.

 

If you RETRACT a cache, the GSAK copies will all still show the coordinates, if you were to change the coordinates, GSAK copies would chnage too providing the individual got the update.

 

Posting the coordinates to archived caches is just plain dumb. It makes archiving pretty much meaningless as far as keeping people off the properties.

Share this post


Link to post

It also keeps people from trying to find it anyway. That happens a LOT. Retraction was the best thing in this case. Even if you do not think so.

Which is why the coordinates should be blanked on archived caches as I have suggested in the past....

 

I'm not with you on this. We need to know why the cache was archived. It's not just the cache history, but histical and relevant information. A cache at this spot was archived because it was "insert reason here".

 

Any future person can see that the spot is on a land owner who hates cachers, a cemetary who doesn't give permission, stolen by oversized bunnies etc. This is geocaching. Location is relevant.

 

Oh and if there is no cache...it's just the hiking, walking, invesgitating and otherwise enjoying our surroundings that's normally allowed with no questions.

Share this post


Link to post

It also keeps people from trying to find it anyway. That happens a LOT. Retraction was the best thing in this case. Even if you do not think so.

Which is why the coordinates should be blanked on archived caches as I have suggested in the past....

 

I'm not with you on this. We need to know why the cache was archived. It's not just the cache history, but histical and relevant information. A cache at this spot was archived because it was "insert reason here".

 

Any future person can see that the spot is on a land owner who hates cachers, a cemetary who doesn't give permission, stolen by oversized bunnies etc. This is geocaching. Location is relevant.

 

Oh and if there is no cache...it's just the hiking, walking, invesgitating and otherwise enjoying our surroundings that's normally allowed with no questions.

The bold is a poor assumption given the current argument. The argument is "should GC facilitate searchers looking for an archived cache by allowing the coordinates to remain posted on the site for all to see."

 

If a cache was archived because the land manger does not want people on their land, then it might be safe to assume that the land owner does not want people on their land whether there is a box there or not. (which in the case of a cache archived by a reviewer for cause, generally means the box IS still there.)

 

The reviewers presumably would be able to still see the coordinates and would know the area is off limits to future caches without specific permission. This would prevent future caches placed in the unwanted location without the necessity of giving the location to every Tom, Dick and Harry in the general population that wanted to go there.

 

Furthermore, for the purposes you cited, an EXACT location is not needed.

 

It doesn't much matter anyway, nobody's ever gonna listen to me.

Edited by Confucius' Cat

Share this post


Link to post

....The bold is a poor assumption given the current argument. The argument is "should GC facilitate searchers looking for an archived cache by allowing the coordinates to remain posted on the site for all to see."

 

If a cache was archived because the land manger does not want people on their land, then it might be safe to assume that the land owner does not want people on their land whether there is a box there or not. (which in the case of a cache archived by a reviewer for cause, generally means the box IS still there.)...

 

The bold is simple fact given reality. Further if nobody is allowed then the land is marked or posted and non cachers are not going there anyway, and cachers have fair warning.

 

If would be entirly fair to note in the archived cache that "This cache was archived at the request of the land owner". The coordintes for an archived cache are a moot point. If someone gonig to look for an archived cache, then that same someone would be willing to look for the same cache given the rest of the descriptoin and the approximate area.

 

It's only if the cache is archvied for some top secrete reason that should not be public information that a cache page should be archived and not visible. In that case though the entire page should not be visiable. Not just fuzzy coordiantes.

 

Lastly if there is no cache, it's just coodiantes. Rather like waypoint.org or a Point of Interest in a GPS.

Share this post


Link to post

The coordintes for an archived cache are a moot point. If someone gonig to look for an archived cache, then that same someone would be willing to look for the same cache given the rest of the descriptoin and the approximate area.

Yes it is a moot point, that is why I am debating it.

 

Most cache pages do not have sufficient description to locate the general area.

 

Again, it depends on why the cache was archived. If the property owner does not like the "suspicious" activity of cachers, but might be OK with oh, say, shoppers on his land, then there WILL be a problem with those who look for the cache- regardless of how they got the location.

 

If it is a sensitive matter, the entire cache description should be deleted. this is what i advised my brother-in-law to do for a cache of his that went bad. Unfortunately he was too late and it is still listed on a bookmark list with false information as to his actions.

 

GC does not allow editing after a cache is archived.

 

i think this too needs to be changed. The cache owner should have the right to have a cache totally deleted if the owner desires. there are cases where leaving a cache page published could be an embarrassment to an owner or perhaps even a legal hassle.

Share this post


Link to post
There is nothing in the guidelines that directly address cemeteries, but the guidelines do address caches that are hidden on private property. Many cemeteries are private property.

 

Hmmmm...intersting.

I have found several cenetary caches lately, including one that was posted and approved yesterday.

The cache in right in the middle of an old cemetary, with headstones just a few feet in every direction.

 

Also of note, I have another thread here asking about caches placed on posted private property. Most cachers are stating there that unless it is posted "No Trespassing", then the area if free game for cache hiding and hunting..."Private Property" is meaningless.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=162004

Edited by Ed & Julie

Share this post


Link to post

Those of you debating Archived caches and coords or no coords start a new thread please. Its off topic to this one.

Share this post


Link to post

Cemetareies are often public as well. I've paid my share of tax for a cemetary that containes none of my familily (and no tax on the ones that do...)

 

No, cemetaries are more frequently privately owned.

Share this post


Link to post

It also keeps people from trying to find it anyway. That happens a LOT. Retraction was the best thing in this case. Even if you do not think so.

Which is why the coordinates should be blanked on archived caches as I have suggested in the past.

 

This is a problem, as you said, with a LOT of caches.

 

While blanking the coordinates would not be perfect since many people will still have the complete cache page either printed out prior to archival (or retraction) or on a private html copy such as in GSAK.

 

If you RETRACT a cache, the GSAK copies will all still show the coordinates, if you were to change the coordinates, GSAK copies would chnage too providing the individual got the update.

 

Posting the coordinates to archived caches is just plain dumb. It makes archiving pretty much meaningless as far as keeping people off the properties.

The site should be changed to accommodate the shortcomings of GSAK? I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
There is nothing in the guidelines that directly address cemeteries, but the guidelines do address caches that are hidden on private property. Many cemeteries are private property.

 

Hmmmm...intersting.

I have found several cenetary caches lately, including one that was posted and approved yesterday.

The cache in right in the middle of an old cemetary, with headstones just a few feet in every direction.

 

Also of note, I have another thread here asking about caches placed on posted private property. Most cachers are stating there that unless it is posted "No Trespassing", then the area if free game for cache hiding and hunting..."Private Property" is meaningless.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=162004

How, on God's Green Earth can you come to that conclusion based on the responses on the other thread?

 

There are 2 basic posts on the other thread and the responses are overwhelmingly based upon the specific sign posted in the OP:

 

1. The sign doesn't say "no trespassing" or "keep out" but let's err on the side of caution and stay out anyway.

 

2. The sign specifically applies to swimming and jumping off the bridge and the owner had no intention of limiting other activities on his property, so the cache is good to go.

 

Nothing in that thread can be even remotely interpreted to indicate that cachers disrespect private property. In fact I have never seen any posts in all the forum posts i have read that SERIOUSLY indicated the caching community in any way condones trespassing. And if such posts do exist you can be assured they DO NOT represent GC.com or the caching community at large.

 

__________________________________________________________

 

And now, back to your regularly scheduled topic, already in progress:

 

Cemeteries are a special class of property typically called "private property made available for public use." Having a cemetery that the public cannot visit is simply silly.

 

An exception COULD be made for those very old and small cemeteries that are "landlocked" on private property. But even the owners of those cemeteries generally allow interested persons to visit.

 

However just like WM parking lots, the fact that it is open to the public DOES NOT mean that the public has the right to do just anything anyone wants to do on the land.

 

Private property that is open to the public is open to the public subject to special "license" for specific uses. Sometimes these uses are clearly understood by custom, such as, in the case of cemeteries, looking at the headstones, placing flowers, grieving, talking to the residents and other things that are normally expected in a cemetery.

 

One of the things that is certainly NOT part of the customary use of cemeteries is the placing of foreign objects for the purpose of visitors who may or may not have any other interest in the cemetery to record their visit. (caching)

 

Therefore, since caching is not customary in a cemetery, it could be reasoned that without special permission, it is an activity that is NOT licensed by custom.

 

Therefore cemeteries should be treated like any other private property, IMO even if they are public cemeteries, and GC SHOULD require specific permission for a cache.

 

If that permission is given by a responsible party, all the other concerns are irrelevant. the cache is good to go.

Share this post


Link to post

Cemetareies are often public as well. I've paid my share of tax for a cemetary that containes none of my familily (and no tax on the ones that do...)

 

No, cemetaries are more frequently privately owned.

 

What's the ratio? I just know there are both kinds out there.

Share this post


Link to post
There is nothing in the guidelines that directly address cemeteries, but the guidelines do address caches that are hidden on private property. Many cemeteries are private property.

 

Hmmmm...intersting.

I have found several cenetary caches lately, including one that was posted and approved yesterday.

The cache in right in the middle of an old cemetary, with headstones just a few feet in every direction.

 

Also of note, I have another thread here asking about caches placed on posted private property. Most cachers are stating there that unless it is posted "No Trespassing", then the area if free game for cache hiding and hunting..."Private Property" is meaningless.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=162004

 

I think you just set a record for the distance jumped to reach your conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
There is nothing in the guidelines that directly address cemeteries, but the guidelines do address caches that are hidden on private property. Many cemeteries are private property.

 

Hmmmm...intersting.

I have found several cenetary caches lately, including one that was posted and approved yesterday.

The cache in right in the middle of an old cemetary, with headstones just a few feet in every direction.

 

Also of note, I have another thread here asking about caches placed on posted private property. Most cachers are stating there that unless it is posted "No Trespassing", then the area if free game for cache hiding and hunting..."Private Property" is meaningless.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=162004

 

I think you just set a record for the distance jumped to reach your conclusion.

 

LOL, I agree. If you can't answer, just run people round in circles... Would it have been to much trouble to just type the answer as opposed to this response?

 

Scenario: I live in South Carolina and I can not use the information on a headstone as part of a multicache or hide a cache in a cemetery.

I can however list it as a Waymark, and request waymarkers provide an image with their visit.

 

Questions:

 

What's the difference?

 

Isn't geocaching more respectful than the Waymark?

 

The SC Reps aren't going to seperate geocaching from Waymarking. The concept of the bill even included letterboxing.

 

So...is there a policy against cemetery hides? and...is it possible for this question to be answered with a yes or no? It really is easier to type yes or no than provide sidestepping links. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

....Scenario: I live in South Carolina and I can not use the information on a headstone as part of a multicache or hide a cache in a cemetery.

I can however list it as a Waymark, and request waymarkers provide an image with their visit.

 

Questions:

 

What's the difference?

 

Isn't geocaching more respectful than the Waymark?...

 

From the standpoint of activities allowed in a cemetary, Nothing.

If it's actual approver policy for the cache, then the real difference is in the approver. You vs. Someone else.

 

Cemetaries are for visiting. You are allowed to walk, hike, bike, drive (at least locally), sit and eat lucnh, get married, pray, take photo's, take rubbings, leave flowers, or stones, or coins, make notes, bird watch, steal a kiss, and even kick the bucket.

 

There is no legal, or even ethical reason you could not use information on a marker as a clue in a cache. If it was so morally reprehensable, National Treasure would not have been a hit.

Share this post


Link to post

Can a reviewer confirm or deny this? The word "cemetery" is not even in the guidelines. I would think a requirement like that would be stated in the guidelines, and if not it needs to be. As far as I know any respectful hide is fair game in a cemetery, explicit permission or no, excluding TN until the proposed amendment hopefully goes through.

 

The problem, of course, is that even terms like "respectful" are in the eye of the beholder. What some might find respectful, others might not.

 

I love cemeteries. I love walking in them, thinking in them, reading the headstones. Is that respectful? I think so ... but others might not.

 

-- Jeannette

Share this post


Link to post

We have quite a few cemetery caches around here, and I found two today as a matter of fact. Common sense goes a long way when it comes to caching in cemeteries. Sure, you don't want to disturb the headstones, flowers, or whatever other artifacts may be laying around. But on the other hand, I find it hard to believe that some grouchy old caretaker is going to run you out of a cemetery for carrying a GPS while you walk around.

 

On the topic of reviewers: I once attempted to get a new hide published and was denied due to the fact that it was close to a water tower, and the reviewer said the tower was a potential terrorist target. I literally laughed out loud at that nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post

On the topic of reviewers: I once attempted to get a new hide published and was denied due to the fact that it was close to a water tower, and the reviewer said the tower was a potential terrorist target. I literally laughed out loud at that nonsense.

Not sure when you tried to hide this cache, but this is likely a result of 9/11. In the city where I work, we used to store stuff under the water tower. After 9/11, they no longer allowed this due to security concerns.

Share this post


Link to post

We have several caches in cemetarys here in oregon. We have actually provided pictures to the reviewer that showed the cache location so they were assured it was not in a bad spot.

 

I absolutely believe in respecting the feelings of others especially people in mourning. I recently placed a cache in the oldest section of the cemetery my Father is buried in. This cache is 18 feet from the entrance. It is 3 feet from the 2nd and hardly used public access road. It is then less than 2 feet from the curb in the hollowed out pouch of an old cedar tree. No graves, monuments, headstones, adornments, flowers or grass are harmed.

Funerals in this section are no longer performed. The access roads are used by joggers, walkers, bicyclist, people walking pets and a rare visitor.

The reviewer published this cache. It got one positive find and was removed all in the same day. I contacted the lone finder who informed me that "It was a great cache BUT I had to inform the reviewer that it was in a cemetery" He went onto say "Don't feel bad, I had one in a cemetery and she banned it too."

This sounds alot like, "thanks for the find, of which I'll take credit. But if she banned mine she's banning yours too." I emailed the reviewer who pointed out that "although she had'nt been there herself she had complaints that the cache was too close to graves" and that since South Carolina and Tennessee? Geocachers had been banned from cemeteries she would'nt allow that to happen here."

If I thought for a second that this cache would offend anyone I'd never have placed it there. Being new to caching, How does a person defend their right to place a cache?

Share this post


Link to post

What's the ratio? I just know there are both kinds out there.

 

I don't have any statistics you can reference (looked, but no real luck finding national statistics), but just ask your local mortician...that's what I ended up doing and he said most cemeteries are private property. He estimated 70% and thought that might be a conservative estimate considering how many tiny cemeteries there are in rural areas which in many cases are nearly considered abandoned even though they are on private ground.

 

If I get something more concrete on the numbers I'll let you know.

Share this post


Link to post

What's the ratio? I just know there are both kinds out there.

 

I don't have any statistics you can reference (looked, but no real luck finding national statistics), but just ask your local mortician...that's what I ended up doing and he said most cemeteries are private property. He estimated 70% and thought that might be a conservative estimate considering how many tiny cemeteries there are in rural areas which in many cases are nearly considered abandoned even though they are on private ground.

 

If I get something more concrete on the numbers I'll let you know.

That's good enough. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...