"Private Property" sign...Pass or don't?

[+Ed & Julie]

I attmpted to find a cache today. As I pulled up to park, I found myself at a canal. I parked on the street by the canal bridge.

 

The cache was hidden in a tree 200 feet down the canal road. At the beginning of the road, was a sign.

 

I chose no to pass or attempt the find, since the cache page stated nothing about permission given.

 

I logged it as a note only since Iwasthisclose to the tree, but couldn't get to it.

 

I read "private property" as "stay out".

 

The next 2 cachers log finds, and the cache owner posted a note stating the sign only conderns swinners and the nearby canal bridge.

 

So...if you had seen thi sign, would looked for the cache, or walked away?

 

Edited April 28, 2007 by Ed & Julie

[+Too Tall John]

I'd do it. The sign says "No Swimming" not "No Trespassing." It seems to me that if they wanted to stop both swimmers & pedestrians the sign would just say "No Trespassing" as that would include swimming.

[+DocDiTTo]

Since the sign doesn't say "No Trespassing", or "Keep out", I think you'd be OK as long as you didn't swim or jump off the bridge. However, since the sign DOES say "private property", I would expect the hider to have obtained some sort of permission from the owner... unless the property is open for other general purpose uses, like fishing, or hiking, or bike riding, etc. In that case, the property could be privately owned but with implied permission granted for public use.

 

Tough call to make without really knowing the area. I'd probably have to be there to determine whether I'd actually go for a cache placed there. The cache owner should give some background on the property so you're more aware of what you're getting into though.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I'd do it, nothing on the sign indicates the walking path is off limits, just that it's private property.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

My wife says no, and I say yes. I think this is one of those caches that would end in a bad day for us.

[+Bad_CRC]

Depends on the day. maybe, probably not.

 

probably best not to trespass since it says "private property" right on the sign... the idea of "I can do anything I want unless someone specifically tells me not to" doesn't fly too well if you try to use it as an excuse.

[+Renegade Knight]

Like has been said. Don't jump don't swim. If that were my cache I'd not post the caches permission status either.

 

That looks like a canal. In my area most canals are on land owned by someone other than the canal company. Thus they could only say "don't jump in and don't swim" with any authority. The actual land owner would be the one to set rules about trespassing. It makes life interesting.

Edited April 28, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+VKsnr]

It is an irrigation ditch isn't it? Around here, they say no trespassing, not just no swimming. I would do it. Many years of familiarity with irrigation companies and their ditches has made me cavalier about trespassing on them. I ride my bike on them all the time for example. It has been my observation that they post no trespassing signs so that they can't get sued when some moron gets himself Darwined at a head gate. Close call tho. The hider should have asked for permission since it is private property, swimming sign or not.

 

VKsnr

[+Vanillahip]

I would have walked right past that sign and got my cache. Hopefully I wouldn't have fallen into the water.

[+Snake & Rooster]

I'd do it. The sign says "No Swimming" not "No Trespassing." It seems to me that if they wanted to stop both swimmers & pedestrians the sign would just say "No Trespassing" as that would include swimming.

 

 

I agree. The intent seems to be to keep people off the bridge and out of the water, not off the property. I'd do it.

[+halffast]

It seems the water is the private property.I would have logged the cache to

[+kayak-cowboy]

NO!!!!! Private Property is Private Property. To go past this sign means that you ARE trespassing.

If I was to have a posting like that on my property and someone went on to the property. Guess what, I would have the LAW out there to arrest the person and I WOULD prosecute.

Posted Private Property is the same as saying No Trespassing.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I am one that errs on the side of caution and will NEVER disregard trespass or operational hours signs.

 

I would NOT have a problem with this one. The sign clearly says no swimming or jumping. Since I aint swimming or jumping I would be OK

 

I just went to a cache site in Muncie yesterday and encountered similar signage in front of an abandoned bridge that has the steel up but no roadbed. It is all open over a ROARING river. I expected the sign to say "STAY OFF BRIDGE" but nope, it says "no swimming no jumping off bridge- DANGEROUS UNDERTOW"- I reckon one is free to walk out on the steel and FALL off and drown (almost a certainty if one was to fall in THAT water), just don't jump.

 

The sign poster in the OP seems to have a reasonable grasp of the English language. If they meant "stay out" they probably could have spelled it out successfully.

[+Confucius' Cat]

NO!!!!! Private Property is Private Property. To go past this sign means that you ARE trespassing.

If I was to have a posting like that on my property and someone went on to the property. Guess what, I would have the LAW out there to arrest the person and I WOULD prosecute.

Posted Private Property is the same as saying No Trespassing.

The LAW would probably tell you to post it properly or there is nothing they can do.

 

Wal-Mart is private property. Like many places of business, in some locations they post "private property parking for customers only".

 

Does that mean you will be arrested for trespass if you park on their PRIVATE property? "Private Property" means "No Trespass" don't it?

 

The sign in question is LIMITED to the offenses listed. It has no effect on any other uses of the land.

 

I would not have any problem with FISHING here either if I wanted to and thought there might be fish in it. I'll bet people DO.

Edited April 28, 2007 by Confucius' Cat

[+Robespierre]

Always error on the side of caution - what Mom always said.

 

Though to look at this one, swimming seems to be the issue.

[+Kit Fox]

It seems the water is the private property.I would have logged the cache to

 

Unless the land is clearly public (national forest, wilderness, etc), it belongs to someone private. In most states hunters and fisherman routinely get ticketed for hunting on un posted yet private property. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

I'm one of those "geo-police" that would most likely "drop a note" to the cache reviewer, to express my concerns about the property in question.

[+SGT red jeep]

I would've went for it.

[+KG1960]

I probably would have gone for the cache, but I would have to see the area first and maybe know its background. The cache hider, no doubt, went right past the sign when hiding his cache, so I think he should have mentioned in his writeup exactly what its intention was.

[+egami]

Being that the sign is limited I probably would have went for the cache (assuming the cache owner and reviewer had hashed it out) and then followed up with the local cache reviewer to see that this person has indeed obtained permission.

 

Assuming permission was obtained the cache description should alert cachers to this.

Edited April 28, 2007 by egami

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Being that the sign is limited I probably would have went for the cache (assuming the cache owner and reviewer had hashed it out) and then followed up with the local cache reviewer to see that this person has indeed obtained permission.

 

Assuming permission was obtained the cache description should alert cachers to this.

 

You wouldn't follow up with the cache owner first?

[+Confucius' Cat]

Being that the sign is limited I probably would have went for the cache (assuming the cache owner and reviewer had hashed it out) and then followed up with the local cache reviewer to see that this person has indeed obtained permission.

 

Assuming permission was obtained the cache description should alert cachers to this.

 

You wouldn't follow up with the cache owner first?

I wouldn't.

 

I know everybody considers this the proper course and etiquette, but it has been my experience that feelings are SO easily hurt in this game that I would rether remain anonymous when reporting a potential SBA problem.

 

If it was just a minor condition that could not result in the cache being archived by the reviewer, I would be OK writing a note to the owner. But as is the case when discussing "off limits" areas, this is one that might get the cache archived.

 

Therefore I would just write to the local reviewer and let him handle it.

 

Reviewers are wise and all knowing and handle delicate situations with the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job.

 

I don't see any reporting necessary in the OP's case. To me the sign is clear enough.

 

If someone reports being questioned at the site, then perhaps review would be necessary.

[+TrailGators]

Being that the sign is limited I probably would have went for the cache (assuming the cache owner and reviewer had hashed it out) and then followed up with the local cache reviewer to see that this person has indeed obtained permission.

 

Assuming permission was obtained the cache description should alert cachers to this.

 

You wouldn't follow up with the cache owner first?

I wouldn't.

 

I know everybody considers this the proper course and etiquette, but it has been my experience that feelings are SO easily hurt in this game that I would rether remain anonymous when reporting a potential SBA problem.

 

If it was just a minor condition that could not result in the cache being archived by the reviewer, I would be OK writing a note to the owner. But as is the case when discussing "off limits" areas, this is one that might get the cache archived.

 

Therefore I would just write to the local reviewer and let him handle it.

 

Reviewers are wise and all knowing and handle delicate situations with the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job.

 

I don't see any reporting necessary in the OP's case. To me the sign is clear enough.

 

If someone reports being questioned at the site, then perhaps review would be necessary.

I agree. The reviewers are there to help us answer questions like this, plus they need to know. Plus if it's OK then no harm done.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Being that the sign is limited I probably would have went for the cache (assuming the cache owner and reviewer had hashed it out) and then followed up with the local cache reviewer to see that this person has indeed obtained permission.

 

Assuming permission was obtained the cache description should alert cachers to this.

 

You wouldn't follow up with the cache owner first?

I wouldn't.

 

I know everybody considers this the proper course and etiquette, but it has been my experience that feelings are SO easily hurt in this game that I would rether remain anonymous when reporting a potential SBA problem.

 

If it was just a minor condition that could not result in the cache being archived by the reviewer, I would be OK writing a note to the owner. But as is the case when discussing "off limits" areas, this is one that might get the cache archived.

 

Therefore I would just write to the local reviewer and let him handle it.

 

Reviewers are wise and all knowing and handle delicate situations with the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job.

 

I don't see any reporting necessary in the OP's case. To me the sign is clear enough.

 

If someone reports being questioned at the site, then perhaps review would be necessary.

I agree. The reviewers are there to help us answer questions like this, plus they need to know. Plus if it's OK then no harm done.

 

I totally disagree.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

NO!!!!! Private Property is Private Property. To go past this sign means that you ARE trespassing.

If I was to have a posting like that on my property and someone went on to the property. Guess what, I would have the LAW out there to arrest the person and I WOULD prosecute.

Posted Private Property is the same as saying No Trespassing.

 

Guess what, you would lose. In Indiana you have to post it "NO TRESSPASSING" or they aren't tresspassing. They can build a freakin treehouse on your land and you can't prosecute them unless it's posted "NO TRESSPASSING"

Been there tried that.

[+TrailGators]

Being that the sign is limited I probably would have went for the cache (assuming the cache owner and reviewer had hashed it out) and then followed up with the local cache reviewer to see that this person has indeed obtained permission.

 

Assuming permission was obtained the cache description should alert cachers to this.

 

You wouldn't follow up with the cache owner first?

I wouldn't.

 

I know everybody considers this the proper course and etiquette, but it has been my experience that feelings are SO easily hurt in this game that I would rether remain anonymous when reporting a potential SBA problem.

 

If it was just a minor condition that could not result in the cache being archived by the reviewer, I would be OK writing a note to the owner. But as is the case when discussing "off limits" areas, this is one that might get the cache archived.

 

Therefore I would just write to the local reviewer and let him handle it.

 

Reviewers are wise and all knowing and handle delicate situations with the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job.

 

I don't see any reporting necessary in the OP's case. To me the sign is clear enough.

 

If someone reports being questioned at the site, then perhaps review would be necessary.

I agree. The reviewers are there to help us answer questions like this, plus they need to know. Plus if it's OK then no harm done.

 

I totally disagree.

First of all, if the permission was posted on the cache page then we wouldn't even be talking. Why didn't this owner say something on the cache page about the private property sign? Anyhow, in my case, I know reviewers and we talk all the time. So I would just ask them.

[+Kit Fox]

Being that the sign is limited I probably would have went for the cache (assuming the cache owner and reviewer had hashed it out) and then followed up with the local cache reviewer to see that this person has indeed obtained permission.

 

Assuming permission was obtained the cache description should alert cachers to this.

 

You wouldn't follow up with the cache owner first?

I wouldn't.

 

I know everybody considers this the proper course and etiquette, but it has been my experience that feelings are SO easily hurt in this game that I would rether remain anonymous when reporting a potential SBA problem.

 

If it was just a minor condition that could not result in the cache being archived by the reviewer, I would be OK writing a note to the owner. But as is the case when discussing "off limits" areas, this is one that might get the cache archived.

 

Therefore I would just write to the local reviewer and let him handle it.

 

Reviewers are wise and all knowing and handle delicate situations with the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job.

 

I don't see any reporting necessary in the OP's case. To me the sign is clear enough.

 

If someone reports being questioned at the site, then perhaps review would be necessary.

 

The next 2 cachers log finds, and the cache owner posted a note stating the sign only conderns swinners and the nearby canal bridge.

 

In the scenerio presented (which i'm basing what actions I would take) the cache owner made a claim that the sign is for the swimmers. I'm not comfortable with his or her vague answer.

 

I've contacted cache owners about certain issues before, and it goes both ways. It creates "bad blood" more than it is helpful. It seems today, that geocachers are afraid to here anything that isn't rosey about their precious geocaches. They think you're picking on them if you have issues with their cache.

 

Contacting reviewers about cache issues (No Trespassing signs, clear violations of the guidelines, etc) is generally an effective method. Of course i've only contacted a reviewer about a "guideline violation" once, and the cache was quickly archived.

Edited April 28, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

In the scenerio presented (which i'm basing what actions I would take) the cache owner made a claim that the sign is for the swimmers. I'm not comfortable with his or her vague answer.

 

At the point I receive a vague answer, that's when I go to the reviewer.

 

Could very well be that when I contact the cache owner first they can provide for me very detailed information regarding permission. (perhaps name and number of land owner, or maybe that they are the land owner)

 

Contacting a reviewer is always an option, but I feel cache owners do reserve the respect of being contacted first. I believe in the golden rule, and that's what I would want as an owner.

 

I've contacted cache owners about certain issues before, and it goes both ways. It creates "bad blood" more than it is helpful.

 

I would think more "bad blood" would be created by reporting a problem to a reviewer before communicating to the cache owner. I've never had "bad blood" with an owner after I contacted them about a cache, nor have I felt it when contacted by others. I think a lot depends on the tone used in the contact.

 

First of all, if the permission was posted on the cache page then we wouldn't even be talking. Why didn't this owner say something on the cache page about the private property sign?

 

Agreed and agreed.

 

Anyhow, in my case, I know reviewers and we talk all the time. So I would just ask them.

 

Leave the poor reviewers alone. They're busy enough without you pestering them.

Edited April 28, 2007 by Googling Hrpty Hrrs

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

So...if you had seen this sign, would looked for the cache, or walked away?

 

<snip>

I would have continued on to the cache. As others have said, the sign does not expressly say "No Trespassing." If it did, I would not walk past it.

[+TrailGators]

I've contacted cache owners about certain issues before, and it goes both ways. It creates "bad blood" more than it is helpful. It seems today, that geocachers are afraid to here anything that isn't rosey about their precious geocaches. They think you're picking on them if you have issues with their cache.

I totally agree. This has been my experience too.

[+geomann1]

If no one was around, I would go for the cache and recover it in as stealthy a manner as possible.

[+egami]

You wouldn't follow up with the cache owner first?

 

Why would it matter? It's the reviewer that approves it, not the owner.

[+TrailGators]

Unless the land is clearly public (national forest, wilderness, etc), it belongs to someone private. In most states hunters and fisherman routinely get ticketed for hunting on un posted yet private property. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Great point again Kit Fox. Anytime I run across a questionable situation, I'll ask myself if that tupperware is worth the risk...Then I'll walk away if the cache page doesn't answer my questions.

[+Kit Fox]

In the scenerio presented (which i'm basing what actions I would take) the cache owner made a claim that the sign is for the swimmers. I'm not comfortable with his or her vague answer.

 

At the point I receive a vague answer, that's when I go to the reviewer.

 

Could very well be that when I contact the cache owner first they can provide for me very detailed information regarding permission. (perhaps name and number of land owner, or maybe that they are the land owner)

 

Contacting a reviewer is always an option, but I feel cache owners do reserve the respect of being contacted first. I believe in the golden rule, and that's what I would want as an owner.

 

I've contacted cache owners about certain issues before, and it goes both ways. It creates "bad blood" more than it is helpful.

 

I would think more "bad blood" would be created by reporting a problem to a reviewer before communicating to the cache owner. I've never had "bad blood" with an owner after I contacted them about a cache, nor have I felt it when contacted by others. I think a lot depends on the tone used in the contact.

 

Some cachers lack self-esteem, or are overly sensitive about "their caches." Some become professional victims when they get their feeling hurt. I choose not to deal with them. To avoid any future problems with this type of cacher, I ignore their caches.

Edited April 28, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+TrailGators]

I just checked the California Trespassing Law:

 

Section 9.04.300 Trespass on private property.

A. No person shall enter or be present upon any private property or portion of private property not open to the general public without the consent of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, where signs forbidding entry are displayed as provided in subsection F.

 

F. For purposes of subsection A, one sign must be printed or posed in a conspicuous manner at every walkway and driveway entering any enclosed property or portion thereof and at a minimum of every fifty feet along the boundary of any unenclosed lot. This requirement is met if at least one sign is conspicuously printed or posted on the outside of every structure on such property, so as to be readable from each walkway and driveway entering such property. The sign shall State as follows:THIS PROPERTY CLOSED TO THE PUBLICNo Entry Without PermissionR.M.C. §9.04.300The language "THIS PROPERTY CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC No Entry Without Permission" on said sign shall be at least two inches high.

Edited April 28, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

You wouldn't follow up with the cache owner first?

 

Why would it matter? It's the reviewer that approves it, not the owner.

 

Already answered that.

 

BTW- I like your avatar!

[+egami]

You wouldn't follow up with the cache owner first?

 

Why would it matter? It's the reviewer that approves it, not the owner.

 

Already answered that.

 

BTW- I like your avatar!

 

Well, I guess I don't see it...

 

In many cases I'd agree with you. Many things can be resolved directly with the cache owner.

 

In this instance, however, when there is a sign posted and no note in the log then I have reasonable suspicion that the cache may not have land owner's approval I am going to check with the approver and avoid potential conflict with the cache owner. If the owner did their due diligence then they have nothing to fear.

 

And we drafted Okoye in case you hadn't heard yet.

[+Miragee]

These signs are at the beginning of the trailhead for a cache around here.

 

You should see how many logs that cache has . . .

 

[+Renegade Knight]

NO!!!!! Private Property is Private Property. To go past this sign means that you ARE trespassing.

If I was to have a posting like that on my property and someone went on to the property. Guess what, I would have the LAW out there to arrest the person and I WOULD prosecute.

Posted Private Property is the same as saying No Trespassing.

The law would read the sign and ask. "I see you are not wet...so didn't jump in or swim. The owner is upset so why don't you leave".

[+geomann1]

I just checked the California Trespassing Law:

 

Section 9.04.300 Trespass on private property.

A. No person shall enter or be present upon any private property or portion of private property not open to the general public without the consent of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, where signs forbidding entry are displayed as provided in subsection F.

 

F. For purposes of subsection A, one sign must be printed or posed in a conspicuous manner at every walkway and driveway entering any enclosed property or portion thereof and at a minimum of every fifty feet along the boundary of any unenclosed lot. This requirement is met if at least one sign is conspicuously printed or posted on the outside of every structure on such property, so as to be readable from each walkway and driveway entering such property. The sign shall State as follows:THIS PROPERTY CLOSED TO THE PUBLICNo Entry Without PermissionR.M.C. §9.04.300The language "THIS PROPERTY CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC No Entry Without Permission" on said sign shall be at least two inches high.

 

Florida has similar laws, for trespassing the property must be properly posted. If asked to leave, and you don't that is also tresspassing. Also trespassing if you are near a house (i.e., you can't be snooping in the bushes next to someone's home - houses do not need to be posted).

[+Renegade Knight]

I just checked the California Trespassing Law:

 

Section 9.04.300 Trespass on private property.

A. No person shall enter or be present upon any private property or portion of private property not open to the general public without the consent of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, where signs forbidding entry are displayed as provided in subsection F.

 

F. For purposes of subsection A, one sign must be printed or posed in a conspicuous manner at every walkway and driveway entering any enclosed property or portion thereof and at a minimum of every fifty feet along the boundary of any unenclosed lot. This requirement is met if at least one sign is conspicuously printed or posted on the outside of every structure on such property, so as to be readable from each walkway and driveway entering such property. The sign shall State as follows:THIS PROPERTY CLOSED TO THE PUBLICNo Entry Without PermissionR.M.C. §9.04.300The language "THIS PROPERTY CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC No Entry Without Permission" on said sign shall be at least two inches high.

 

Most states are smiliar. A few less englightend states are more restrictive. The guidelines they tell to hunters are fairly good as to when to ask and when you don't need to ask.

 

You ask if the land is developed, posted, or cultivated. This works well in remote areas. Urban areas are a bit different becuase the concept of public accomodation becomes important for cities to thrive. and most hunters don't hunt in the wal mart parking lot.

[+Ed & Julie]

I just checked the California Trespassing Law:

 

Section 9.04.300 Trespass on private property.

A. No person shall enter or be present upon any private property or portion of private property not open to the general public without the consent of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, where signs forbidding entry are displayed as provided in subsection F.

 

F. For purposes of subsection A, one sign must be printed or posed in a conspicuous manner at every walkway and driveway entering any enclosed property or portion thereof and at a minimum of every fifty feet along the boundary of any unenclosed lot. This requirement is met if at least one sign is conspicuously printed or posted on the outside of every structure on such property, so as to be readable from each walkway and driveway entering such property. The sign shall State as follows:THIS PROPERTY CLOSED TO THE PUBLICNo Entry Without PermissionR.M.C. §9.04.300The language "THIS PROPERTY CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC No Entry Without Permission" on said sign shall be at least two inches high.

 

That is a municipal code you quoted...not the California Penal Code (602 PC, which is similar).

[+sbell111]

Ignoring the definitional drama that the thread turned into, if the cache required neither jumping off the bridge nor swimming, I would go find the cache. The sign seems pretty clear to me. If they didn't want people to walk in the area (assuming they have the authority to tell them not to) they would have included that on the sign.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign

Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind

Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?

 

- Five Man Electrical Band

 

I'm by no means a big risk taker with regard to private property, but I think in this particular case I probably would have interpreted the sign as meaning that swimming and jumping off the bridge are not allowed, but otherwise you are good to go. And I would have gone after the cache.

 

I mean, if "None Shall Pass" was their intention, why not just post a "None Shall Pass" sign, and remove all ambiguity?

[+TrailGators]

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign

Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind

Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?

 

- Five Man Electrical Band

 

I'm by no means a big risk taker with regard to private property, but I think in this particular case I probably would have interpreted the sign as meaning that swimming and jumping off the bridge are not allowed, but otherwise you are good to go. And I would have gone after the cache.

 

I mean, if "None Shall Pass" was their intention, why not just post a "None Shall Pass" sign, and remove all ambiguity?

Hey I know that song! Anyhow, I can't find any California law that says that it would be illegal to go for that particular cache. I thought that maybe the "Private Property" announcement might mean something but it doesn't follow the code if that is what it was intended to do. The point is that you need to check the local laws when in doubt. I know that checking local laws sounds like "drama" to some of you but that is the prudent thing to do if you are in doubt. Edited April 29, 2007 by TrailGators

[+One of the Texas Vikings]

I would have gone for it.

 

This is the type of sign to watch for.

 

especially with this one !

 

[+Confucius' Cat]

Could very well be that when I contact the cache owner first they can provide for me very detailed information regarding permission. (perhaps name and number of land owner, or maybe that they are the land owner)

Could very well be that after the cache owner "blows you off" or simply doesn't bother to reply and then the cache subsequently gets archived, the cache owner gets a big burr in his saddle for you even if perhaps you were NOT the one who went to the reviewer.

 

Could very well be that you have no way of knowing whether a particular cache owner is a mature adult or a cry baby.

 

Could very well be that the cache owner's attitude is "it's just a game" or his attitude is "my caches are the most important things in the world to me and I'd rather have a good switchin' than have somebody indicate that my cache ain't the best thing since cinnamon toast on sliced bread."

 

I have encountered a lot of the latter. From some of the other posts, I think the latter attitude is more common than you want to believe.

 

When I encounter a questionable cache to simply walk away and mark it "ignore." That is what works best for me.

 

The only time I will report a cache any more is if it is IMO a REALLY serious issue. The OP situation IMO is NOT.

 

If I KNOW the cache owner, I will email first. Otherwise I will go straight to the reviewer.

 

This has been learned from the School of Hard Knocks- caching in peace 101.

[+Renegade Knight]

Could very well be that when I contact the cache owner first they can provide for me very detailed information regarding permission. (perhaps name and number of land owner, or maybe that they are the land owner)

Could very well be that after the cache owner "blows you off" or simply doesn't bother to reply and then the cache subsequently gets archived, the cache owner gets a big burr in his saddle for you even if perhaps you were NOT the one who went to the reviewer....

 

I'm one of those who blows people off. When I posted my cache, I said I had adequate permission. For me it ends there. All the second guessing and backseat caching isn't going to change anything.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Could very well be that when I contact the cache owner first they can provide for me very detailed information regarding permission. (perhaps name and number of land owner, or maybe that they are the land owner)

Could very well be that after the cache owner "blows you off" or simply doesn't bother to reply and then the cache subsequently gets archived, the cache owner gets a big burr in his saddle for you even if perhaps you were NOT the one who went to the reviewer....

 

I'm one of those who blows people off. When I posted my cache, I said I had adequate permission. For me it ends there. All the second guessing and backseat caching isn't going to change anything.

Yeah, but i bet you AREN'T one of the ones that destroys the whistle blower's (WB) caches, calls him names, and sends nasty emails.

 

i would bet you are one of the ones for whom, when the reviewer gets the WB email, the reviewer "blows them off" because he knows RK had adequate permission or RK wouldn't have posted the cache. And if the reviewer asks, I'll bet you answer with a good explanation.

[+Renegade Knight]

....i would bet you are one of the ones for whom, when the reviewer gets the WB email, the reviewer "blows them off" because he knows RK had adequate permission or RK wouldn't have posted the cache. And if the reviewer asks, I'll bet you answer with a good explanation.

 

If the reviewer did their job and they get a "should be archived notice' from Earnie Eagle Beak butting their nose in...they should blow them off. Nicely. If the reviewer gets actual and real infomration from Earnie about the cache that is more than what I had posted or answered in the reviewer notes, a follow up would be fair for the reviewer to do. If it's something I didn't know then I can factor it in. If it's something I did know it's easy enough to cover.

 

As for good explination...that's an it depends. I can be a PITA. But then so can my reviewer. I'm not a big fan of "Hey I was reading DNF logs and disabled bunch of your caches". I watch them myself and make my own decisions. If I feel maintance is warranted I'll get to it. Eventually. Someday. The reviewer should email me and ask "did you read the DNF logs" but the polite way to handle it is not the quickest.

[+Confucius' Cat]

The "multiple DNF" issue is a whole 'nother topic... I think the reviewers DO go a little overboard on that issue at times. but most of the time they don't archive the cache unless the owner blows them off.

 

Circumstances indeed could change unbeknownst to the cache owner which would render the cache illegal.

 

Therefore I would expect a reviewer to actually ASK even if they know the cache owner well. Unless of course they know Ernie Eagle Beak to be a chronic complainer.

 

In cases where I have been the WB (a practice i have abandoned in all but the most serious cases), I have noted that the reviewer rarely "archives first and asks questions later."

 

However this seems not to be the case if a land manager emails the contact address on the home page.