Jump to content

Best approach to SBA


Recommended Posts

I recently found a cache next to a sign prohibiting being trespassing. I thought perhaps the area might be exempt, so I contacted the police dept, to verify.

Response:

Re: Police Department Web Contact - RMC laws governing bridged area at (Removed)

From: Kevin Milosevich (Removed@ci.renton.wa.us)

Sent:Wed 1/02/08 11:09 AM

To: 'Isa Sorensen'<Removed@hotmail.com> (Removed@hotmail.com)

 

The City of Renton's trespassing ordinance would cover this area.

>Does the RMC cover this area or is an exception in place?

 

(extraneous text removed)

How should I proceed? Contact owner directly or make an SBA log?

I don't want to tick anyone off, but the penalty for offense in the area is Arrest.

Edited by MaplessInSeattle
Link to comment

I recently found a cache next to a sign prohibiting being trespassing. I thought perhaps the area might be exempt, so I contacted the police dept, to verify.

Response:

Re: Police Department Web Contact - RMC laws governing bridged area at (Removed)

From: Kevin Milosevich (Removed@ci.renton.wa.us)

Sent:Wed 1/02/08 11:09 AM

To: 'Isa Sorensen'<Removed@hotmail.com> (Removed@hotmail.com)

 

The City of Renton's trespassing ordinance would cover this area.

>Does the RMC cover this area or is an exception in place?

 

(extraneous text removed)

How should I proceed? Contact owner directly or make an SBA log?

I don't want to pee anyone off, but the penalty for offense in the area is Arrest.

 

Slap an SBA on it... I would also would refrain from using the word that rhymes with hiss and starts with a p. Keystone probably will remind you of that.

Link to comment

I recently found a cache next to a sign prohibiting being trespassing. I thought perhaps the area might be exempt, so I contacted the police dept, to verify.

Response:

Re: Police Department Web Contact - RMC laws governing bridged area at (Removed)

From: Kevin Milosevich (Removed@ci.renton.wa.us)

Sent:Wed 1/02/08 11:09 AM

To: 'Isa Sorensen'<Removed@hotmail.com> (Removed@hotmail.com)

 

The City of Renton's trespassing ordinance would cover this area.

>Does the RMC cover this area or is an exception in place?

 

(extraneous text removed)

How should I proceed? Contact owner directly or make an SBA log?

I don't want to pee anyone off, but the penalty for offense in the area is Arrest.

 

Slap an SBA on it... I would also would refrain from using the word that rhymes with hiss and starts with a p. Keystone probably will remind you of that.

 

I've found caches here in no access areas. One was hidden directly behind, almost attached to, the No Trespassing sign! I don't understand the placement.

Link to comment

Well, I tried, didn't meet with a good response, so I removed the SBA log and told the owner I'm sorry, and that he/she can do what they like.

pfft! No good deed goes unpunished :unsure:

 

I'm sure the owner didn't think you were performing a good deed.

 

If you know the cache is there illegally you should have left the SBA and let the owner sort it out with the reviewer.

Link to comment

Well, I tried, didn't meet with a good response, so I removed the SBA log and told the owner I'm sorry, and that he/she can do what they like.

pfft!

 

Unless the owner gave you a satisfactory explanation, leting yourself be bullied into removing the SBA does a disservice to myself and other cachers. I realize that sounds like I am chastising, I am not. Just don't know how else to explain it.

 

Someone may drive 15, 19 or 25 miles or more because it is the closest cache to them they have not found. They get there and either have to turn around empty handed or decide to risk breaking the law. While the latter would be totally the finders responsibility, both will be a great inconvenience.

 

Put the SBA back on or, at the very least, contact the reviewer directly for guidance.

Link to comment

Hey MIS, since I cache in Renton I would be interested in knowing which cache it is so I don't get myself into any trouble. You can pm me if you don't want to list the cache here.

 

Never mind, I found it on your profile. It looks like it has been disable while the owner figures out what to do.

Edited by WRASTRO
Link to comment

I understand that it's a sticky situation. I've found caches that I didn't feel comfortable going after including those with No Trespassing signs. I recently tried a new micro on the way to work that seems to be hidden on a dumpter (the clue indicates it is "another trashy nano") with the following signs posted on it.

 

b31b151b-a736-488f-989f-fda7e8f995c2.jpg

b2e28b56-7836-4ba8-be64-026bc8a2791d.jpg

 

I posted the following log with the two photos:

 

Stopped by for an expected quick find on my way to work this morning. Arrived on the scene and located GZ. Looked at clue for a confirmation. Not my favorite type of cache, but took a quick look in a couple of spots, but signage and chance of being nabbed at any moment from someone exiting the nearby door, led me to cut it short.

 

No one else has even hinted at having a problem with the location, but hopefully anyone who is going to drive a great distance to try this cache would look it over and see my log or at least the pics in the gallery.

 

DG

Edited by DudleyGrunt
Link to comment

Let me get this straight...you checked with the police and they confirmed that if someone hunts this cache they could get arrested for tresspassing? SBA!

If you're uncomfortable about getting into an argument with the owner then notify the reviewer and let them handle it.

As a cacher I applaud the fact you're looking out for me.

Link to comment

Well, I tried, didn't meet with a good response, so I removed the SBA log and told the owner I'm sorry, and that he/she can do what they like.

pfft!

No good deed goes unpunished :unsure:

 

The SBA logs are only any good when the cache owner is missing or inactive. :D

 

Usually the cache owner gets insulted, and then angered. Next, they try to justify what they did, using arguments such as "it's none of your business", and "no one else has complained". Unless someone actually gets arrested, or the bomb squad gets called out, it's not worth posting one. Just send an e-mail to the Reviewer and let them be concerned about it.

Link to comment

Well, I tried, didn't meet with a good response, so I removed the SBA log and told the owner I'm sorry, and that he/she can do what they like.

pfft!

No good deed goes unpunished :P

Welcome to the wonderful world of Geocaching! We're all nice people here, it is just that some are easily offended.

 

Basically, you called his baby "fat." The reaction is typical. Unfortunately, in answer to your OP, there is no way to call attention to a cache that is in violation of guidelines without "ticking" the cache owner off.

 

In the future, putting a bug in the reviewer's ear will save you a lot of grief. It is the reviewer's job to enforce guidelines.

 

Anyone who dares to say ill of another's cache is labeled "cache police," regardless of the merits of the comment.

 

Now you might as well hold up your hand and take the oath... "I (state your name)... *repeating* "I state your name" "do hereby swear to uphold and enforce the laws of geocaching and political correctness" "and to the Republic for Richard Stanz" "Amen and two wimmens" :)

Link to comment

Ah. The old 'cache police' thread again. Yes. It's good to help keep the purity of this hobby. But, how pure is it in actuality? Assuming OP's assessment to be accurate, then the cache should be redacted, or archived. But, I've done a number of caches behind No Trespassing signs. The state does not always take those signs down when they buy land to add to the wildlife preserve. If OP is absolutely certain, then by all means, SBA, or send your concern to the reviewer. (Less flack that way...) I'm not sure that your response from the police has any accuracy. They may only have been going by what you told them, without knowing the actual situation.

Generally, I shy away from assigning myself the role of 'cache police'.

Link to comment

Ah. The old 'cache police' thread again. Yes. It's good to help keep the purity of this hobby. But, how pure is it in actuality? Assuming OP's assessment to be accurate, then the cache should be redacted, or archived. But, I've done a number of caches behind No Trespassing signs. The state does not always take those signs down when they buy land to add to the wildlife preserve. If OP is absolutely certain, then by all means, SBA, or send your concern to the reviewer. (Less flack that way...) I'm not sure that your response from the police has any accuracy. They may only have been going by what you told them, without knowing the actual situation.

Generally, I shy away from assigning myself the role of 'cache police'.

Personally, i always err on the side of the sign, but I HAVE encountered exactly the circumstances you cite.

 

In search of one particular cache, I encountered a chain across the path that the cache owner stated was the best access and that chain held a prominent NT sign in its middle.

 

I posted SBA and included a picture. The reviewer asked the cache owner about the situation and the cache owner noted that the area USED TO BE railroad property but was now a public park land. He was unaware of the sign and posted new directions for access without passing the sign, which was about 1/4 mile from the cache. The intent of the land manager was only to restrict vehicular traffic on the rail bed and tunnel until the park could be developed, hence the chain.

 

I have also gone to one site where there are NT signs all around except for the one path that is well worn and does not have a sign. There was an empty signpost next to the trail and a NT sign buried in the leaf mulch a few feet away. The question is: "did the owner remove the sign, or did someone else?" In this particular case, it was apparent that the sign had been removed a long time before the cache was published so I'm pretty sure the cache owner didn't do it. The cache owner said people have used that trail for years and nobody cares.

 

To me personally, a torn down sign is still valid until I have good word that its removal was intended by the land owners. I considered that if the sign was supposed to be up and i was caught there, with the sign torn down, I could be accused of tearing the sign down. As someone coming into the area from outside, i have no way of knowing as in the old song, "every lock that ain't locked when no one's around."

 

In any given town, there are locations known to the locals where the NT signs are "just for show." But to an outsider the only prudent course is to assume they mean business.

 

Issues like these are the cache owners' problem. When I encounter them, I just leave.

 

I resigned from the cache police department a few years ago. I don't have a lot of friends anyway, no use making enemies of strangers that i might otherwise never even meet.

Link to comment

I know the cache in question, and the owner is right (in the note on the cache page) - up untill recently there hasn't been any problem with access to the cache. Any sign is new.

 

I'm a little puzzled with your "I didn't get a good response so I pulled the SBA". Unless there was an email, the notes on the page indicate that the owner was just puzzled. Then after the email you sent, they disabled the cache to check it out. Sounds like a reasonable response to me.

Link to comment

Pulling the SBA is now irrelevant. The reviewer received a copy of the log and can now follow up with the cache owner to resolve the issue.

 

Just because an SBA log is posted doesn't automatically mean the reviewer will push the archive button. There shouldn't be any concern with posting one if you feel the cache is in direct violation of a guideline.

Link to comment

You know, I tried to let this thread die. However no one seems to want to let it.

First, not many people know about the law, there is a sign, quite large. But it is only readable from the other direction, which leads on to believe, albeit mistakenly, that perhaps it doesn't apply to the other side.

If I had not found the cache, I would not be certain it was in the location in question.

After seeing the area, taking note of the various signs, doing research on the web, I contacted PD, because I've had very good experiences with them in the past.

I had high hopes that they had made an exemption, there was not one.

I asked what should be done. Various people stated(not all publicly) that an SBA should be logged.

Perhaps if I were as experienced as some of the other cachers that seem to ready to jump all over people for making newbie mistakes, I would have known a better approach is to contact the cache owner first, then as last resort go to SBA log. As well, I was informed that NWforums would have been a better location to post, since they are more familiar with the area, and with the cachers.

I did not wish to stir up so much drama.(If you were in my inbox, you'd know what I mean)

Quite possibly the coolest person I've talked to in private message so far is the cache owner, who I found out, unfortunately too late, was completely unaware of the sign, or the laws regarding the area.

 

I have messaged ten cache owners for various questions or queries about caches in the past, with responses from only five. Therefore I took what I, at the time, felt was the best approach.

I personally don't view an SBA as a bad thing, I was (in my inexperience) unaware that so many others do.

Had I known then, what I know now, I would have messaged the cache owner.

With only two months of caching experience though, we are still learning.

I posted to the forum, in order to get advice, I got it, much of it after a mistake was made. I apologized, both to the cache owner, and to the geocaching community in general.

Please just let the thread die already.

 

Kind of hypocritical don't you think?

I notice the OP made sure they got their smiley so it can't have been as bad as they say.

Responding to this in kind would be counterproductive.

Link to comment

Kind of hypocritical don't you think?

 

I notice the OP made sure they got their smiley so it can't have been as bad as they say.

 

I don't see logging a smiley as hypocritical. Hypocritical would be them placing a cache in a similar place.

Link to comment

Posting an SBA log when you feel that there are valid concerns about the cache placement is never a bad thing to do. It alerts the cache owner to the problems and puts a bug in the ear of the local reviewer at the same time. Most of the local reviewers will simply watch and wait, leaving it up to the cache owner to correct the situation. We only get involved in extreme cases, or when the owner is clearly missing.

Link to comment

How long do you, personally, normally let a SBA hang with no action? Just curious...I logged a SBA on one recently that had been damaged since July with multiple maintenance requests then I logged another maintenance request in early Nov. I think...a month later they had disabled it, but hadn't maintained it, so I logged a SBA in December.

Link to comment

I think that a lot of the angst that started over posting the SBA on this cache could have been averted to some degree with a little more information in your SBA log. It definitely came across to me as a bit of a head-scratcher, and also with a bit of a authoritarian tone (which often will rub people the wrong way). Instead of this...

 

"This cache needs to be moved. It is in violation of RMC.

POC for inquiry was Kevin Milosevich of Renton PD.

If there is an exemption in place with Renton PD, then that's awesome, and keep on with it where it is. Otherwise I would suggest moving it so that Geocachers don't have to break the law, and can keep their good reputation that we have."

 

...you might in the future try something like this:

 

I found this cache today and discovered it to be in an area signed as "No Trespassing". I don't see other logs commenting on this so the sign may be new. I contacted the Renton Police Department and spoke with Kevin Milosevich and he confirmed that the area is off-limits. The cache owner may want to look into this situation.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...