Was I overstepping my bounds?

[+Mike & Kate]

Yesterday, while caching, I came across one that gave me separate parking coordinates, and you had to walk to GZ from there. This was in a subdivision next to a small lake. When I got out of the car, there was a large sign reading "No Trespassing: Residents Only" posted right next to the trail I would have to take to get to the cache. Against my better judgment, I went there anyway. Didn't find the cache, but I did find a second sign not 5 feet from ground zero.

 

Being concerned, I wrote a quick email to both the cache owner and the local reviewer letting them know what I'd found. I also posted a DNF, stating that the signs were there, and that I was talking with the CO about it.

 

I got an email back from the CO that seemed rather pointed. He'd adopted the cache from someone else, and he believes (but doesn't know for sure) that the original CO had permission to place the cache.

 

Was I out of line to do what I did? I'm still relatively new to geocaching, in the greater scheme of things, so I did what I felt best. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

Mike & Kate

[GreenLantern5000]

You'll always have to make your own decisions regarding what's right and what's wrong, so it's really up to you if you felt that it was a location that you shouldn't have gone to, then you probably shouldn't have gone.... sorry.. don't mean to state the obvious, I'm just saying, if you question yourself doing something you probably shouldn't do, then you should listen to yourself.

 

I would've done the same thing, as far as letting the owner know what's up. But, other than that, I'd probably just move on to the next cache....

[+Isonzo Karst]

I did what I felt best

 

I think what you did was best too.

 

Geocaching must be largely self policing.

 

There are caches that I will simply walk away from, as they make me uncomfortable (usually, the assumption about permission). I don't find them, and I don't report them to anybody.

 

But a cache behind a No Trespassing sign (your Residents Only sign is equivalent), or a buried cache, these I always respond to. You could have started with contacting the owner, without contacting the reviewer; or you could have logged a Needs Archived, or just contact the reviewer. Or any combo of the above. Thank you.

[+StarBrand]

I recently ran across a cache in a local park with several "No Trespassing - Park for use of xxxx residents Only" Where xxxx was the local subdivision name. When I contacted the owner - he said that he lived there so it was ok. Still doesn't sound ok to me. Clearly the neighborhood association doesn't want outsiders there. 52 finds before me failed to mention anything about it. I added a note about it. In retrospect - I should have pulled the NA trigger on that one but I am still not sure where the boundries on such a thing should fall.

[+WebChimp]

Clearly the neighborhood association doesn't want outsiders there. 52 finds before me failed to mention anything about it. I added a note about it. In retrospect - I should have pulled the NA trigger on that one but I am still not sure where the boundries on such a thing should fall.

 

The CO should get permission from the homeowner's association, and add that he has permission from them in his cache listing to allay any concerns others cachers might have. I'm always hesitant to go in an area that is clearly posted, unless the cache listing states that permission was granted.

[+Chewy_06]

We tried to do two with similar problems lately:

 

-the first one had signs posted at all the trailheads we could find that clearly stated "no tresspassing". We emailed the CO to see if they could help us identify the correct way in since obviously we werent finding it. Didnt receive an answer & probably wont pursue it, but it's against my nature to let it lie just because i'm leaving a problem that could be an issue for someone else later. Might post a NA for it at some point.

 

-the second one has only one way in, the cache description makes reference to the big no trespassing sign and says something like "regarding the sign, we know & we're told it's ok". Ah yes, let's see here... "Hello officer, oh yes, we did realize that we're trespassing on property adjacent to an airport but you see we read something on the internet that says that someone else was told that it's ok to be here". To my way of thinking this is completely wrong & either the CO should get written permission & post it on the cache page or, the cache should be archived

 

Personally, i'd never put a cache in a place that would put cachers into a position where they need to test their judgement

 

My two cents worth at least.

[+Kit Fox]

When no trespassing signs are involved the correct approach is for the cache owner to supply a printable permission to trespass slip with the name and contact info of who authorized you to be there. The he said, she said "it's ok to trespass" note does not fly in the court of law.

 

Any cache that deliberately encourages trespassing should be addressed by reviewers. I find contacting cache owners to be a dicey issue because most of them assume it is a personal attack when someone questions permission issues regarding trespassing. Dialogue between reviewers and cache owners is the best route. If I see a cache where their is a flagrant violation of the law, I contact the reviewer privately.

[Team CDCB]

Personally, i'd never put a cache in a place that would put cachers into a position where they need to test their judgement.

While this is a good rule of thumb, I think we need to be careful in making that judgement.

 

I'm thinking of the first cache I put out where finder needed to go to three different playground to count equipment to solve the problem. All three were within half a block of each other, which is what I found interesting. I also live in the neighborhood and have young kids, so I'm often at the playgrounds and have no problem feeling very comfortable.

 

That said, I was informed (not very politely, unfortunately) that some people are very uncomfortable around playgrounds as they don't want to look like pedophiles. After talking with others here, I came to realize that this could be a real issue with some people and modified my cache to avoid the playgrounds.

 

So, the point (Yes! There is one!!) is that what is understood as completely acceptable to one person, group, area, might look like a real no-no to someone not from the same background or area.

[Team CDCB]

Any cache that deliberately encourages trespassing should be addressed by reviewers. I find contacting cache owners to be a dicey issue because most of them assume it is a personal attack when someone questions permission issues regarding trespassing. Dialogue between reviewers and cache owners is the best route. If I see a cache where their is a flagrant violation of the law, I contact the reviewer privately.

See, I think I would contact the owner first, privately. Obviously it needs to be done in a polite manner. But even then some people will take it as an attack. I guess I see going to the reviewer as 'escalating' the issue. Kinda like going and complaining to a workers boss without first talking to the worker.

 

Of course, the problem with this approach is if you don't feel you've received a satisfactory response from the owner and then go to the reliever the owner will easily know who it was who complained and if they are vindictive sort it could cause problems.

[+BlueDeuce]

When in doubt about whether or not a cache needs to be archived check with the local reviewer and get their input.

[+J-Way]

People often hide caches in areas belonging their own personal homeowners' association. These areas are typically restricted to homeowners and guests. The loophole they're using is that the seeker is a guest of a homeowner (the hider).

 

In this situation the new owner doesn't appear to live there and isn't a member of the association. Even if the original hider obtained adequate permission, the authority to walk along that trail went away when the original hider moved away. Current seekers are not guests of a resident.

 

If everything I've assumed is true, specifically that neither the new nor original owners currently live in the subdivision, the cache should be removed before someone has a close encounter with a local LEO. The presence of "No Trespassing" signs clearly indicates that the locals do not want you there. Looks like you did the right thing in notifying the reviewer, now it's up to them.

Edited July 15, 2009 by J-Way

[+Unkle Fester]

When no trespassing signs are involved the correct approach is for the cache owner to supply a printable permission to trespass slip with the name and contact info of who authorized you to be there. The he said, she said "it's ok to trespass" note does not fly in the court of law.

 

Any cache that deliberately encourages trespassing should be addressed by reviewers. I find contacting cache owners to be a dicey issue because most of them assume it is a personal attack when someone questions permission issues regarding trespassing. Dialogue between reviewers and cache owners is the best route. If I see a cache where their is a flagrant violation of the law, I contact the reviewer privately.

Interesting thought, the only times I've crossed no tresspassing signs is when the cache page clearly states something like: Land owner "Frank" gave me permission, if anyone stops you just tell them you are geocaching and they are OK with it.

 

And then I will only cross if I have the page printed. I did run into one where the land owner stopped me and the name wasn't the same. I apologized, he was a little upset but ok with it. After a little discussion and seeing that the cache had been there a while, he was OK with it too. I let the CO know.

 

Come to think of it, I haven't crossed a sign since.

 

I will definatly keep the permission and contact info in mind if I ever do a hide on property like that. But I think I'll stick to public land.

 

As for a homeowner giving permission for people to come search in a private neighborhood, it has to be the homeowners association, but doubtful it would be given if they are uptight enough to post the private signs.

 

I also take issue with caches attached to the backs of no tresspassing signs, even if the sign is put there by the cacher. It sets people up to tear apart no tresspassing signs in their future searches. (Yes, they do exist)

[+briansnat]

People often hide caches in areas belonging their own personal homeowners' association. These areas are typically restricted to homeowners and guests. The loophole they're using is that the seeker is a guest of a homeowner (the hider).

 

In this situation the new owner doesn't appear to live there and isn't a member of the association. Even if the original hider obtained adequate permission, the authority to walk along that trail went away when the original hider moved away. Current seekers are not guests of a resident.

 

If everything I've assumed is true, specifically that neither the new nor original owners currently live in the subdivision, the cache should be removed before someone has a close encounter with a local LEO. The presence of "No Trespassing" signs clearly indicates that the locals do not want you there. Looks like you did the right thing in notifying the reviewer, now it's up to them.

 

Therefore neither he/she nor any seekers have any legal right to be there. And since the area is clearly posted

 

I live in a private lake community that has several hundred acres of wooded property with many outstanding spots for caches. I'd love to hide a cache on the property, but the property is for residents and guests only. Whn they say guests, they mean someone accompanying the resident, not "Brian said it was OK for me to be here".

 

I'm sure that is the case with most, if not all of these community associatons.

[+Mike & Kate]

I want to thank everyone for their input. It sounds like (for the most part), I did the right thing. My utmost concern in this issue was protecting any other cachers that might want to find this cache, and if I've upset the CO, it's worth it in my opinion.

 

Next time, I may try to just contact the CO first, and find out if express written permission has been given (assuming it's not posted on the cache page.) As I said, being relatively new, I felt this was the right way to go, but wanted to make sure I wasn't breaching some sort of GC-etiquette.

 

Thanks!

 

Mike & Kate

[+uxorious]

I have found a couple of caches, where the cache page indicated the cache was in a park in a private community. The cache page indicated the homeowner association has given permission for the hide and seekers are allowed to access the park for the purpose of hunting the cache only. So it is possible to have permission to have the cache there.

 

However, if a cache is hidden in an area that has No Trespassing signs, of any kind, permission needs to be clearly spelled out on the cache page.

[+wimseyguy]

You were correct to contact the CO and reviewer. Just because other cachers before you chose to ignore the signs isn't an excuse. I posted two Needs Archived logs from this past weekends travels as both had the cache 200'+ beyond No Trespassing signs. One was signed by the DOT and the other by the Sewer and Water Department, not HOA's. But No Trespassing only means one thing- Keep out unless you are authorized to be here.

 

If the current CO got testy, that is his problem, and now he can sort things out with the reviewer. If there was permission for the cache placement, there should be archived reviewer notes from the original CO that can be accessed by the reviewer.

[+Castle Mischief]

I have found a couple of caches, where the cache page indicated the cache was in a park in a private community. The cache page indicated the homeowner association has given permission for the hide and seekers are allowed to access the park for the purpose of hunting the cache only. So it is possible to have permission to have the cache there.

 

However, if a cache is hidden in an area that has No Trespassing signs, of any kind, permission needs to be clearly spelled out on the cache page.

 

I would be very reluctant to cross a No Trespassing sign without some contact information for who I should call in case the LEO rolls up and sees me hunting for the cache. A real name and cell phone number would be a good start.

[+Renegade Knight]

....Being concerned, I wrote a quick email to both the cache owner and the local reviewer letting them know what I'd found. I also posted a DNF, stating that the signs were there, and that I was talking with the CO about it.

 

I got an email back from the CO that seemed rather pointed. He'd adopted the cache from someone else, and he believes (but doesn't know for sure) that the original CO had permission to place the cache....

Yes you did overstep your bounds.

You had a suspiction that something could be wrong when you saw the signs.

The email to the owner was the right step. After that you overstepped.

 

It's not uncommon for a area to have a park for it's residences. Often they are for the 'residence' use. That includes guests. A resident does have the ability to invite a geocacher. The association maintaining the common grounds can give permission. Plus it's entirly possible that while they want to make the area "Private" it really is public. I know of a bike path posted no trespassing on an easment dedicated to the public use. The home owners association is at war with the public because they don't like "us". We can ride out bikes there but they live nearby and can post signs faster than we can protest.

 

When you got better information from the cache owner then and only then were you in a position to make the next step.

[+whistler & co.]

Personally, i'd never put a cache in a place that would put cachers into a position where they need to test their judgement.

While this is a good rule of thumb, I think we need to be careful in making that judgement.

 

I'm thinking of the first cache I put out where finder needed to go to three different playground to count equipment to solve the problem. All three were within half a block of each other, which is what I found interesting. I also live in the neighborhood and have young kids, so I'm often at the playgrounds and have no problem feeling very comfortable.

 

That said, I was informed (not very politely, unfortunately) that some people are very uncomfortable around playgrounds as they don't want to look like pedophiles. After talking with others here, I came to realize that this could be a real issue with some people and modified my cache to avoid the playgrounds.

 

So, the point (Yes! There is one!!) is that what is understood as completely acceptable to one person, group, area, might look like a real no-no to someone not from the same background or area.

 

I highighted in red the part of your post that I am specifically referring to, but my response is in regard to your entire post. You cannot liken a person "feeling uncomfortable" for whatever reason (physical danger, social mores, personal phobias, etc.) to a person breaking the law. Any rational cacher who is confronted with no trespassing signs and who is not aware of specific permission granted for the cache placement SHOULD not only feel uncomfortable, but should also feel duty-bound to bring the situation to the reviewer's attention, either privately or through a SBA log. Each cache that creates a negative impression on the non-caching public, regardless of the reason, has the potential to lead to further restrictions, rules, and sanctions for the entire sport. The guidelines are there for a reason, and trying to bypass them can have far-reaching and cumulative unpleasant consequences!

[+power69]

We tried to do two with similar problems lately:

 

-the first one had signs posted at all the trailheads we could find that clearly stated "no tresspassing". We emailed the CO to see if they could help us identify the correct way in since obviously we werent finding it. Didnt receive an answer & probably wont pursue it, but it's against my nature to let it lie just because i'm leaving a problem that could be an issue for someone else later. Might post a NA for it at some point.

 

-the second one has only one way in, the cache description makes reference to the big no trespassing sign and says something like "regarding the sign, we know & we're told it's ok". Ah yes, let's see here... "Hello officer, oh yes, we did realize that we're trespassing on property adjacent to an airport but you see we read something on the internet that says that someone else was told that it's ok to be here". To my way of thinking this is completely wrong & either the CO should get written permission & post it on the cache page or, the cache should be archived

 

Personally, i'd never put a cache in a place that would put cachers into a position where they need to test their judgement

 

My two cents worth at least.

If gps tell me its past NTP signs i usually turn back unless i meet security or private police, mention cache and they say its ok[some will even tell you where it is to get you off property faster, I LIKE THOSE]

proper permission on private property gives one "implied permission to be there" however it does not give permission to leave area in worse condition than you found it.

if i know its pvt property i'll usually thank the property owner in the log and do CITO if it needs it.

[+Stargazer22]

I've come across these type of hides before and I think you did OK. Predictably, the cache owners of these are usually not too receptive to any questioning of their hide. It's best worked out with the reviewer I think in these cases.

I believe that whenever we see a sign that it's for residents only, that's exactly what it means. Residents. People who live there. In some cases, a resident MAY be allowed to bring a guest or two, but I'm sure they wouldn't expect or maybe even allow a constant stream of guests, especially without the resident being there as well. Usually guests are welcomed in the presence of the person who invited them.

[+CluelessTwo]

Hi Ya

 

I would have to say that on private grounds I would like to have the name of the permission giver just to make sure.

 

I can see why the cache owner is narked as they inherited the problem but they shouldnt shoot the messenger. Maybe maintenance visits hadnt been necessary and maybe the signs had been erected quite newly. Maybe the land had been sold on and the new land owner was none to happy about trespassing. Theres a whole range of things that may of happend.

 

Claire xx

[+Renegade Knight]

...Whn they say guests, they mean someone accompanying the resident, not "Brian said it was OK for me to be here".

 

I'm sure that is the case with most, if not all of these community associatons.

 

I have no doubt that, this is the spirit and intent of most of these communities. The tendancy towards exclusivitiy and robbing us of personal liberty and freedom is highlighted by virtually every association that exists.

 

When my own HOA devolved into worrying about who's pets were barking and what they could do about it (not covered in the HOA bylaws) my eyes were opened as to the reality of the yuppie world I had stepped into. I pushed my trailer into the back yard, stayed out of it, and only complained when they chose not to prosecute the president who embezzled all our funds.

[+bittsen]

...Whn they say guests, they mean someone accompanying the resident, not "Brian said it was OK for me to be here".

 

I'm sure that is the case with most, if not all of these community associatons.

 

I have no doubt that, this is the spirit and intent of most of these communities. The tendancy towards exclusivitiy and robbing us of personal liberty and freedom is highlighted by virtually every association that exists.

 

When my own HOA devolved into worrying about who's pets were barking and what they could do about it (not covered in the HOA bylaws) my eyes were opened as to the reality of the yuppie world I had stepped into. I pushed my trailer into the back yard, stayed out of it, and only complained when they chose not to prosecute the president who embezzled all our funds.

 

HOAs started out as a good idea. But with ultimate power comes an ultimate price.

 

What I find interesting is that people defend the HOA to the point that they say we should be excluded from public property because the HOA says so. So you are in a HOA neighborhood. Does the HOA own the streets, parking strips, curbs, street signs, etc? No they don't and as much power as they feel they have, they are helpless in most cases to do anything about the common citizen.

[+uxorious]

Does the HOA own the streets, parking strips, curbs, street signs, etc? No they don't and as much power as they feel they have, they are helpless in most cases to do anything about the common citizen.

 

In many cases the HOA does own the streets, parking strips, etc. The development my brother lives in the local police cannot give you a traffic ticket, the streets are private property. The property owners and HOA own and control all the area inside the development.

 

I understand this state either has passed or is going to pass a law that would allow these communities to give the police the right to ticket. But the HOA does control and own this area.

 

I would never ever buy a home in an area that has a HOA.

[+bittsen]

Does the HOA own the streets, parking strips, curbs, street signs, etc? No they don't and as much power as they feel they have, they are helpless in most cases to do anything about the common citizen.

 

In many cases the HOA does own the streets, parking strips, etc. The development my brother lives in the local police cannot give you a traffic ticket, the streets are private property. The property owners and HOA own and control all the area inside the development.

 

I understand this state either has passed or is going to pass a law that would allow these communities to give the police the right to ticket. But the HOA does control and own this area.

 

I would never ever buy a home in an area that has a HOA.

Here the HOA doesn't own any property. They merely enforce regulations that the community has agreed upon (or so they believe).

If the community is owned common areas, it is a different story.

[Skippermark]

Plus it's entirly possible that while they want to make the area "Private" it really is public. I know of a bike path posted no trespassing on an easment dedicated to the public use. The home owners association is at war with the public because they don't like "us". We can ride out bikes there but they live nearby and can post signs faster than we can protest.

There's a homeowner who lives at the end of a public dead end street that is one of the access points for the trails leading up a mountain. The homeowners have no parking/trespassing signs in their driveway but have recently taken it a step further and put them all around the end of the road. A friend who lives in the town has checked and was told that parking is allowed on the street and it is legal to access the trails from the posted trailhead signs there, so the owners are just claiming that it's there area to keep people from going there.

[+Mike & Kate]

....Being concerned, I wrote a quick email to both the cache owner and the local reviewer letting them know what I'd found. I also posted a DNF, stating that the signs were there, and that I was talking with the CO about it.

 

I got an email back from the CO that seemed rather pointed. He'd adopted the cache from someone else, and he believes (but doesn't know for sure) that the original CO had permission to place the cache....

Yes you did overstep your bounds.

You had a suspiction that something could be wrong when you saw the signs.

The email to the owner was the right step. After that you overstepped.

 

It's not uncommon for a area to have a park for it's residences. Often they are for the 'residence' use. That includes guests. A resident does have the ability to invite a geocacher. The association maintaining the common grounds can give permission. Plus it's entirly possible that while they want to make the area "Private" it really is public. I know of a bike path posted no trespassing on an easment dedicated to the public use. The home owners association is at war with the public because they don't like "us". We can ride out bikes there but they live nearby and can post signs faster than we can protest.

 

When you got better information from the cache owner then and only then were you in a position to make the next step.

 

Thank you for the apparent dissenting opinion. After seeing the notes on the cache page between the CO and the reviewer, it became clear to me that the current CO had no proof of permission. He'd simply assumed the previous CO had received permission. Without any sign of permission, I have to believe that I did the right thing in contacting the reviewer.

 

However, in future cases, I will contact the CO first, and wait for him to show me documented proof of permission. In cases where I'm on private property, and there aren't any signs, I'll trust that permission has been given. However, in cases like this with No Trespassing signs, nothing short of written permission or a name and number of the HOA permission-giver will suffice. If the CO can't come up with this, I'll contact the reviewer and let him/her know the situation.

 

I know for a fact that HOA's can be a little too aggressive in their endeavors to stop others from "invading" their area, but I have to take such signs at face value, no matter whether they're rightly placed or not.

[+uxorious]

Here the HOA doesn't own any property. They merely enforce regulations that the community has agreed upon (or so they believe).

If the community is owned common areas, it is a different story.

 

Are there any gated communities in your area? How do you suppose they have the right to gate the area off? Have you noticed Google earth's street view doesn't go into some communities and does go into others? Part of that is because some communities are owned by the homeowners.

 

I may be wrong on your area, but I would bet it is the same there as here. It appears you live in Oregon, and I'm fairly sure it is similar down there.

[+bittsen]

Here the HOA doesn't own any property. They merely enforce regulations that the community has agreed upon (or so they believe).

If the community is owned common areas, it is a different story.

 

Are there any gated communities in your area? How do you suppose they have the right to gate the area off? Have you noticed Google earth's street view doesn't go into some communities and does go into others? Part of that is because some communities are owned by the homeowners.

 

I may be wrong on your area, but I would bet it is the same there as here. It appears you live in Oregon, and I'm fairly sure it is similar down there.

I can only speak for Portland but I only know of 2 gated communities and both were/are controversial.

[+Castle Mischief]

I think some of you miss the point.

 

I don't really care if the HOA has the legal right to keep me out of their community. All I know is that if there's a sign that says "Keep Out" somebody doesn't want me there. That same somebody might be really interested in calling a LEO over to check me out. I'm there to find a cache, not STICK IT TO THE MAN. I don't want to spend any more time than I have to explaining to the law why I'm there and risk the LEO just taking my butt for a ride, just to be sure.

 

Now if I have some contact info on the cache page- cell number, first and last name. Then maybe. "Yes officer, I'm here by permission of HOA member Bob Smith. You can reach him at this number. He lives just down the street and can confirm my story."

 

Maybe.

 

Chances are, once I see that "Keep Out" sign, I'm back on the road looking for a different cache. If you have the stomach for the hassle, then more power to you. Fight the good fight, and all that.

[knowschad]

However, in future cases, I will contact the CO first, and wait for him to show me documented proof of permission.

 

Unless you are being facetious, that is (once again?) overstepping your bounds. If a local cacher contacted me about one of my caches and demanded that I provide him with documented proof of permission, I'm afraid I wouldn't be sending a very nice reply. At the very least, you would be waiting for a long, long time.

[+Jeep_Dog]

Here the HOA doesn't own any property. They merely enforce regulations that the community has agreed upon (or so they believe).

If the community is owned common areas, it is a different story.

 

Legalities of who owns what and whom aside, if a "community believes" that trespassing is not acceptable, then perhaps it puts geocaching in a bad light to cross those beliefs?

 

It would seem to me the story is the same regardless, since as a community ourselves, we could be "dead right" legally, but loose our credibility socially.

[knowschad]

we could be "dead right" legally, but loose our credibility socially.

 

Exactly! Some battles are just not worth fighting.

[+bittsen]

Here the HOA doesn't own any property. They merely enforce regulations that the community has agreed upon (or so they believe).

If the community is owned common areas, it is a different story.

 

Legalities of who owns what and whom aside, if a "community believes" that trespassing is not acceptable, then perhaps it puts geocaching in a bad light to cross those beliefs?

 

It would seem to me the story is the same regardless, since as a community ourselves, we could be "dead right" legally, but loose our credibility socially.

 

And yet, there are those that would allow a SMALL minority the ability to dictate what taxpaying citizens can do on public lands.

Personally, I question authority. Not question whether or not authority applies to me but whether or not the person pretending to be an official has the right to dictate to me. I am not an anarchist, nor do I fight "the man" but I won't allow a relative equal to dictate to me.

When someone says "you can't be here", my first response is "why not?" and then its usually followed by a "who are you and what authority do you have?"

 

More often than not, its some yahoo who likes to pretend they have some authority when they don't.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

Thank you for the apparent dissenting opinion. After seeing the notes on the cache page between the CO and the reviewer, it became clear to me that the current CO had no proof of permission. He'd simply assumed the previous CO had received permission. Without any sign of permission, I have to believe that I did the right thing in contacting the reviewer.

 

However, in future cases, I will contact the CO first, and wait for him to show me documented proof of permission. In cases where I'm on private property, and there aren't any signs, I'll trust that permission has been given. However, in cases like this with No Trespassing signs, nothing short of written permission or a name and number of the HOA permission-giver will suffice. If the CO can't come up with this, I'll contact the reviewer and let him/her know the situation.

 

I know for a fact that HOA's can be a little too aggressive in their endeavors to stop others from "invading" their area, but I have to take such signs at face value, no matter whether they're rightly placed or not.

The orginal CO agreed that they had adequate permission for the cache. The adopting CO did the right thing by taking that at face value. If he has reason to believe this isn't true, then it's time to do some checking.

 

You wouldn't have asked about overstepping your bounds if you didn't think you did. You did. Even now with all the discussion in this thread you are learning there are so many variables that all the more you can't possibly know the story behind the cache to report it to a reviewer.

 

I should add. The caches I have with explictit permission at the level I needed from the land manager don't meet your standard. If you demanded proof or phone numbers my first duty is to the land manager. Not you. I'd ask them. "Hey, I got a potential finder who want's to call you and grill you about the cache, you want me to give them your number or maybe have a notary sign that you signed a permission form that meets their criteria?" My answer would be some varition of "WTF, don't they have something better to do"

 

My goal with land managers is for them to accept caching as a trivial form of casual recreation that brings folks to their lands and allows for the enjoyment they intend for them to have.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Yesterday, while caching, I came across one that gave me separate parking coordinates, and you had to walk to GZ from there. This was in a subdivision next to a small lake. When I got out of the car, there was a large sign reading "No Trespassing: Residents Only" posted right next to the trail I would have to take to get to the cache. Against my better judgment, I went there anyway. Didn't find the cache, but I did find a second sign not 5 feet from ground zero.

Mike & Kate

 

With a No Trespassing sign so close to GZ one has to wonder if the cache was placed there without permission and the local residents put the signs up afterwords when they started seeing lots of strangers wandering around the area.

[Dr_Strangelove]

Yesterday, while caching, I came across one that gave me separate parking coordinates, and you had to walk to GZ from there. This was in a subdivision next to a small lake. When I got out of the car, there was a large sign reading "No Trespassing: Residents Only" posted right next to the trail I would have to take to get to the cache. Against my better judgment, I went there anyway. Didn't find the cache, but I did find a second sign not 5 feet from ground zero.

 

Being concerned, I wrote a quick email to both the cache owner and the local reviewer letting them know what I'd found. I also posted a DNF, stating that the signs were there, and that I was talking with the CO about it.

 

I got an email back from the CO that seemed rather pointed. He'd adopted the cache from someone else, and he believes (but doesn't know for sure) that the original CO had permission to place the cache.

 

Was I out of line to do what I did? I'm still relatively new to geocaching, in the greater scheme of things, so I did what I felt best. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

Mike & Kate

 

This is why I have stopped searching for these "neighborhood" caches, I just don't want the hassle, and generally they aren't the kind of cache I enjoy anyway. Sometimes one isn't well described and I don't find out until I arrive at the start point, that's frustrating. I just go on to the next cache. No Trespassing means exactly what it says.

 

I'm glad I found this thread, I was going to post a very similar topic about caches on private land. The "front yard" caches that are clearly marked a such aren't my cup of tea, but are easy to understand. What I have been running into lately are caches, especially multi-stage caches, that start on public land, then, lead you onto private property with no explanation that permission to be there is given. I don't mind if it's clearly stated the cache owner owns the property or even just gives explicit instructions as to what is and what is not off-limits, but far too many just end up in some farmer's field or in a woods somewhere. Just because it's a road right-of-way doesn't mean you should place a cache there.

 

I've gotten to the point that I won't look for a cache on private property unless the cache owner has posted some pretty rock-solid explanations that it's OK for me to be there.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Private communities are a strange thing. They seem to be popular in Pennsylvania, for instance. If the entrances are posted "Private Community. No Trespassing", I will generally avoid them. The roads are privately owned, and not public property.

Gated commuities are a different story. You have to pass through security for most of them. No way anyone could hide a cache there! (Though I did manage to sneak through the gates at a gated community in Brooklyn. Security was on the road, not the pedestrian gate. But there were no caches hidden there. Interesting to see signs bilingual in English and Russian!)

[+popokiiti]

If you go to my profile page you will see a picture of a "No Trespassing" sign, taken while out caching the Pacific Marine Circle Route. I definitely wouldn't cache in there!

[+Frank Broughton]

If you go to my profile page you will see a picture of a "No Trespassing" sign, taken while out caching the Pacific Marine Circle Route. I definitely wouldn't cache in there!

 

In my younger days that would have been an invite. I would have went just to see if they could!

[+geodarts]

No trespassing signs can pose a dilemma. I did a cache last week that clearly indicated that you had to go into an area where you are not supposed to be (and that could be problematic with law enforcement officials). It was in an otherwise public area -- with entry prohibited out of safety concerns. I ended up doing that one, although I probably did not set the best example for my daughter.

 

On the other hand there was another cache that is on private land behind barbed wire fences marked "no trespassing." The cache page did not identify it as being on private land. I did not feel comfortable about doing that one, perhaps because of the private nature of the land in an area next to adjoining public access, where cache could easily have been placed . I contacted both the CO and the reviewers for clarification. The reviewers said it was the responsibility of the CO and the CO said people were free to do it or not. Although no permission was obtained for the cache to be there, it remains.

 

I am mindful of Woody's song that said that the other side of the no trespassing sign didn't say anything, that side was made for you and me -- but when property owners have asked me to leave, I have done so and notified the CO. Then there was one cache in a foreign country that I really wanted to log but the area was closed for the time we were there. . . . I got the smiley, but that is another story.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Erickson

[+tallglenn]

My experience was with a newbie who hid a cache (a nice one, I might add) inside a fenced-off defunct trailer park. There were NOT any "No Tresspassing" signs on the fence, so I went around and got the cache. In my log I noted the presence of the 5' chainlink fence and the CO deleted my log. Apparently a "touchy" spot. Once he did that, it was war and I contaced our poor overworked reviewer. She just said she would watch it. A few weeks later a local GXer got questioned by the cops at the site and it was archived. With another local cache which is still active, I noted in my found log it was 30' from active railroad tracks. I wouldn't get too personal or involve the reviewer unless I was up to dealing with some bad karma. There are 1,000,001 ways you never thought of that people can get "even" with you - like stealing/muggling YOUR caches. Best to just stick to your "Nice one - TFTC" logs and forGodsakes, don't make any minor comment about anyone else or you may be dealing with a begrudged, overreacting, offensive psycho.