Private Property

[+Jackalgirl]

Perhaps instead of No Trespassing signs, you need No Parking signs (which could possibly have the same effect). And if you are on solid legal ground, perhaps you need to put a Tow Truck operator on speed dial.

 

That's a pretty good idea. The landlord should take the effort to have one of those "No parking, violators will be towed" signs with the lengthy explanation of the range of fines, etc. It'd be cheaper than landscaping, tho it would require either a contract with a towing company to patrol the area or an agreement by you to monitor the lot...

 

(I'm also interested to find out, tho, what the upshot is re: the ownership of the actual railroad bridge/trestle. If the area is public land and permission has been sought and obtained, then the solution to having this cache here would be to say "you have to walk on the bed of this [inactive] rail road in order to reach the cache. If you step off of the railway, you'll be trespassing on private property, so please don't do it.")

[+DanOCan]

Too bad about the cache, it looks like a great spot.

[June16]

I'm going to try to do some more research on all of this. I've been doing some between posting and if it happens that it's a railroad right of way, I'll repost the geocache myself. I'm e-mailing the landlords now to see if I can get some more details from them as well and I'm looking up some things locally. I'm sure the property has some great history to it.

[+Jackalgirl]

I'm going to try to do some more research on all of this. I've been doing some between posting and if it happens that it's a railroad right of way, I'll repost the geocache myself. I'm e-mailing the landlords now to see if I can get some more details from them as well and I'm looking up some things locally. I'm sure the property has some great history to it.

 

You are awesome! : )

[+J-Way]

See if this link can be of some help.

Most useful post yet.

 

So if the water was navigable by a trader's canoe in the 1800's, then people can fish and you can't stop them. The only legal route I see is to park on the road or railroad ROW, walk along the railroad ROW to the stream, then follow the banks up or down stream. But you can stop them from parking on and crossing your land.

 

As for the cache on the railroad trestle, it depends on whether or not you own the trestle. In some cases the railroad will abandon their ROW and deed it over to the adjacent landowner(s). In some cases the railroad still owns the ROW, even though the track has long been abandoned. That's a question for your landlord and your local property tax assessor.

 

If you own the trestle, then you were justified in archiving the cache. If you do NOT own the trestle, but seekers had to park on and/or cross your land to access it, then you were justified in archiving the cache. Otherwise, you caused the archival of a cache without any legal authority.

 

Oh, one reason this thread has developed into such a hot topic is that "adequate permission" is a always a very hot topic, and we rarely get the chance to participate in the discussion with a real live muggle landowner!! Personally, I'm a advocate of always obtaining permission from the landowner; but in this case, I would have assumed the landowner was whoever owns the railroad ROW.

[+J-Way]

I'm going to try to do some more research on all of this. I've been doing some between posting and if it happens that it's a railroad right of way, I'll repost the geocache myself. I'm e-mailing the landlords now to see if I can get some more details from them as well and I'm looking up some things locally. I'm sure the property has some great history to it.

You are awesome! : )

I agree

 

Much more awesome that this landowner .

Edited August 21, 2009 by J-Way

[+zoltig]

I'm going to try to do some more research on all of this. I've been doing some between posting and if it happens that it's a railroad right of way, I'll repost the geocache myself. I'm e-mailing the landlords now to see if I can get some more details from them as well and I'm looking up some things locally. I'm sure the property has some great history to it.

You are awesome! : )

I agree

 

Much more awesome that this landowner .

Are they still runnin mooshine there?

[June16]

Update - So I was telling a co-worker friend about all of this and it just so happens that his mother-in-law is a county surveryor who is going to get me all of the information she can about the property like the deed, right of way involving the railroad, tax map, etc... I've always wanted to learn more about the property, so this is good. We'll see what develops.

[+zoltig]

Update - So I was telling a co-worker friend about all of this and it just so happens that his mother-in-law is a county surveryor who is going to get me all of the information she can about the property like the deed, right of way involving the railroad, tax map, etc... I've always wanted to learn more about the property, so this is good. We'll see what develops.

Cool. Please keep us informed!

[June16]

zoltig, that link was very helpful. That is information that probably 99% of people don't know. The problem lies in determining how people got to the waterway. You can't determine whether they entered from downstream as they're legally allowed to do or if they crossed your property, which they're not allowed to do. No one has the time or energy to watch their property 100% of the time to see how it's accessed. Good reading!

[+ecanderson]

Update - So I was telling a co-worker friend about all of this and it just so happens that his mother-in-law is a county surveryor who is going to get me all of the information she can about the property like the deed, right of way involving the railroad, tax map, etc... I've always wanted to learn more about the property, so this is good. We'll see what develops.

Apart from the geocaching aspect, this is turning into a fascinating story, and it will be fun to see how the history of the area and this specific property plays out.

 

However, as you've discovered from doing the research, ownership isn't always obvious, especially to a cacher, and sometimes even to the owner who is more familiar with the immediate area. As cachers, we tend to get out into the nooks and crannies and unmapped areas far more often than the average person, and are often surprised by what we find. In certain places around the country, it's not at all unusual to have what ought to be understood as a public access to be "converted" to private use. Heck, I've even seen an (ahem) local county gate a county road and it turn over to a couple of local landowners when they complained about the "outsiders" using it.

 

As someone posted earlier, many of us have run across landowners whose claim to ownership (real or imagined) tends to run right into and across public access-ways or even public land! We've had a couple of threads about such areas here before. We do try to avoid problems, and your cache owner will unquestionably be surprised to hear that there's an issue on this "old" cache. The railway issue certainly raises some legitimate questions, but it turns out that the cache doesn't belong there, odds are very good that a chagrined cache owner will gladly remove it for you.

 

OTOH -- good luck with the fishermen. If that patch of water is good for fishing, it's going to be really hard to keep them away. If they can access that stretch from a public easement without getting onto what appears to be your landlord's property and stay down off the bank, there's not much you can do about that. But it sounds like they prefer the spot just because of the "convenient" parking. I like the "No Parking" sign idea, myself.

[June16]

Well, I got an e-mail back from my landlord and this is what it says:

 

"The railroad bed is part of the farm's property. The railroad officially gave back ownership to the land owners when they ceased operations."

 

I'm still going to get all of the maps and info from my friends surveyor connection as I'm now really interested to find out more about the place.

[Clan Riffster]

The county assessor map would clear up some of the questions.

That's the direction I go when faced with a land use dispute. Volusia County, (where I live), and the surrounding counties, all have publicly searchable, online databases with detailed maps showing all the property boundaries. By clicking on a property, you can see who owns it, along with their contact information. I've used this numerous times to dispel the lofty aspirations of a few property owners, who were trying to inflate the areas under their control.

 

I found a website for the Franklin County Property Appraiser, but you gotta create an account to access it.

http://publicrecords.onlinesearches.com/PA_Franklin.htm

[+ecanderson]

Well, I got an e-mail back from my landlord and this is what it says:

 

"The railroad bed is part of the farm's property. The railroad officially gave back ownership to the land owners when they ceased operations."

 

I'm still going to get all of the maps and info from my friends surveyor connection as I'm now really interested to find out more about the place.

And for the railroad nuts out here, can you or your landlord identify which railroad used to pass through there?

 

Out here, almost all of the cool old narrow gauge stuff was pulled up long ago for the steel and the timber, so much of the history is just the patch of ground over which the iron once rolled. A few of them still function as road beds (of a sort!) for vehicle traffic through all of the old mining areas. Sadly, many of these are slowing being closed off one by one as well, legally or otherwise. We're still hoping to see one old Denver, Northwestern and Pacific track bed sorted out for travel again. The railroad bed / road had been reopened at the tunnel, but because the rock anchors were incorrectly installed and caused an accident, they shut it down again.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollins_Pass

[June16]

ecanderson, it's funny you mentioned finding out about the railroad, because I asked our landlord that exact same question. My e-mail went something like this: "Can you tell me a little more about the railroad, like where it ran from and who owned it?" I'm still waiting to hear back.

[+Cardinal Red]

If the area is public land and permission has been sought and obtained, then the solution to having this cache here would be to say "you have to walk on the bed of this [inactive] rail road in order to reach the cache. If you step off of the railway, you'll be trespassing on private property, so please don't do it.")

 

The landlord has indicated the railroad land reverted back to the property owner. Entirely possible, but I still would like to hear what the surveyor has to say.

 

But I do want to caution the original poster (June16), about something. Let's just assume the cache had been legally placed in a railroad ROW. Lets also assume that the cache page spelled out a very specific method to navigate to the cache as the only legal means of access. There would still be a certain percentage of cachers who would not read the cache page, and would most likely trespass if that seemed to be the easiest and most obvious approach. I would like to add that while Geocachers are not perfect, a far greater percentage of them than "sportsman" will honor No Parking/NoTresspassing signs (without inflicting any damage on them).

 

And June16, now that you have a Geocaching account, you should consider finding and logging a few Geocaches. So far your attitude and actions indicate to me you would be a welcome addition to our sport. It's almost a shame that "Brindle Crossing" has already been removed. You could have signed the log and posted your first find.

[+gof1]

Who is in that area and can take the OP out to hunt a couple down?

[+Harry Dolphin]

From what I understand, and I may be misinformed, most of the railroads tore up the track on unused lines to reduce their tax liability. I've heard of municipalities turning back pieces of roads to local property owners, but I've never heard of railroads doing that. Does not mean that it doesn't happen. Municipalities and counties will take over possession of property for unpaid taxes. Then do whatever they want with it. Municipal tax office would be the place to look. We used to have problems with people assuming that a pipe line was public right of way. The pipeline has an easement, but does not own the land. That is private property. Railroads own their right of way. The question is what happens to the ownership when the line stops being used. If the railroad company still owns it, then it is private property, but not yours. That's where the tax maps come into play. Or the deed books at the county courthouse.

[+zoltig]

Interesting side note regarding th RR bed.

Using the GE, follow the rail bed norht to I-81. The interstate actually bridges where the tracks would have been. Bridges cost a lot of money to build. If the line was abandoned prior to the interstate construction, I am sure they would have backfilled the old crossing.

The interstate systems began construction for the most part in the 50's (I think).

I-81 info

[+Minimike2]

Around here, the railroads are required by law to cede back to the property owner when they abandon the use of the ROW. This is because the ROW was 'taken' from the land owner originally.

 

Sadly, some politically well connected people got the State to cede the ROW to them for "Rails To Trails." This use is totally illegal, but sadly happens.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Around here, the railroad ROWs are owned by the RR company completely. Several old, abandoned ROWs had been "turned over" to the municipalities years ago mostly because the RR company no longer wanted to maintain the property (ie cut the grass). In some cases, the adjacent property owners have purchased the part of the ROW adjacent to their property. In most cases, they have not and it exists as a strip owned (and maintained) by the municipality.

 

Around here, none of the ROWs had been "taken" from the property owners as the tracks predated the platting of the properties adjacent.

[+TurtleMonkey]

ecanderson, it's funny you mentioned finding out about the railroad, because I asked our landlord that exact same question. My e-mail went something like this: "Can you tell me a little more about the railroad, like where it ran from and who owned it?" I'm still waiting to hear back.

 

Im very interested to know more about this as well

[knowschad]

June16, I'm curious to know... and nobody has asked this question yet... if 70 people found that cache before you learned about it, then why is it a problem? I mean, if this is truely private property, your landlord most definately has every right in the world to ignore that question... none of our business, for sure. But I'd still like to know what the problem is. Is it because of percieved liability issues? Trash? Trails that are being created?

 

By the way, I must add that I am extremely impressed by how you are handling this! Thank you for your generosity in asking for our input! This is unheard of!!

[Keystone]

Well, I got an e-mail back from my landlord and this is what it says:

 

"The railroad bed is part of the farm's property. The railroad officially gave back ownership to the land owners when they ceased operations."

 

I'm still going to get all of the maps and info from my friends surveyor connection as I'm now really interested to find out more about the place.

This was my conclusion. Trace the path of the former railroad (still shown on Google maps) to the north, and after a bend to the northwest, it isn't too long before you run smack dab into a new housing development. I saw that, and said "the right of way was abandoned back to the landowners."

 

June16, I'd like to join the others who have thanked you for this very interesting forum conversation. I am one of the Geocaching.com volunteers who reviews new cache submissions before they are published on the website. I also receive complaints like yours, which usually arrive by e-mail for me to investigate. It's different to discuss it all in public, but very instructive.

 

I was glad to see my colleague OReviewer was on the ball, responding to the archive request promptly after it was submitted. We receive these directly in our e-mail -- I even get cellphone alerts. We take these issues quite seriously as geocachers want to maintain good relations with the owners of the gameboard where we play our game.

[+TurtleMonkey]

oops double post

Edited August 22, 2009 by TurtleMonkey

[+Wadcutter]

Trace the path of the former railroad (still shown on Google maps) to the north, and after a bend to the northwest, it isn't too long before you run smack dab into a new housing development. I saw that, and said "the right of way was abandoned back to the landowners."

 

Googlemap still shows a road on our property that hasn't been there in over 60 years. It's was built before the Civil War and then abandoned prior to 1900 with the property given back to the land owner in the 1930s. But it still shows up on the maps.

Other maps still show a RR for a distance of over 45 miles which hasn't been there since the mid-1950s. That land was long ago given back to the land owners. Most places no one could even tell there was ever a RR.

[+zoltig]

ecanderson, it's funny you mentioned finding out about the railroad, because I asked our landlord that exact same question. My e-mail went something like this: "Can you tell me a little more about the railroad, like where it ran from and who owned it?" I'm still waiting to hear back.

 

Im very interested to know more about this as well

From research on this map, I am guessing CSX (CSXT) or Norfolk Southern (NSRC). It could also be a private line that would have joined up with the mainline to the North.

Zoom in to Franklin County in the lower middle section of Pennsylvania. The RR in question is not shown on the map but the surrounding ones are.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

This was my conclusion. Trace the path of the former railroad (still shown on Google maps) to the north, and after a bend to the northwest, it isn't too long before you run smack dab into a new housing development. I saw that, and said "the right of way was abandoned back to the landowners."...

 

Is this an east coast thing? Here the RR owned the land first having been given the land by the government. They don't "give it back" to the land owner's adjoining. when they do abandon it to the "owner" it goes to the Federal Government. The exception I'm aware of is when Indian Reservation (who in the case I'm thinking of predates both the state and the Rail Road) were the source of the lands. I'm aware of a case where the RR tried to give the land back and their offer was refused. The land is not used for any RR purpose but they can't give it back because of the legal ramifications if they do so.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+zoltig]

...

This was my conclusion. Trace the path of the former railroad (still shown on Google maps) to the north, and after a bend to the northwest, it isn't too long before you run smack dab into a new housing development. I saw that, and said "the right of way was abandoned back to the landowners."...

 

Is this an east coast thing? Here the RR owned the land first having been given the land by the government. They don't "give it back" to the land owner's adjoining. when they do abandon it to the "owner" it goes to the Federal Government. The exception I'm aware of is when Indian Reservation (who in the case I'm thinking of predates both the state and the Rail Road) were the source of the lands. I'm aware of a case where the RR tried to give the land back and their offer was refused. The land is not used for any RR purpose but they can't give it back because of the legal ramifications if they do so.

It would be an eastern thing since the ironhorse is what helped to develop the west where as the east was already being well established.

[+Renegade Knight]

Around here, the railroad ROWs are owned by the RR company completely. Several old, abandoned ROWs had been "turned over" to the municipalities years ago mostly because the RR company no longer wanted to maintain the property (ie cut the grass). In some cases, the adjacent property owners have purchased the part of the ROW adjacent to their property. In most cases, they have not and it exists as a strip owned (and maintained) by the municipality.

 

Around here, none of the ROWs had been "taken" from the property owners as the tracks predated the platting of the properties adjacent.

 

I should have read your post first. In the East I'm thinking that there were a lot of landowners who predate the rail roads. Unlike the West were the Rail Road were typically the first property owner of patented land.

[+cantuland]

June16, please notice that Geocaching, in general, is a sport that encourages environmental respect, recognition of private property, and the over all do-good ethics. I am impressed with how well you are dealing with this issue. In the event that the final result is the removal of geocaches from the property, there is another path that you can take.

 

Since you have a geocaching account, and using the forums quite well, there is a "branch" of geocaching called CITO, which stands for "Cache In Trash Out". Geocachers know CITO ethics very well. You have the ability to host an event, explaining that the property is private, but that there is trash everywhere, and that you would appreciate the help of geocachers in the area to show up on a certain day that you choose, and MANY geocachers will show up with trash bags in hand to clean up the area. That is what we do.

 

cantuland

[+uxorious]

We used to have problems with people assuming that a pipe line was public right of way. The pipeline has an easement, but does not own the land. That is private property. Railroads own their right of way.

 

Railroads do not always own their right of way. The rail lines are also sometimes on an easement.

 

In this area there is an abandoned rail line that has been turned into rails to trails. The property owners sued in court because the easement was for a rail line and not for a trail. Therefore when the railroad abandoned the line the adjacent landowners felt the easement should revert back to them.

 

I haven't heard anything about this case for a while, but it did get a lot of play in the local news.

[+racingmissy]

Not saying this is the case, but some people figure just because there not using it. It's mine. My mom has railroad property adjoining her land. They don't use it. Don't mean it's hers.

[June16]

June16, I'm curious to know... and nobody has asked this question yet... if 70 people found that cache before you learned about it, then why is it a problem? I mean, if this is truely private property, your landlord most definately has every right in the world to ignore that question... none of our business, for sure. But I'd still like to know what the problem is. Is it because of percieved liability issues? Trash? Trails that are being created?

 

By the way, I must add that I am extremely impressed by how you are handling this! Thank you for your generosity in asking for our input! This is unheard of!!

 

It is a problem because the land owners do not want people on the property and I'm pretty convinced (pending the tax map) that the landowners do actually own it. It is also a problem because not ONE of those 70 people made an effort to stop in and talk to me about going on the property. Granted, we're not home 24/7 and a few may have actually stopped while we were not home, but I doubt we missed too many people.

 

Just because I just now found out about the geocache, doesn't mean I never see people on the property. People are parked in that pull-off several times a week and I don't know what they're doing. The landowners are worried about the liability first and foremost and I'm the one who has to pick up the trash. The signs I did put up were tore down, ripped to pieces and left at the base of the tree. I am certainly not blaming that on geocachers, because I don't know who it was. I've always been amazed at the amount of people who are parked at the pull-off and NO ONE has EVER asked. The most irritating thing is that everyone's default attitude is "I don't have to ask permission." If everyone thinks about it, you know that not one person who has set foot on the property has gone to the courthouse and looked up property lines and right of ways, etc. They just park, get out, walk around and do what they want on property that they know nothing about. As a hunter, I've never been on property that I haven't asked permission to be on.

 

I should have the tax maps and property maps by Monday and there should be no doubt after that, but for now, I will side with the landowner regarding boundary lines and right of ways. I am impressed with how passionate gecachers are and with preserving their sport, but two things can be taken from all of this. Know everything about the property you're going on and always ask permission if you don't.

[+fegan]

It is also a problem because not ONE of those 70 people made an effort to stop in and talk to me about going on the property. Granted, we're not home 24/7 and a few may have actually stopped while we were not home, but I doubt we missed too many people.

 

I've just been reading the thread, as I find the situation very interesting. We often hear about landowners assuming they own something they actually don't (not saying that is the case here). I'm glad that the reviewer archived the cache...and even if it turns out the land isn't owned by your landlord it's entirely possible the reviewer won't allow the cache to be replaced because there has been an issue raised and it's better for us, as a community, to lose that one spot so as not to ruffle the feathers of a nearby landowner. IIRC, a few caches have been removed because a neighbor didn't like all the strangers coming into a neighborhood. So, I doubt this one will return, regardless of the survey results...which I'm anxious to hear about.

 

But you've made the comment I quoted more than once in this thread so I would like to repeat something I think has already been mentioned.

 

When we are looking for a geocache it is understood that the member who placed the geocache has already obtained permission (or the cache is on public land and no explicit permission was required)...so there would be absolutely NO reason a geocacher would attempt to figure out where the land owner lives (heck, they might live miles away, or in another state) and seek them out to ask for their permission to go find the geocache.

 

Not trying to start an argument...just explaining why "not ONE of those 70 people made an effort" to seek out the property owner to ask permission.

 

I agree with others...I'm very glad that you opened this dialog in the forums so we can hear the landowner's side of the story for a change. Usually we only hear the hider/seeker side of the story.

[jholly]

Regardless of the out come, been thinking a bit about the comment that no one came and knocked the door to ask permission to hunt the cache. As mentioned those that seek the cache are making the assumption, rightly or wrongly, that permission for the placement was obtained. I also think the level of permission to hunt a cache is somewhat different than hunting game with deadly force. I've hunted caches where I noticed newly placed No Trespassing signs, took the DNF and mentioned the signs in my log. The caches were archived by the owners. As for liability, another thread pointed out that many states have laws that exempt landowners of liability if the recreation use of the land is with permission and no fee was charged for access. Of course if you just don't want people coming that is a different issue.

 

Jim

[knowschad]

June16, I'm curious to know... and nobody has asked this question yet... if 70 people found that cache before you learned about it, then why is it a problem? I mean, if this is truely private property, your landlord most definately has every right in the world to ignore that question... none of our business, for sure. But I'd still like to know what the problem is. Is it because of percieved liability issues? Trash? Trails that are being created?

 

By the way, I must add that I am extremely impressed by how you are handling this! Thank you for your generosity in asking for our input! This is unheard of!!

 

It is a problem because the land owners do not want people on the property and I'm pretty convinced (pending the tax map) that the landowners do actually own it. It is also a problem because not ONE of those 70 people made an effort to stop in and talk to me about going on the property. Granted, we're not home 24/7 and a few may have actually stopped while we were not home, but I doubt we missed too many people.

 

Just because I just now found out about the geocache, doesn't mean I never see people on the property. People are parked in that pull-off several times a week and I don't know what they're doing. The landowners are worried about the liability first and foremost and I'm the one who has to pick up the trash. The signs I did put up were tore down, ripped to pieces and left at the base of the tree. I am certainly not blaming that on geocachers, because I don't know who it was. I've always been amazed at the amount of people who are parked at the pull-off and NO ONE has EVER asked. The most irritating thing is that everyone's default attitude is "I don't have to ask permission." If everyone thinks about it, you know that not one person who has set foot on the property has gone to the courthouse and looked up property lines and right of ways, etc. They just park, get out, walk around and do what they want on property that they know nothing about. As a hunter, I've never been on property that I haven't asked permission to be on.

 

I should have the tax maps and property maps by Monday and there should be no doubt after that, but for now, I will side with the landowner regarding boundary lines and right of ways. I am impressed with how passionate gecachers are and with preserving their sport, but two things can be taken from all of this. Know everything about the property you're going on and always ask permission if you don't.

 

It sounds to me as though you may have misunderstood my question. I do realize the your landlord, the property owner does not want people (cachers or fishermen or whatever) on his land. My question is, why not? My main reason for asking is that I'm wondering if he is afraid of liability issues, littering, or whatever?

 

As for the cache fingers not stopping to ask... that is easy: we (the cache finders) assume that the cache hider has already received "adequate" permission. It is my *guess* in this situation that the hider *thought* that he had adequate permission because he *assumed* that the railroad ROW was public property. While it is looking very much like that assumption was in error, my point is that it was most likely not a malicious attempt to entice cachers onto private property.

[knowschad]

As for liability, another thread pointed out that many states have laws that exempt landowners of liability if the recreation use of the land is with permission and no fee was charged for access. Of course if you just don't want people coming that is a different issue.

 

Jim

 

Thank you. That is essentially the point that I was trying to make when I was asking "why" the landowner cares, when so many people have already found the cache without apparently causing any damage or invasion of privacy. I'm guessing that they are afraid of liability issues and are not aware of the laws that protect them from just that.

[+Cpl. Klinger]

As for liability, another thread pointed out that many states have laws that exempt landowners of liability if the recreation use of the land is with permission and no fee was charged for access. Of course if you just don't want people coming that is a different issue.

 

Jim

 

Thank you. That is essentially the point that I was trying to make when I was asking "why" the landowner cares, when so many people have already found the cache without apparently causing any damage or invasion of privacy. I'm guessing that they are afraid of liability issues and are not aware of the laws that protect them from just that.

 

When I go skiing, I sign away a liability release form, releasing the owners of the resort of any liability should I do something stupid and kill myself. At the grocery store I manage, we have BIG signs all over the lot stating that we have no liability in case of cart damage. Dump trucks all over state have signs stating that they are not responsible for windshield damage caused by following too closely.

 

In all cases, I can point to stories where even stated releases of liability don't matter to folks. I had a guy last year clearly back into a shopping cart at my store, shown on video tape, no less, but tried suing us for damages. That ended up in a "here's a check, now go away" settlement. It was his fault, with our release of liability all over the lot. And yet he still "won".

 

I know that the law says it protects me. In this litigious society, I'd rather make sure I protect myself from the law. And the lawyers.

Edited August 23, 2009 by Cpl. Klinger

[+uxorious]

At the grocery store I manage, we have BIG signs all over the lot stating that we have no liability in case of cart damage. Dump trucks all over state have signs stating that they are not responsible for windshield damage caused by following too closely.

 

There is a big difference between a sign that denies liability, and a law that relieves liability. Those dump trucks will still have to pay if the rock that hits the windshield comes from the load and not from the road. The sign will not make a difference. However, just try to prove the rock came from the road and not the load. (It has been done, but very rare.) The trucking company would have to prove you were too close, also hard to prove.

 

If someone could prove your store was negligent with the carts, your sign won't help. If it was a law it would make a difference.

[June16]

As mentioned those that seek the cache are making the assumption, rightly or wrongly, that permission for the placement was obtained.

 

Jim,

 

Their assumption is wrong. Look at the reaction I received for assuming my landowners were correct about the Railroad ROW. Everyone said how I shouldn't assume my landowners knew what they were talking about. By that same thinking, shouldn't every geocacher NOT assume permission is there and ask the landowners anyway?

 

As far as the liability issue, the landowners are very (OVERYLY) worried about it which is why they don't want anyone on the property. I can't help that as I don't own the property. However, as Cpl. Klinger pointed out, the way people are now-days, I can't blame them. It's better to keep people off the property and perhaps deny a few innocent harmless people a few minutes of fun than to have to go through time and money involving a lawsuit from someone who fell off the railroad bridge and broke their neck.

Edited August 24, 2009 by June16

[Clan Riffster]

Their assumption is wrong.

I can't defend the cache placement, as I don't have all the data, but I can defend Jim's statement.

Anyone who lists a cache at the Geocaching website checks a box that tells the reviewers that they have obtained adequate permission for the hide. Those who go hunting for a cache know this, so assuming a hide has been placed in accordance with this requirement, barring any other indicators such as fencing and signage, is a pretty safe one to make.

 

If that is private property, as the owner advises, then the hider was in the wrong for placing it there without doing their homework. This game revolves around trust. You gotta trust that those who seek your hides to trade appropriately and not steal your ammo box. You also gotta trust that those who place hides do so within the boundaries of reasonable, lawful behavior. Without that trust, the game would ultimately collapse. Is there anything at the pull of to indicate who owns the property? How would someone, arriving at ground zero, know which door to knock on? If I were to hunt that cache, and pulled up to the spot, seeing a bunch of litter, tire tracks, maybe a pickup or two, a couple fishermen wandering down to the creek, etc, my assumption would be that there were no specific prohibitions against Joe Public being there.

[+Cpl. Klinger]

At the grocery store I manage, we have BIG signs all over the lot stating that we have no liability in case of cart damage. Dump trucks all over state have signs stating that they are not responsible for windshield damage caused by following too closely.

 

There is a big difference between a sign that denies liability, and a law that relieves liability. Those dump trucks will still have to pay if the rock that hits the windshield comes from the load and not from the road. The sign will not make a difference. However, just try to prove the rock came from the road and not the load. (It has been done, but very rare.) The trucking company would have to prove you were too close, also hard to prove.

 

If someone could prove your store was negligent with the carts, your sign won't help. If it was a law it would make a difference.

 

But you missed my point. I talked about a case where it was clear we had no liability. The customer pushed a cart into the corral next to his car, and backed into it because he didn't put it away properly. The coral was empty, seen on video. It was about to go to court, and we settled. People sue ski resorts all the time with signed releases of liability. Under the law, the resort should be absolved of liability because the user signed away their rights and assumed all liabilities, but still suits get filed. And it usually settles out of court. Where was the law then?

 

I'm all for educating land holders that the law is supposed to protect them from liability, however, I can totally understand that some don't. This is a case where the land holder has made it clear that law or no law, they wish no part of our activities on their land. In my ever to be so humble opinion, then we need to honor that request, and leave it be. You never know, someone may talk to them in the future about caching, and they might be able to say positive things about our response and affect that person. And they might be a land holder/park ranger/etc. Good that goes around, comes around.

[GOF and Bacall]

First off let me say that if the land owner says the land is off limits I think we should accept that.

 

It has been mentioned that there are laws to protect land owners from liability for recreational use of their property. I haven't read through it here is a copy of the PA Recreational Use Law. Read it over. Some states provide more protection than others.

[+J-Way]

Their assumption is wrong. Look at the reaction I received for assuming my landowners were correct about the Railroad ROW. Everyone said how I shouldn't assume my landowners knew what they were talking about. By that same thinking, shouldn't every geocacher NOT assume permission is there and ask the landowners anyway?

Respectfully, railroad ROW is a tricky issue. In most cases, as already stated, the railroad company still owns the ROW even if the rails are gone. There's a long-abandoned railroad near my parent's house; no trains in several decades (my brother built a deer stand right in the middle of the tracks). But the ROW still belongs to whatever company bought the defunct railroad's assets. In other cases the ROW reverts to the adjacent land owner. Quite often, even if the railroad still owns the ROW, the adjacent landowners claim it as theirs anyway. You'll find out next week which is the case with you. Based on what we've seen here from satellite imagery, I'd bet that your landlords own the land outright.

 

It's obvious that whoever hid the original cache did NOT get proper permission. If the ROW was still owned by the railroad there's absolutely no way their liability lawyers would let a group of people climb on a trestle with unknown structural stability. Nor did they did not ask your landlord. So it was hidden under the "don't ask, don't tell" ideals of obtaining permission. While most people agree this is in complete violation of our guidelines (which require "adequate permission"), there's really nothing anybody can do about it unless someone complains. You did complain, and rightly got the cache archived.

 

Also, as already stated, there are laws protecting landowners from recreational use of land in most US states. There's a link floating around here somewhere; maybe someone will post it. But if your landowners truly own the land and are worried about liability, then the only way they'll be safe is to tear down or burn the trestle. Assuming it's wood, it's probably made of creosoted hardwood, which will burn like a torch if you get it lit right. If you leave it where it is then eventually some idjiot teenager will fall off it while drunk and his/her grieving parents will sue.

[+Unkle Fester]

Their assumption is wrong.

I can't defend the cache placement, as I don't have all the data, but I can defend Jim's statement.

Anyone who lists a cache at the Geocaching website checks a box that tells the reviewers that they have obtained adequate permission for the hide. Those who go hunting for a cache know this, so assuming a hide has been placed in accordance with this requirement, barring any other indicators such as fencing and signage, is a pretty safe one to make.

 

If that is private property, as the owner advises, then the hider was in the wrong for placing it there without doing their homework. This game revolves around trust. You gotta trust that those who seek your hides to trade appropriately and not steal your ammo box. You also gotta trust that those who place hides do so within the boundaries of reasonable, lawful behavior. Without that trust, the game would ultimately collapse. Is there anything at the pull of to indicate who owns the property? How would someone, arriving at ground zero, know which door to knock on? If I were to hunt that cache, and pulled up to the spot, seeing a bunch of litter, tire tracks, maybe a pickup or two, a couple fishermen wandering down to the creek, etc, my assumption would be that there were no specific prohibitions against Joe Public being there.

So much in this thread, but I will say that I've DNF'd several caches and even requested Needs Archived a couple times when reading the cache description and it was clearly on private property, No Tresspassing signs or otherwise. As a cache finder that is the responsable thing to do. Getting permission is up to the CO. If I tried to find the property owner to verify permission or ask for the OK on every cache I seek, i'd be at about 200 finds and not enjoying it.

 

I trust the CO did his homework, those are the guidelines. If a No Tresspassing sign is up, I will not go in, I will respect it. If there is permission on the web page, I will go back - maybe. I even pulled up to a cache that was described as in the road easement, but was clearly in someones acerage front yard. I didn't go for it, even for the FTF. I lost respect for the cacher who did - his log even stated it looked like private property.

 

On the flip side, I've also run into supposed property owners yelling and screaming about getting the heck out of there, sometimes asking me to take the cache with me. I've done that to. It's not the place to argue, even if the tax maps tell you it's public land. Both of the CO's I have talked to in these cases have removed the caches no questions asked. Nothing like an angry neighbor waiting for a cacher. But that's not the case here.

 

What concerns me is the pulloff. If it looks like public access I could see a reasonable person going in without question. I'm sure I would have too. Bad apples can ruin an area, but this is misleading in a way.

 

Just an observation

[+uxorious]

But you missed my point.

 

No you missed my point. There is a big difference between a sign that denies liability and a law that relieves liability. You can put up all the signs you want, or have people sign all the releases you want. They may help, they may not, but they do not carry the same weight as a law that relieves your liability.

 

That doesn't mean you won't be sued just because of the law, but it does reduce the odds.

[jholly]

As mentioned those that seek the cache are making the assumption, rightly or wrongly, that permission for the placement was obtained.

 

Jim,

 

Their assumption is wrong. Look at the reaction I received for assuming my landowners were correct about the Railroad ROW. Everyone said how I shouldn't assume my landowners knew what they were talking about. By that same thinking, shouldn't every geocacher NOT assume permission is there and ask the landowners anyway?

 

As far as the liability issue, the landowners are very (OVERYLY) worried about it which is why they don't want anyone on the property. I can't help that as I don't own the property. However, as Cpl. Klinger pointed out, the way people are now-days, I can't blame them. It's better to keep people off the property and perhaps deny a few innocent harmless people a few minutes of fun than to have to go through time and money involving a lawsuit from someone who fell off the railroad bridge and broke their neck.

 

I don't disagree that permission to place the cache was probably not received from from the landowner. I cache in plenty of places where there is no house nearby, it is just me and the bears, cougars and coyotes. I don't have a door to knock on and to find the landowner would require a search of tax records. I find that to be a boring activity. As others have pointed out a level of trust exists, I trust I am okay going to hunt the cache. I would ask do the cachers have proceed past your house? Or can they access the property out of view of your house and other nearby houses? If the former I would have passed on the cache, especially if the listing did not mention that it is okay to go past the house. If the latter and I saw what looked to be a public parking area and a trail leading to the ROW and creek I would have proceeded. Having the cache archived will reduce the cacher activity, you need to allow for some that have off line databases and/or the cache loaded into the GPS and they are unaware the cache was archived. But this will not solve the fisherman access. I would suggest to your landlord that if he does not want people accessing the property at that location he needs to place jersey barriers or large boulders blocking the parking area and perhaps some fences with permanently attached metal no trespassing signs. Again I feel the level of permission to hunt a cache is far different than hunting game with deadly force.

 

Jim

[+Buddies-Buddies]

Hi June16,

 

Just another thing to consider here that I have not seen mentioned yet - Just because the cache is archived now, that doesn't mean you won't have a geocacher wander in for the next month or so.

 

The reason for this is some cachers preload their GPSr and then it may be weeks before they go out and actually do any caching - not my preferred method but everyone participates in this hobby differently...

 

I felt it prudent to mention this as not all cachers follow the forums.

 

Oh, and welcome to geocaching! Not many of us can claim such an interesting introduction into this hobby.

 

Hmmm.... sound like possible inspiration for a new thread - "What's the story on your conversion from muggle to geocacher"

[June16]

Hi June16,

 

Just another thing to consider here that I have not seen mentioned yet - Just because the cache is archived now, that doesn't mean you won't have a geocacher wander in for the next month or so.

 

The reason for this is some cachers preload their GPSr and then it may be weeks before they go out and actually do any caching - not my preferred method but everyone participates in this hobby differently...

 

I felt it prudent to mention this as not all cachers follow the forums.

 

Oh, and welcome to geocaching! Not many of us can claim such an interesting introduction into this hobby.

 

Hmmm.... sound like possible inspiration for a new thread - "What's the story on your conversion from muggle to geocacher"

 

I thank everyone for their cordial conversation. I realize this is sensetive issue for geocachers, seeing one removed and I feel everyone on here has responded in a civilized way. I did think about people trickling in due to the things you stated and that is understandable. My philosophy on approaching trespassers is to be very friendly and cordial right away and proceed based on their reaction. If they say "Sorry about that", I say "Not a problem, thank you". If they get rude, I get rude back. Only one person has gotten rude so far and he was a road hunter and that's a whole different story. He disappeared when I started calling the cops.

 

To Clan Riffster involving the pull-off. There is nothing indicating that it is private property now because the sign I did put up was ripped down, torn to pieces and left lying at the bottom of the tree where I put it. I was looking at getting some metal signs made to make it a little more permanent, but I'm sure they'll get bent, broken or all-together removed. I put up about 7 No Trespassing signs at the request of the landowner and 5 of them were tore down within a month, so it's pretty frustrating.