Would you consider this vandalism?

October 2, 2009

Sorry, my post was in answer to the OP, not a smart-a comment on the post that I didn't see before I answered.

19k · October 2, 2009

What is it with people from MN?
Please tell me what you think about me and why you have issues. I am dying to know. Really.

Life isn't all black and white but the law is. You don't have the right to interpret the law. That is what the court system does.

Be careful there with the comments about people from a particular state... this forum has some "laws", too.

You would seriously call 911 to report that you saw someone writing on the back of a stop sign in invisible ink?

8.9k · October 2, 2009

This ongoing "discussion" (which seems to be trning ugly??) is a total waste of time. If you truly want to know if you'll be allowed to place a cache like this, I suggest a conversation with your local reviewer...

1.1k · October 2, 2009

Ok, I know what you high-strung forum veterans are going to say. I want the opinion from actual geocachers here.. And the question posed has not been implemented. It's just a thought.

I know writing on or marking any object such as a sign, post, any type of infrastructure, is considered vandalism. I am in agreement with that and would never support such kind of activity. All copycat and erosion questions aside, would you consider the marking on the back of a stop sign for instance, written in invisible UV ink, to still be considered vandalism? I know generally speaking if you have to ask, you should already know the answer. But I am struggling with where my sensibilities should lie on this one. On one hand, you are marking the object. On the other hand, it's not like anyone can see your message (unless looking for it).

In short, yes, it's likely vandalism. However, on the other hand, it's low-key and likely to be low-risk. Local ordinances and enforcement will differ, of course.

I know your not interested in alternatives, but I had an idea... if you got a magnet. Maybe one with a skateboarding logo of some kind... I see stickers like that stuck to signs all the time. Paint your coords on the magnet and stick it to the sign. Not helpful if it's aluminum, but it might be worth investigating. Alternitivly you could hide it in a bison tube on a strip of laminated paper.

October 2, 2009

IT IS NOT YOUR PROPERTY. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO IT. IT IS ILLEGAL. I WOULD HAVE SOMEONE ARRESTED IF I SAW THEM DO IT.

99.9% of all caches are on property that the hider does not own. Only the few in parks that require the land owners permission or on someone's personal land are exempt from you argument.

Do YOU want to have ALL cachers arrested for littering on property they do not own?

October 2, 2009

It doesn't matter if they think it is a waste of time. It is illegal. End of story. I am amazed by your arrogance against the law.

And I would gladly spend my taxpaying dollars to fine you and make it mandatory for you to either remove the ink or replace the sign.

I take it then you've never ever driven faster than the posted speed limit?

October 2, 2009

I wouldn't do it. road signs are always being replaced for one thing.

Not in my area. We have many pink and off-white stop signs. The only way they get replaced is when a car hits the pole and damages the sign. I thnk they will replace the pole and put the faded sign back up.

4.2k · October 2, 2009

It doesn't matter if they think it is a waste of time. It is illegal. End of story. I am amazed by your arrogance against the law.

And I would gladly spend my taxpaying dollars to fine you and make it mandatory for you to either remove the ink or replace the sign.

And you would know the ink was there how...?

1.2k · October 2, 2009

What is it with people from MN?

Please tell me what you think about me and why you have issues. I am dying to know. Really.

Life isn't all black and white but the law is. You don't have the right to interpret the law. That is what the court system does.

The OP just wanted an opinion...it (an opinion) has been given by many. Our (in general...those reading this thread) opinions about it not being or being vandalism are just as useful as your opinion...if "caught", I suppose the OP will have to deal with it...but on scale...I really don't think it is something high on the list of prosecutable offenses...

Others reading the sign with a UV Light...not sure what would be prosecutable there...

October 2, 2009

What is it with people from MN?

Please tell me what you think about me and why you have issues. I am dying to know. Really.

Life isn't all black and white but the law is. You don't have the right to interpret the law. That is what the court system does.

You have NEVER broken any law?????

7.7k · October 2, 2009

Please tell me what you think about me and why you have issues. I am dying to know. Really.

I don't have an issue with you (and I've refrained from replying to your other posts). But in response to your question, it's all about perceived attitude, tone and delivery.

To elaborate, you did not merely provide your opinion, you condemn and attack as well. Or at least, that is how it appears to me.

You may not think there's anything belligerent / confrontational in your first reply. However, from the response you elicit, many obviously do not agree with you.

October 2, 2009

And some wonder why the National Park Service wants nothing to do with geocaching.

19k · October 2, 2009

And some wonder why the National Park Service wants nothing to do with geocaching.

I thought that was because they were afraid of the hamsters escaping. No?

4.2k · October 2, 2009

And some wonder why the National Park Service wants nothing to do with geocaching.

Apples and watermelons.

18.9k · October 2, 2009

If the effect worked as well as this block of text - can't see how anybody would prosecute you unless you were caught "in the act"

Edited October 2, 2009 by StarBrand

4.2k · October 2, 2009

Great! give me your address and I will come urinate on your door step. Want me to spell your name? It will dry clear! It is not invisible paint if one can see it with a light. It is vandalism.

Yes, because invisible ink is a reasonable equivalent to human urine and a stop sign is perfectly interchangeable with your doorstep.

Since urine is fluorescent under black light it is very comparable.

Again, one is human waste, the other an invisible chemical. Test this out some time- head downtown and draw an obscene word on a piece of poster paper that you own with a UV pen. The next day, take that same poster paper and urinate on it at the same spot.

Observe the general public response and compare.

A doorstep is your property and a sign is city property. I don't see what is so hard to understand. It is against the law.

I'll keep that in mind the next time the Jehovah's Witnesses camp out on top of the stop sign at the end of the road.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Castle Mischief

19k · October 2, 2009

Apples and watermelons.

Don't tempt me!!

Edited October 2, 2009 by knowschad

October 2, 2009

We tested a UV pen on a stop sign near our home as we were thinking of using it for another cache set up. The UV writing was not invisible until the sunlight hit it.....something to consider!

1.2k · October 2, 2009

And some wonder why the National Park Service wants nothing to do with geocaching.

Apples and watermelons.

I thought that is more like apples and zucchini...

October 2, 2009

I tell ya... I'm sitting back and laughing my butt off at all of this right now! Maybe you could just ask a PO in your city what he would do. That's who you really have to worry about.

I personally think it is an awesome idea. Very intrguing way to give a clue. I am tired of all the pine tree and lamp post hides here in Utah! So having to use a UV light on something, STOP sign... tree... fence... anything would be a great change.

As for Mr guys who is ticking everyone off with his stupid replies... IMHO, I think he just jealous that he didn't think of it in the first place. Then he had to keep up the bad attitude to try and justify his rant in the first place.

Anyway, I wish someone would do a cool cache here like that! More power to ya!!

BTW, an "invisble message" awaits below! Seriously....

I am writting on property that doesn't belong to me, but I hear no sirens. I see no mobs of forums coming to carry me away. There is no one asking for my life... Why? because if I had not said that ther was an "invisble message" above this, no one would have thought to hi-light it to read it. Same goes with caches. Unless you tell someone, they will never know!

9.3k · October 2, 2009

In a desperate attempt to steer this back on topic:

Vandalism is a legal term, defined by each state. Most state laws define it using verbiage similar to that of Florida's criminal mischief law. A person commits the offense of criminal mischief if he or she willfully and maliciously injures or damages by any means any real or personal property belonging to another, including, but not limited to, the placement of graffiti thereon or other acts of vandalism thereto. Going by that interpretation, writing on the hypothetical stop sign, even with invisible ink, would certainly qualify.

However, our legal system is a little more complex than that.

First, someone would have to witness you in the act. I assume you could avoid such scrutiny, either by stealth or by picking a sign that is not surrounded by curious onlookers. Second, whoever saw you would need to report your activities to the authorities. These days, a large percentage of our population is unwilling to enmesh themselves into the inconvenience of a trial. Third, the responding officer would need to verify that your activity did, in fact, cause harm. If Officer Bubba shows up, looks at the sign and sees nothing, I suspect his involvement would end at that point. Out of the 400 or so cops I know personally, maybe 5 of them have a UV emitter. Of those 5, I'm not sure any of them would think to scan the back of the hypothetical sign with their UV light. That's not why they bought them. Fourth, the State Attorney's Office would need to decide if they wanted to pursue the criminal charges against you. They would need to know ahead of time that they stood a good chance of convincing 12 citizens yanked unwillingly away from their lives to give a guilty verdict. A jury who feels their time is being wasted on frivolous cases is not very receptive to the State.

The odds of all these things coming together, resulting in a conviction, are minuscule.

Whether or not you take that chance is entirely up to you.

If I hunted this hypothetical cache, I think I would have a blast.

5.6k · October 2, 2009

In short, yes, it's likely vandalism.

Actually, the UV material very well may NOT be in many places. The newer ordinances regarding graffiti often come into play in cases of 'tagged' signs, and their language about "defacing" an object could not be applied to something that is by nature not visible. If those happen to be the ordinances in use in a particular area, local LEO would correctly see that as a DOA case before they even started to write the summons.

6.1k · October 3, 2009

If the parks department, or the Department of Transportation decided to randomly inspect their signage with a UV light, they would consider it vandalism. Anyone walking their dog at night and carrying a UV light would consider it vandalism. It would be vandalism to anyone who carried ultraviolet lights around and inspected stuff..

Despite the fact that it definitely is vandalism, it should be OK, unless of course you happened to mention it in the forums... :lol:

19k · October 3, 2009

If the parks department, or the Department of Transportation decided to randomly inspect their signage with a UV light, they would consider it vandalism. Anyone walking their dog at night and carrying a UV light would consider it vandalism. It would be vandalism to anyone who carried ultraviolet lights around and inspected stuff..

Not to mention those folks that have replaced their normal headlamps with UV headlamps.

October 4, 2009

A friend of mine is a road dept. manager for a local municipality (30000 population) I showed him this post, he howled.

Several comments: 1. Invisible ink? Who can see it to get upset (other than striped shirt) DO IT!

2. Is Striped Shirt serious? It is not like he damaged the sign IT IS INVISIBLE!

3. No magistrate he knows would waste time with the case, and he is pretty sure the local PD would not even consider writing a ticket for it.

4. This cache sounds cool, place one like this for me to find, this sport sound cool

19k · October 4, 2009

A friend of mine is a road dept. manager for a local municipality (30000 population) I showed him this post, he howled.
Several comments: 1. Invisible ink? Who can see it to get upset (other than striped shirt) DO IT!

2. Is Striped Shirt serious? It is not like he damaged the sign IT IS INVISIBLE!

3. No magistrate he knows would waste time with the case, and he is pretty sure the local PD would not even consider writing a ticket for it.

4. This cache sounds cool, place one like this for me to find, this sport sound cool

Well, in light of these new developments, I guess I will need to change my opinion to agree with "Striped Shirt" (StripedSaint, actually). You're all just a bunch of evil, crime-committing criminals!

Oh... wait... your road dept friend agreed almost word for word with what I said earlier, didn't he? Oops!

nevermind :lol:

October 4, 2009

Technically, I think it would be considered vandalism.

Technically, placing a P&G under a Light skirts at wallyworld is

trespassing.

Technically, placing caches on state land without park manager/ranger

approval is littering.

The Technicals can go on and on as we all know, do we do it anyways yes.

If you want to be on the safe side, just stop into the local highway dpt. and talk to them about what you want to do, and bring an example of it on a metal sheet.

If they have no problem with it then you have a green light for your idea.

Looks like I'm going to copy this idea and put my own twist on it for a cache out here in my neck of the woods.

2.5k · October 4, 2009

Great! give me your address and I will come urinate on your door step. Want me to spell your name? It will dry clear! It is not invisible paint if one can see it with a light. It is vandalism.
Yes, because invisible ink is a reasonable equivalent to human urine and a stop sign is perfectly interchangeable with your doorstep.

Not to mention he'd be violating indecent exposure laws...

Here's something I don't think anyone has said just yet:

It isn't vandalism if you get proper permission to write on the sign.

October 4, 2009

To add:

Just because something is illegal doesn't make it immoral. Ask a couple of guys named Jefferson and Franklin. They threw some tea off a boat into the Gulf of Tomkin. That patriotic act sparked the Korean war... a war that the U.S. won due to the "illegal" acts of patriots. Thomas Edison said that the tree of electricity needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants or patriots. Consider that GPS runs on electricity. Sometimes it takes a patriotic action to refresh our game. Go Bflentje and Chad's pal, hand in hand, run to the stop signs and do not stop until you have marked them with the blood of tyrants: UV ink.

in serious mode:

I'd also think that putting an invisible marker on a stop sign ... would be fine. It does nothing to damage the functionality of the sign, does not damage the sign and unless the law abiding guy attempts to have the JV track club indicted for vandalism because they put up fliers for their pancake breakfast and they left a residue, I don't see any difference between what bflentje is proposing and any of the other community activities that further local causes that we see daily. I'm all for it!

digression: this is entirely different than weeing on a house -- consider exposure etc... weeing on a stop sign, I'm okay with... weeing on anything I walk on/touch on a daily basis, not okay... I can see this dude going around calling the cops on the hopscotch (chalk on the sidewalk!) kids and then weeing on their houses..

edited.... though I'm not sure why.

Edited October 4, 2009 by mrbort

7.2k · October 6, 2009

I'm wondering why writing on the back of a street sign in invisible ink is vandalism and putting a sticker on it isn't.

Curious.

4.8k · October 6, 2009

The question of vandalism is interesting, isn't it?

Vandalism: willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property

Is it actual vandalism? Not really. It's not defacing the sign at all. Is it illegal, probably not, but it is possible. Would you get in trouble, not likely.

3.8k · October 6, 2009

Thank you all for your comments.. it was an interesting discussion.

24.7k · October 6, 2009

...On the other hand, it's not like anyone can see your message (unless looking for it).

I have some UV spray paint. It's water soluble. What about your ink? If it's water soluble you may have a problem before you even get near the stop sign. And no I'd not consider it vandalism. However I'd hate to get caught pen in hand at the sign by a LEO.

4.8k · October 6, 2009

Did you ask the owner of the sign and what did they say?

If it's a publicly owned sign, myself being a member of the public, and therefore owner of the sign, I say it's OK.

If the CO gets into any sort of trouble, just tell them Bittsen said it was OK.

3.3k · October 6, 2009

What is the definition of vandalism? I think it is related to defacing public property. If so, I don't think this qualifies as defacing. As long as it is indeed "invisible" under all reasonable likely lighting conditions. I think it could make a cool cache for sure, just realy think about how it is done, and run it past your reviewer first.

PS. tonnes of signs around here have bullet holes, shot gun blasts, stickers, sharpie writing, spray paint etc. And all of this on the front. In terms of degrees of severity, even if the UV paint was vandalism, it is the lowest possible degree (like 0.2 out of 10)

Edited October 6, 2009 by Andronicus

October 7, 2009

Runs in the doorway out of breath to the podium where this discussion is held....."But what if it was a yield sign instead?" Runs back out of room and back into woods with gps unit.

October 7, 2009

Runs in the doorway out of breath to the podium where this discussion is held....."But what if it was a yield sign instead?" Runs back out of room and back into woods with gps unit.

Well that changes everything!!!!!!!!!!! It is vandalism to mark on a stop sign but it should be fine on a yield sign.

4.8k · October 7, 2009

Runs in the doorway out of breath to the podium where this discussion is held....."But what if it was a yield sign instead?" Runs back out of room and back into woods with gps unit.

Well that changes everything!!!!!!!!!!! It is not vandalism to mark on a stop sign but it should be illegal on a yield sign.

4.2k · October 8, 2009

Did you ask the owner of the sign and what did they say?

If it's a publicly owned sign, myself being a member of the public, and therefore owner of the sign, I say it's OK.

If the CO gets into any sort of trouble, just tell them Bittsen said it was OK.

Is this tongue-in-cheek? I can't tell.

4.8k · October 8, 2009

Did you ask the owner of the sign and what did they say?

If it's a publicly owned sign, myself being a member of the public, and therefore owner of the sign, I say it's OK.

If the CO gets into any sort of trouble, just tell them Bittsen said it was OK.

Is this tongue-in-cheek? I can't tell.

There isn't a toungue in cheek smiley so....yeah.

October 9, 2009

I'm shocked this topic has gone on so long. Just ask your local reviewer. I doubt your state has lwas against it in place. It's not something common. Urine is black light reactive. So if I pee on a tree out in the woods is that vandalism? Public exposure? Yes. Vandalism? I don't know. I guess I'll have to ask a reviewer. *hint hint*

6.1k · October 9, 2009

It's vandalism, but invisible vandalism. If there is no one there to see it, does it exist? If a tree falls in an empty forest does it make a sound?

Since it was mentioned in here, it exists now... :mad:

Edited October 9, 2009 by 4wheelin_fool

October 10, 2009

I didn't read all the post. I work with signs, guardrail, fence, road markers, etc on a daily basis. It is my job.

Until geocaching, I had no idea things were hidden here. I only take care of about a 20 mile radius from my crews office.

As a worker and a person who takes care of such. I have no problem with it being on the back unseen (UV LIGHT).

My only concern is if it is reported that I would have to remove such markings. and /or replace the sign.

We get alot of complaints about sign that aren't readable anymore, de-faced etc. We also get alot of knock down signs, fence, guardrail and post due to accidents.

So there are alot of replacements and most of the crews in my surrounding area probably know nothing of geocaching and just toss things away when damaged.

edited in... we also do a yearly night surveillance of many things surrounding the road to identify what needs upkeeping, replacing, etc to make sure things are as they should be when driving at night as well. So lets say a sign look great during the day, yet at night it has lost it's reflectivity, it is listed for a change out.

Edited October 10, 2009 by TheAlohaGang

Would you consider this vandalism?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation