Reporting a Rule-Breaker Cache

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

This is sincerely by no means targeting anyone in particular or related to any incident in particular, but I always find this legalistic mentality curious as well as ever so slightly schizophrenic (for want of a better word).

 

If I may explain.

 

I notice that people report caches they have found which are placed against guidelines or even where explicit permission would be required, yet they have no problem logging their find on that cache.

 

It is curious to me, what goes through those peoples minds as they approach a cache that is, for example, very obviously on property which is inaccessible/not permitted yet they will still cross that line, seek the cache, log it, then report it.

 

Surely, for someone so concerned about the various guidelines and applicable laws, the responsible action is to stop, not attempt the cache at all (ie. partaking in and condoning the placement), then report it?

 

It seems at best disingenuous, at worst... hypocritical.

 

Perhaps guidelines need to be set out for finders too, i.e. If you become aware of a cache that is against guidelines/applicable laws - do not condone it, or partake in the rule-breaking, instead report it and let it be handled by reviewers.

 

Interested in what people think, and are there any who do refuse to log a find on a wrongful placement?

[GOF and Bacall]

I once logged a cache that turned out to be a dozen feet on the wrong side of a posted sign. With the angle that we approached the cache we never noticed the sign until we were leaving the area. We informed the owner and they moved the cache. Yes, I logged it.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

I once logged a cache that turned out to be a dozen feet on the wrong side of a posted sign. With the angle that we approached the cache we never noticed the sign until we were leaving the area. We informed the owner and they moved the cache. Yes, I logged it.

 

For clarification, I was thinking more on approach to the cache location, rather than realising after signing the log. Also, I think it's the responsible measure to take by simply informing the owner.

[+briansnat]

It seems at best disingenuous, at worst... hypocritical.

 

No it means they found the cache.

 

I found a buried cache once. Logged a find. Why? Because I found it. Then I reported to the reviewer. Why? Because it violated the guidelines. Nothing disingenuous or hypocritical about that.

 

I can see your argument if the searcher knew he was trespassing and went after the cache anyway. But many guideline violations don't involve trespassing.

Edited January 17, 2010 by briansnat

[GOF and Bacall]

I was just pointing out that things aren't always just what they appear. Sometimes the finders don't know the problems with the cache until they have found it. Just because they report a situation doesn't mean they shouldn't log the find. But yes, if they know on approach that they are going to have to brake the rules or a law in order to log the cache they should stop and turn around.

[AZcachemeister]

How would you know it violates the guidelines unless you found it?

[Mr.Yuck]

How would you know it violates the guidelines unless you found it?

 

A very simple one sentence statement, but I guess ultimately it makes sense to me.

 

On the other hand, I can see the OP's point of view too.

[+briansnat]

How would you know it violates the guidelines unless you found it?

 

In a some cases it might be obvious before you find the cache. For instance when your GPS is pointing to a spot 50 feet beyond no trespassing signs.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

What I don't get is why people do things that are "illegal" while out hunting for a cache, without thinking about the possible ramifications to the game of Geocaching as a whole.

 

For example, people who knowingly enter parks or Management Areas after hours (usually at night) to grab a cache. Don't they realize if they get caught by LEO, and they have to explain they were geocaching, that it might give our fun a "black-eye", which could in turn lead to restrictions placed on the game by a town, state or organization?

[+Touchstone]

Depends on the issue involved. Some Guidelines merely require Groundspeak approval. For instance the Commercial portion of the Guidelines:

 

Commercial caches will not be published on geocaching.com without prior approval from Groundspeak.

 

There's no requirement to put that approval on the Listing somewhere, therefore I would probably assume that the cache owner obtained that permission beforehand. I would probably follow up with a quick email to the local Reviewer with a kind of, "Hey, did you know that....".

 

Trespassing and other issues that would appear to be breaking the law, I would not attempt unless there was some sort of clarification on the Listing somewhere (e.g. caches in front yards and so forth). My first assumption would be that the coordinates are bad or my GPS is having a bad day. If previous log entries seemed to support the premise that logging the cache requires breaking the law, I would merely log a Needs Archived log entry on it to alert the local Reviewer.

[4wheelin_fool]

This is sincerely by no means targeting anyone in particular or related to any incident in particular, but I always find this legalistic mentality curious as well as ever so slightly schizophrenic (for want of a better word).

 

If I may explain.

 

I notice that people report caches they have found which are placed against guidelines or even where explicit permission would be required, yet they have no problem logging their find on that cache.

 

It is curious to me, what goes through those peoples minds as they approach a cache that is, for example, very obviously on property which is inaccessible/not permitted yet they will still cross that line, seek the cache, log it, then report it.

 

Surely, for someone so concerned about the various guidelines and applicable laws, the responsible action is to stop, not attempt the cache at all (ie. partaking in and condoning the placement), then report it?

 

It seems at best disingenuous, at worst... hypocritical.

 

Perhaps guidelines need to be set out for finders too, i.e. If you become aware of a cache that is against guidelines/applicable laws - do not condone it, or partake in the rule-breaking, instead report it and let it be handled by reviewers.

 

Interested in what people think, and are there any who do refuse to log a find on a wrongful placement?

 

Just because a cache is reported does not mean that it is against the guidelines. If it is on private property perhaps the cacher has explicit permission.

 

A cacher finds it.

 

Asks the reviewer.

 

The reviewer e-mails the CO, or archives it depending on the situation, and asks the CO for clarification.

 

The CO replies, yes it is on private property, but they own it and did not specify it on the page, or mention the signs.

 

Next the reviewer unarchives it, and the cacher edits the page. Finding it does not imply hypocrisy.

 

However, they really should not put a find on it immediately before contacting a reviewer, as any cachers could guess who did it and incite the wrath or the 14yr old who placed it(for example).

 

In other cases it may appear to be on private property, but there could be another way in that someone would not know for certain unless they found it.

[+J-Way]

If it's beyond "No Trespassing" signs I do not proceed farther, then later I'll post a note. Otherwise, if I find the cache, I log a find.

[+narcissa]

If it's a property issue, I err on the side of assuming that the cacher has permission to place the cache in that manner.

 

On other issues, it's often not until the cache is in my hands that I notice it breaks a guideline.

 

In either case, I still *found* the cache, whether it breaks a guideline or not. And a broken guideline doesn't merit shunning a cacher or their caches.

[+luluonthego]

If it's a property issue, I err on the side of assuming that the cacher has permission to place the cache in that manner.

 

On other issues, it's often not until the cache is in my hands that I notice it breaks a guideline.

 

In either case, I still *found* the cache, whether it breaks a guideline or not. And a broken guideline doesn't merit shunning a cacher or their caches.

 

Really? Your contributions to the forum lambaste last week of the misguided soul who requested monetary donations for cache maintenance are still fresh in my mind.

 

To quote Carol Beer: * COUGH *

[+narcissa]

If it's a property issue, I err on the side of assuming that the cacher has permission to place the cache in that manner.

 

On other issues, it's often not until the cache is in my hands that I notice it breaks a guideline.

 

In either case, I still *found* the cache, whether it breaks a guideline or not. And a broken guideline doesn't merit shunning a cacher or their caches.

 

Really? Your contributions to the forum lambaste last week of the misguided soul who requested monetary donations for cache maintenance are still fresh in my mind.

 

To quote Carol Beer: * COUGH *

 

It seems to me that it's very inappropriate for you to usurp yet another thread to discuss a topic that's already been shut down twice.

 

Also, please look up the definition of "shun." Informing someone of their violation, suggesting alternatives, and pointing a cacher to the relevant guidelines don't constitute "shunning."

[+CraigsOutside]

I've come across and knowingly trespassed to find and log caches, including tonight. I've was caught once by a property owner who had no idea there was a cache on their property (empty loading dock). I've privately emailed COs regarding this and I've emailed reviewers as well. I've found a cache hidden on an active railroad overpass where the container was attached to supports for the rails and reported this to the CO and reviewers as a VERY hazardous placement. (Many logs indicate how loud trains are as they pass just a couple feet overhead. In each case, it was either ignored or nothing was done resolved. I'm not convinced that the reviewers (or GC.com since the reviewers are there to enforce the rules as an extension of GC.com) are that interested once they give the ok to a cache. Perhaps others have had more positive responses to reports of hazardous or caches placed without owner permission, from reviewers than I.

[+narcissa]

I've come across and knowingly trespassed to find and log caches, including tonight. I've was caught once by a property owner who had no idea there was a cache on their property (empty loading dock). I've privately emailed COs regarding this and I've emailed reviewers as well. I've found a cache hidden on an active railroad overpass where the container was attached to supports for the rails and reported this to the CO and reviewers as a VERY hazardous placement. (Many logs indicate how loud trains are as they pass just a couple feet overhead. In each case, it was either ignored or nothing was done resolved. I'm not convinced that the reviewers (or GC.com since the reviewers are there to enforce the rules as an extension of GC.com) are that interested once they give the ok to a cache. Perhaps others have had more positive responses to reports of hazardous or caches placed without owner permission, from reviewers than I.

 

The reviewers in my area are quick to act on a "Needs Archived" log in cases like that.

[+42at42]

I once logged a cache that turned out to be a dozen feet on the wrong side of a posted sign. With the angle that we approached the cache we never noticed the sign until we were leaving the area. We informed the owner and they moved the cache. Yes, I logged it.

 

I placed a cache this way. My approach to the property I didn't see the signs. After getting verbally lashed I quickly archived the cache.

 

A recent cache came up. I met a couple cachers outside a fence that had no trespassing signs posted at the gate. We discussed whether to go in, this was a trail outside of a landfill. We decided to go beyond the no trespassing signs to find (and get a shared FTF). The next day I called the property owner and found they posted the signs because of the movement of heavy equipment. They told me they didn't mind people on the trail.

 

A quick phone call and a note on the cache page before reporting it saved this cache.

[+StarBrand]

I understand the OPs point in a limited number of cases such as tresspassing issues.

 

However - most of the violations I have seen didn't really surface until I found the cache container itself or even opened the cache. Of course I logged those as I had found the cache - then I tried to clear up the guideline violation.

[+Isonzo Karst]

what goes through those peoples minds as they approach a cache that is, for example, very obviously on property which is inaccessible/not permitted yet they will still cross that line, seek the cache, log it, then report it.

 

Yeah, it's a conundrum for sure.

 

Even weirder is folks who trespass where legal access is available, log that they did, and then ask that the cache be archived.

 

2 examples:

 

A cache in preserve, the listing provides the preserve name and that the cache is about a mile from the entry. 2 different cachers drove as close to the cache as they could (about .2 miles - driving past the preserve entry), trespassed across heavily posted private property, found the cache, then ripped me in their logs for "sending them" across posted land! "you are the kind of cacher who gives geocaching a bad name" (really). D'oh

 

I adopted a cache in a state forest. The listing says the cache is on the north loop trail. I added parking coords for the nearest parking when I adopted the cache. Again, 2 different cachers drove past the parking coords, down a private posted road in the forest and cut through residential property (a private piece within the forest). This cut the walk from .52 miles to under a thousand feet. One said "it felt weird to have to cross those fences" !?&@!

[+BlueDeuce]

Interested in what people think, and are there any who do refuse to log a find on a wrongful placement?

 

A while back I was FTF on a cache placed 50 feet from the final of a multi I had previously found. The reviewer missed it, it happens, and after I explained the situation to the cache owner he archived it and placed another further away.

 

I'm not going to claim a find on a cache that shouldn't have been listed and had it been moved instead of archived I would have gone back and searched for it again.

[+Keith Watson]

I have had a finder accuse me of placing an illegal cache because it required climbing a fence. Climbing a fence was only required if you approached from the wrong side. Following the trail there is no climbing allowed.

 

I too find it interesting how some cachers will complain about crossing several no-trespassing signs yet they continued on to get their smiley and then try to get the cache archived.

[+Isonzo Karst]

This kind of behavior ("climbing a fence was only required if you approached from the wrong side") makes interpreting Needs Archived logs more complicated than it might seem.

[+42at42]

This kind of behavior ("climbing a fence was only required if you approached from the wrong side") makes interpreting Needs Archived logs more complicated than it might seem.

 

There was one cache I did. If you followed your car GPS to the closest parking you have to climb four or five fences, cross a creek and mainline railroad tracks. Many people did this and came to realize it they came from the other direction, the cache was 30m from a public parking lot.

[+narcissa]

I've definitely taken a legally-questionable shortcut to get to a cache, but I don't blame the cache owner for it. Sheesh.

[+infiniteMPG]

A cache in preserve, the listing provides the preserve name and that the cache is about a mile from the entry. 2 different cachers drove as close to the cache as they could (about .2 miles - driving past the preserve entry), trespassed across heavily posted private property, found the cache, then ripped me in their logs for "sending them" across posted land! "you are the kind of cacher who gives geocaching a bad name" (really). D'oh

Agree 110%... it's doesn't take a improperly hidden cache to give GC a black eye. People caught digging in an Indian mount because they had the coords wrong and don't know caches can't be buried, people who don't read the listing and park illegally, or take the wrong approach, jump fences and get caught cutting thru yards or pastures... when asked what they were doing and they reply "geocaching", it does the same damage as a bad hide might. You can put "DO NOT TOUCH" signs all around something all you want and yet clean the fingerprints off it every day

 

Keeping the hides as quality as possible helps, but having an educated caching community would help, too

[+DanOCan]

To avoid giving the game a black eye in questionable circumstances I specifically avoid mentioning exactly what I am doing unless it becomes clear the encounter is going to be a friendly one. Exception for law enforcement who gets a straight answer right from the start. (Which hasn't happened yet to me.)

[+infiniteMPG]

To avoid giving the game a black eye in questionable circumstances I specifically avoid mentioning exactly what I am doing unless it becomes clear the encounter is going to be a friendly one. Exception for law enforcement who gets a straight answer right from the start. (Which hasn't happened yet to me.)

I pretty much am never seen geocaching without my camera gear, so that's always a good out.... taking pictures. If you're focusing a camera at something chances are you'll never even get asked

[+gof1]

A cache in preserve, the listing provides the preserve name and that the cache is about a mile from the entry. 2 different cachers drove as close to the cache as they could (about .2 miles - driving past the preserve entry), trespassed across heavily posted private property, found the cache, then ripped me in their logs for "sending them" across posted land! "you are the kind of cacher who gives geocaching a bad name" (really). D'oh

Agree 110%... it's doesn't take a improperly hidden cache to give GC a black eye. People caught digging in an Indian mount because they had the coords wrong and don't know caches can't be buried, people who don't read the listing and park illegally, or take the wrong approach, jump fences and get caught cutting thru yards or pastures... when asked what they were doing and they reply "geocaching", it does the same damage as a bad hide might. You can put "DO NOT TOUCH" signs all around something all you want and yet clean the fingerprints off it every day

 

Keeping the hides as quality as possible helps, but having an educated caching community would help, too

 

Chance are real good you will have to clean 'em of the signs.

[+brslk]

I've definitely taken a legally-questionable shortcut to get to a cache, but I don't blame the cache owner for it. Sheesh.

 

No, you should blame yourself for breaking the law for foolish and unnecessary reasons.

[+WRASTRO]

This kind of behavior ("climbing a fence was only required if you approached from the wrong side") makes interpreting Needs Archived logs more complicated than it might seem.

 

There was one cache I did. If you followed your car GPS to the closest parking you have to climb four or five fences, cross a creek and mainline railroad tracks. Many people did this and came to realize it they came from the other direction, the cache was 30m from a public parking lot.

This is an unfortunate example of cachers who choose to rely on electronics rather than using their brains...

 

and a map.

[+GRANPA ALEX]

YOU never really know where the LINE is and you must trust the hider . . . I have about ten caches hidden off of a dirt road near my home where the survey ribbons (property line) is obvious and some 40-80 feet back into the woods.

 

My caches are all on the right (public) side of the property line even though the property owner has placed 'no trespass' signs at the roadside (not his property line or property). Cachers do not know this situation but do see the survey flags, once on the hunt.

 

I do have permission to hide ON the property of that owner but have not done so, he knows of the caches and the game . . . I just do not want to confuse seekers having them cross an obvious property line (flagged) behind signs.

[+Hakali]

On my single cache, very early on, I had a cacher post a note that he 'was afraid' that the cache constituted a commercial cache. It seems that he completely misunderstood one of the employees there who speaks with a very heavy accent. I got fairly upset at this, as I'd followed all of the guidelines to the T; emails to the reporting cacher went unanswered. I ended up running into this cacher *at the cache* a couple weeks later, and he refused to discuss his note. After he made some ....interesting.... comments I was forced to reach the conclusion that there is a subset of the geocacher population that just doesn't do well socially with other people. Which doesn't come as a surprise; we have pilots like that, and most of Silicon Valley has that tendency too.

 

This event was duplicated locally in another city, with another set of cachers. The cache owner had full permission to place the cache were it was, the cache was not advertising or selling anything, and you did not have to purchase anything to access the cache. Yet, another cacher complained that it was commercial in nature since it resided on the premises of a museum where you paid a fee in order to see the contents of the museum. The cache was located in the non-fee area of the building. Fortunately this cache also came to a happy end and was deemed perfectly fine.

 

Then there are also those cachers who understand only the letter of the law and not the spirit. I have various swag around from various trade shows and such that I attend; most of them have some kind of branding on them. If I leave an "Industrial Lathes" yoyo in a cache, it's because it's a yoyo and the fact that it has "Industrial Lathes" burned into the wood is something I can't really do anything about; it's still a cool yoyo. Yet there are cachers that will complain about THAT too. I'm waiting for someone to complain that I'm advertising PlayDough in some of the caches I visit cuz that's a pretty common swag dropoff that I have!

[+narcissa]

Then there are also those cachers who understand only the letter of the law and not the spirit. I have various swag around from various trade shows and such that I attend; most of them have some kind of branding on them. If I leave an "Industrial Lathes" yoyo in a cache, it's because it's a yoyo and the fact that it has "Industrial Lathes" burned into the wood is something I can't really do anything about; it's still a cool yoyo. Yet there are cachers that will complain about THAT too. I'm waiting for someone to complain that I'm advertising PlayDough in some of the caches I visit cuz that's a pretty common swag dropoff that I have!

 

The rules against soliciting, commercial caches, and agendas apply to the geocaches themselves - not the swag that cachers leave in them. In addition to being anal retentive nitpicks for complaining about your yo-yo, they're just wrong.

 

On a handful of occasions, I've removed swag from caches because it was inappropriate - food items, religious pamphlets, dangerous objects. But something that simply has a logo on it? Pfft.

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

 

The rules against soliciting, commercial caches, and agendas apply to the geocaches themselves - not the swag that cachers leave in them. In addition to being anal retentive nitpicks for complaining about your yo-yo, they're just wrong.

 

On a handful of occasions, I've removed swag from caches because it was inappropriate - food items, religious pamphlets, dangerous objects. But something that simply has a logo on it? Pfft.

 

What about business cards, especially if there is no connection to whichever geocacher left it?

[+narcissa]

 

The rules against soliciting, commercial caches, and agendas apply to the geocaches themselves - not the swag that cachers leave in them. In addition to being anal retentive nitpicks for complaining about your yo-yo, they're just wrong.

 

On a handful of occasions, I've removed swag from caches because it was inappropriate - food items, religious pamphlets, dangerous objects. But something that simply has a logo on it? Pfft.

 

What about business cards, especially if there is no connection to whichever geocacher left it?

 

Bits of paper, whatever they have on them, are generally bad things to put in caches because they get damp and mouldy and nobody wants to take them or look at them anyway.

[+bflentje]

This is sincerely by no means targeting anyone in particular or related to any incident in particular, but I always find this legalistic mentality curious as well as ever so slightly schizophrenic (for want of a better word).

 

If I may explain.

 

I notice that people report caches they have found which are placed against guidelines or even where explicit permission would be required, yet they have no problem logging their find on that cache.

 

It is curious to me, what goes through those peoples minds as they approach a cache that is, for example, very obviously on property which is inaccessible/not permitted yet they will still cross that line, seek the cache, log it, then report it.

 

Surely, for someone so concerned about the various guidelines and applicable laws, the responsible action is to stop, not attempt the cache at all (ie. partaking in and condoning the placement), then report it?

 

It seems at best disingenuous, at worst... hypocritical.

 

Perhaps guidelines need to be set out for finders too, i.e. If you become aware of a cache that is against guidelines/applicable laws - do not condone it, or partake in the rule-breaking, instead report it and let it be handled by reviewers.

 

Interested in what people think, and are there any who do refuse to log a find on a wrongful placement?

 

I am not arrogant enough to consider myself the KNOW ALL CACHE COPS. Unless there is some violation that is so flagrant that it's just pathetic, I mind my own business. Could be lots of facts out there that I am not aware of. I would hope others would show me the same courtesy.. though I'd never put myself in a position where it was required.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

I am not arrogant enough to consider myself the KNOW ALL CACHE COPS. Unless there is some violation that is so flagrant that it's just pathetic, I mind my own business. Could be lots of facts out there that I am not aware of. I would hope others would show me the same courtesy.. though I'd never put myself in a position where it was required.

 

Very wise. I feel the same way.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I notice that people report caches they have found which are placed against guidelines or even where explicit permission would be required, yet they have no problem logging their find on that cache....

 

They report what they think may be an issue. While most of them would swear they know for a fact there is a problem, they don't and are guessing since they didn't place the cache. It's just an allegation from the uninformted unless they actually do have specific knowledge. Most don't.

[+narcissa]

 

I am not arrogant enough to consider myself the KNOW ALL CACHE COPS. Unless there is some violation that is so flagrant that it's just pathetic, I mind my own business. Could be lots of facts out there that I am not aware of. I would hope others would show me the same courtesy.. though I'd never put myself in a position where it was required.

 

Geocaching is a game that relies on the community to maintain certain standards. Ignoring guideline violations isn't courteous at all.

[Skippermark]

I'm not convinced that the reviewers (or GC.com since the reviewers are there to enforce the rules as an extension of GC.com) are that interested once they give the ok to a cache. Perhaps others have had more positive responses to reports of hazardous or caches placed without owner permission, from reviewers than I.

I've seen everything from a cache getting archived within minutes after a Needs Archived was posted to caches that are still active even though they've had multiple Needs Archived notes posted for more than a year.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I do not know how people would respond when a cacher does post a SBA in Engand. But here in the states if a cacher submits a SBA they will become that target of other cachers that do not care about the guidelines. I have seen this happen. The numbers of illegal caches is much higher the many people realize. I do not cache as much as I have in the past. But when I do I almost always find one cache that violates guidlines. I have found six in the past year. THese caches are all active to this day. Will I post a SBA on them, I have not decided.

Most if these have been place by experianced cachers that know better, but they do not care.

[+bflentje]

 

I am not arrogant enough to consider myself the KNOW ALL CACHE COPS. Unless there is some violation that is so flagrant that it's just pathetic, I mind my own business. Could be lots of facts out there that I am not aware of. I would hope others would show me the same courtesy.. though I'd never put myself in a position where it was required.

 

Geocaching is a game that relies on the community to maintain certain standards. Ignoring guideline violations isn't courteous at all.

 

With all due respect, I think you missed my point. There's a difference between ignoring guidelines and pretending that you are the ultimate authority when it comes to a geocache.

[+power69]

What I don't get is why people do things that are "illegal" while out hunting for a cache, without thinking about the possible ramifications to the game of Geocaching as a whole.

 

For example, people who knowingly enter parks or Management Areas after hours (usually at night) to grab a cache. Don't they realize if they get caught by LEO, and they have to explain they were geocaching, that it might give our fun a "black-eye", which could in turn lead to restrictions placed on the game by a town, state or organization?

Fun goes out the window when FTF is at stake for the hounds.

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

 

I am not arrogant enough to consider myself the KNOW ALL CACHE COPS. Unless there is some violation that is so flagrant that it's just pathetic, I mind my own business. Could be lots of facts out there that I am not aware of. I would hope others would show me the same courtesy.. though I'd never put myself in a position where it was required.

 

Geocaching is a game that relies on the community to maintain certain standards. Ignoring guideline violations isn't courteous at all.

 

With all due respect, I think you missed my point. There's a difference between ignoring guidelines and pretending that you are the ultimate authority when it comes to a geocache.

 

This is my personal opinion, but she seems to be a kind of rule nazi, has NO tolerance for anything but what she feels is violating the rules. She seems to be the KNOW IT ALL CACHE COP, even though holding no official position either.

 

I'm like you, it has to be pretty glaring to warrant a complaint. Otherwise just communicating friendly with the CO or whomever it needs to be directed is the best way.

[+Keith Watson]

I think some squealers do it to win points with the reviewers or other cachers.

[+MickEMT]

I've posted some SBA logs when there was a clear violation of the guidelines, Property Owner complains, Cache is past a sign marked "Danger Explosives" ( saw the sign on my way to a dry spot with the cache so I could sign it, and nope, it didn't go back). If it's a gray area, I'll post a comment in my log.

[Skippermark]

So in conclusion, from reading this thread, it seems like most people don't care if a cache violate the guidelines, and those that do will be looked down upon and even targeted by other cachers.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Skippermark

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

For me, it depends on WHO placed the cache (sort of).

 

For example, I've found a cache by one of the people that have posted in this thread. It was a about a 12 mile hike up 4,000 feet of elevation IIRC. When my caching partner and I were within about 3 miles of the cache we came across a small NO TRESPASSING sign. Knowing the cache owner, we assumed that he had the proper permissions, knew the area, etc. so we went ahead and found the cache, logged it and then sent him a note explaining what we found to ensure that there was no issue.

 

Had it been a cache owner that I didn't know, I would not have gone after the cache - and have in fact turned back a few times in similar scenarios.

[+narcissa]

 

With all due respect, I think you missed my point. There's a difference between ignoring guidelines and pretending that you are the ultimate authority when it comes to a geocache.

 

There's a middle ground to be found here. If you notice a cache is violating a guideline, it's not always necessary to post a NA log or report it to a reviewer. You can mention it in your log or write a private message to the cache owner. Ignoring it out of "courtesy" to the cache owner is being discourteous to everybody else who plays the game.