Permission Issues

[+TeamPatchwork]

We were caching while traveling recently. When we're caching out of our home area, we usually look for caches that are more than the LPC variety, since there are plenty of those around home!

 

Anyway, we saw one on the pocket query, decided it looked interesting, took off for it. Pulled up to the parking area (the cache itself was in a woods) and there was a very prominent sign: "No trespassing..violators will be prosecuted". Thought maybe we had the wrong place, drove around, found another entrance, which also said "Private--No trespassing". Checked the cache page, no mention of permission, so we opted to not go after the cache.

 

Came home, did our logging, and posted a NA on this one with pictures of the signs.

 

Got an irate note from the CO, who had deleted the logs, and told us he had permission to place the cache there. Sent him a note, asking him to make note of that on the cache page, which he declined to do. Said there are no guidelines that require him to post that he has permission.

 

Had a nice chat with a local reviewer who told me, yes, permission must be granted, however, it does NOT have to be posted on the cache page.

 

This kind of disturbs me. How do we know if permission has been granted if it's not posted? Am I to assume that every cache marked "Private Property" has permission, since it's not required to be posted on the cache page?

 

Thoughts, anyone?

[+the family bu]

I know I wouldn't have gone onto private property to get the cache. I am suprised that the CO was nasty to you though, there really is no need for that (IMHO).

[+Castle Mischief]

You did the right thing. Now that the reviewer has the information and the photos you took just let them deal with it and move on. If this cache was in my local area I'd just add it to the ignore list and never look back.

 

No, it's not required that you put on the cache page that permission has been granted but if there are signs everywhere I don't think that you can expect your cache to get very many visits without it.

 

Most cachers I know would just avoid the potential drama and avoid the cache rather than bypass the no trespassing signs.

[Clan Riffster]

What's the GC number? Normally, I would side with the reviewer, in that there is technically no requirement that permission be expressed explicitly on the cache page, but in a case where one has to walk past a "No Trespassing" sign, I would think it should be there. Maybe a kwick e-mail to Groundspeak? At least let them know your concerns? At this point, what could it hurt?

[+Team Cotati]

We were caching while traveling recently. When we're caching out of our home area, we usually look for caches that are more than the LPC variety, since there are plenty of those around home!

 

Anyway, we saw one on the pocket query, decided it looked interesting, took off for it. Pulled up to the parking area (the cache itself was in a woods) and there was a very prominent sign: "No trespassing..violators will be prosecuted". Thought maybe we had the wrong place, drove around, found another entrance, which also said "Private--No trespassing". Checked the cache page, no mention of permission, so we opted to not go after the cache.

 

Came home, did our logging, and posted a NA on this one with pictures of the signs.

 

Got an irate note from the CO, who had deleted the logs, and told us he had permission to place the cache there. Sent him a note, asking him to make note of that on the cache page, which he declined to do. Said there are no guidelines that require him to post that he has permission.

 

Had a nice chat with a local reviewer who told me, yes, permission must be granted, however, it does NOT have to be posted on the cache page.

 

This kind of disturbs me. How do we know if permission has been granted if it's not posted? Am I to assume that every cache marked "Private Property" has permission, since it's not required to be posted on the cache page?

 

Thoughts, anyone?

 

Yes, I think that it is safe to assume that every cache marked "Private Property" has permission.

 

However, if you are searching for something to worry over, try the caches that are on private property that are not marked in any manner.

[+DanOCan]

How do we know if permission has been granted if it's not posted? Am I to assume that every cache marked "Private Property" has permission, since it's not required to be posted on the cache page?

 

You have two ways to approach it -- either assume the cache hider has permission (after all, they clicked the checkbox when they submitted the cache, right?) or take the approach you did and walk away.

 

My personal policy is unless it is specifically stated on the cache page that the cache is on private property and permission has been granted I'll just walk away rather than risk a confrontation with an angry landowner. I would have done the same thing as you -- don't bother hunting it.

 

When I do look for caches on private property I always make sure to put something in my log thanking the cache owner for mentioning it on the cache page saying "I wouldn't have hunted for it otherwise."

 

The only thing I might have done diffferently in your case was to contact the cache owner directly first and ask about the signs. I have done that in the past and found most cache owners tend to be quite friendly and cooperative in that case. "Oh, there is another approach you didn't notice that is legal." or "Those signs went up after I placed the cache, thanks for bringing them to my attention." are a couple of responses I have had. Slapping the cache with a Needs Archived log looks accusatory, especially when it comes from someone caching outside their normal area.

[+Lil Devil]

Had a nice chat with a local reviewer who told me, yes, permission must be granted, however, it does NOT have to be posted on the cache page.

I think the reviewer is wrong here. The guidelines state:

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived.

In this case the signs may not be mentioned on the cache page, but they are in the field, and no one should automatically assume it's safe to ignore the signs just because a cache is there.

 

You should consider taking your concerns to Groundspeak (contact at geocaching dot com)

[+geodarts]

There was one like that in our area. It was in a great location but on property behind fences posted with no trespassing signs. Some people choose to get it. Some did not. I did not. Neither the CO or reviewer took much of an interest in the signs, but eventually a finder had a run in with the irate property owner and it finally was archived.

 

I have had a few encounters with irate property owners myself, so unless it's posted on the web page I assume most caches on private property do not have permission. Especially the ones where the page warns about whether you are sensitive to encounters with law enforcement (if not don't go through the hole in the fence marked "danger, keep out, unauthorized access prohibited") or tells you that the people in the building don't know about the cache so don't tell them what you are doing should they ask.

 

I assume most lamp post hides in parking lots don't have permission. I take it for granted that many requirements for stealth may indicate that it does not have permission. But I often act as if the cache has permission and believe I can sort it out if need be. I will stop at a lamp post from time to time if I am in the area and have been known to do a few sketchier ones.

 

Yes, it may not be required to tell people you got permission but it does not hurt to mention that and is a polite thing to do. It may be the difference between whether I will look for a cache or write off the CO as an idiot. I would put the CO in this case in the latter category and put the cache on my ignore list, even if I was later informed that the No Trespassing signs need not be taken seriously.

 

But if I were in charge of Groundspeak I would ask that cachers obtain (and document) express permission for all caches placed on private land. That would prevent these kind of dilemmas.

Edited August 17, 2010 by mulvaney

[+TeamPatchwork]

Thanks for the responses, everyone. I wasn't trying to be accusatory, just trying to be a responsible cacher. (by posting a NA).

 

BTW, the cache in question is GC2A94B

 

The last email I got from the CO told me to "park on the road and walk in, then you're not trespassing".

 

Huh??

[+hallycat]

I agree that you shouldn't have posted a NA. A note saying you didn't go for it and why would suffice.

[+kunarion]

How do we know if permission has been granted if it's not posted? Am I to assume that every cache marked "Private Property" has permission, since it's not required to be posted on the cache page?

I've only visited one cache that had posted "No Trespassing" signs with no info on the cache page. It was Traders Hill GCM31B. The container's just a few feet off the road in the woods next to a park, there's no fence, the cache has been active for 6 years without issue, and several logs mention the signs. But that's the only No Trespassing cache I will do without more info on a cache description. In answer to your question, in most cases you can assume you have permission to be there, but have the cache description handy just in case. I'd take it on a cache by cache basis. If you're uncomfortable, leave.

 

It's not good that your log was deleted (assuming it's not too abrasive a log). I NEED to see other logs about the No Trespassing signs so I'm not surprised when I arrive, and if a CO is deleting the logs that mention it, I'd have issues with that. But as Team Cotati noted, private property doesn't need signs. The signs are there just to kick it up a notch.

 

If there are no other logs about "No Trespassing", post a note on that cache page, politely mentioning how the signs were a problem for you. If that gets deleted, avoid that CO's caches.

Edited August 17, 2010 by kunarion

[+Castle Mischief]

Yes, I think that it is safe to assume that every cache marked "Private Property" has permission.

 

However, if you are searching for something to worry over, try the caches that are on private property that are not marked in any manner.

 

You know what they say about people that assume...

[+lachupa]

I'm really surprised that there is no requirement to explain this on the cache page.

 

I have some land in the mountains that is posted. I did that because I don't want people hunting on my land and there is an annoying neighbor who caused problems for me when I decided to exercise the right of way that is IN the deed.

 

off on a tanget

 

The point is, it's my land so if I put a cache there I could and would put on the cache page that there are no tresspassing signs up for hunting purposes but as this is my land I have permission from the land owner to allow caching.

[+addisonbr]

I usually don't start off with a "Needs Archived" unless the cache/listing in question appears to have been abandoned and the owner has disappeared. If the owner is still playing the game, I'd prefer to kick off a dialog first so that information can be exchanged in a less charged atmosphere.

[+Castle Mischief]

The NA log might not have been the best drama-free solution to the findings at the cache site, but the CO shouldn't be quite so irate that a NA was posted on a cache with clear indicators that the land owner doesn't want people on the land.

[+edscott]

Over the weekend I drove to where my map indicated I should start a short bushwhack to a cache and was confronted by a line of NO TRESPASSING signs. Not a few, but posted on nearly every tree. I slowed down to look but drove on and skipped that one. After I got home I checked my map again and saw that I had transposed two digits when I entered the coordinates, and was a mile or so away. I never ignore private property signs unless I am sure the property owner has given permission and I suspect that most COs that won't specifically say they have permission on their page don't really have it.

 

The other problem around here is that some bits of public property get marked as "Private" just before deer season. I do ignore those signs, and if the spirit moves me, remove them.

[knowschad]

Yes, I think that it is safe to assume that every cache marked "Private Property" has permission.

 

However, if you are searching for something to worry over, try the caches that are on private property that are not marked in any manner.

 

You know what they say about people that assume...

Do you ever wonder which teacher was the first to say that to their class?

[+GeoGeeBee]

Thanks for the responses, everyone. I wasn't trying to be accusatory, just trying to be a responsible cacher. (by posting a NA).

 

BTW, the cache in question is GC2A94B

 

The last email I got from the CO told me to "park on the road and walk in, then you're not trespassing".

 

Huh??

 

Very strange, especially since it appears to be a college campus. It is worth noting, though, that it is a private college.

 

I've never seen a campus with "No Trespassing" signs, though. I, personally, would not ignore the signs and walk in to the area. And I don't think an NA log is out of line, given that the signs are there. If the cache owner actually has permission to place it there, he should say so on the cache page.

[+narcissa]

I think you did the right thing by letting the reviewer know so he/she could check it out.

 

I can't imagine why a cache owner wouldn't put a simple note on the cache page saying the cache is placed there with permission.

[Skippermark]

You did the right thing. Now that the reviewer has the information and the photos you took just let them deal with it and move on. If this cache was in my local area I'd just add it to the ignore list and never look back.

 

No, it's not required that you put on the cache page that permission has been granted but if there are signs everywhere I don't think that you can expect your cache to get very many visits without it.

 

Most cachers I know would just avoid the potential drama and avoid the cache rather than bypass the no trespassing signs.

A couple things. The OP mentions that the cache owner deleted the Needs Archived log, but the reviewer will have received a copy of the notice before that happened.

 

Around here, if a reviewer gets wind of a cache with similar issues, they will usually disable it and request proof that permission was given before it's reactivated.

 

It's possible the cache is in a situation like a lot of trails are around here. There are "No Trespassing" signs, but people have permission to be there as long as they stay on the trails. The signs are meant to remind people to stay on the trails. People who frequent these areas know this, and they are very popular hiking spots.

 

Sometimes No Trespassing signs are meant for hunters too, meaning "Hunters, keep off the land," but it's okay to hike here. Oftentimes the No Trespassing signs specifically mention that you can't hunt, but people that hike know it's okay to be there.

 

From the guidelines:

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived.

In the situation the OP mentioned, a note on the cache page would be great to let people know permission was given and to put finder's minds at ease, but the guideline mentioned above makes it seem like that isn't possible. The owner may be worried that if he puts a note saying the permission was given to be here and the No Trespassing signs are meant to keep hunters off the land (or whatever), that his cache will get archived.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Skippermark

[+uxorious]

If there are signs that indicate the general public should not be in an area, but the CO does have permission for a cache, it should be noted on the cache page. If such a note is not required by TPTB it certainly should be.

 

I have found a few caches that were behind signs that clearly say no trespassing, or private community park. I have also skipped a few such caches. Depending on whether the cache page lets me know if it is OK.

 

Sometimes signs are put up to keep a specific type of traffic out of an area. Hunters, ATV or offroaders, etc. But the property owner will still give permission for others, such as hikers or Geocachers. However, if there are signs we should never just assume it's OK. Not noting on the cache page that permission to enter past such signs has been granted, is just irresponsible.

[+geodarts]

In the situation the OP mentioned, a note on the cache page would be great to let people know permission was given and to put finder's minds at ease, but the guideline mentioned above makes it seem like that isn't possible. The owner may be worried that if he puts a note saying the permission was given to be here and the No Trespassing signs are meant to keep hunters off the land (or whatever), that his cache will get archived.

 

I would think that a note explaining that permission has been granted would alleviate concerns and help prevent a cache from being archived when there are no trespassing signs at the site. But my experience indicates that at least some reviewers are not concerned about signs and some cache owners disregard common sense.

 

There are at least two topics in the feedback area suggesting that verification of permission, at least for caches placed on private property would be a good idea, similar to what is required for earthcaches. It could avoid situations like the OP described because you would have more assurance that permission was granted, or like I have encountered when property owners wanted to know what I was doing on their land when permission has not been granted. It might limit bomb squad incidents. I would think Groundspeak would want that kind of information to make sure that property owners are happy with the sport, and perhaps to limit some potential liability. But the threads have not attracted any attention (in the iterest of full disclosure, one of them is mine).

Edited August 17, 2010 by mulvaney

[+sbell111]

This kind of disturbs me. How do we know if permission has been granted if it's not posted?

How are you to know if permission is obtained if it IS posted? After all, the cache owner has already affirmed that adequate permission has been obtained and you are not believing this is true because he did not also include a similar affirmation for you to read. Is it your position that a cache owner would lie to you the first time, but not the second? That argument makes no sense to me.

[+GeoGeeBee]

This kind of disturbs me. How do we know if permission has been granted if it's not posted?

How are you to know if permission is obtained if it IS posted? After all, the cache owner has already affirmed that adequate permission has been obtained and you are not believing this is true because he did not also include a similar affirmation for you to read. Is it your position that a cache owner would lie to you the first time, but not the second? That argument makes no sense to me.

 

There could be lots of explanations. The CO might have come in from a different route and not seen the No Trespassing signs. Or the signs could have been put up after the cache was placed... perhaps even in response to the increased foot traffic from geocachers.

 

Having the signs mentioned on the cache page would reassure me that the CO knew about them, and that it was ok for me to be there. Absent such assurance, I'm not going to risk it.

[4wheelin_fool]

If there are valid No Trespassing signs in the area, then the info should be noted on the cache page or the cache should be archived IMO.

 

Without any warning on the cache page that express permission has been granted, it appears that the cache is inviting people to trespass, and gives the impression to other cachers that hiding caches in such areas is routine.

[+northernpenguin]

This kind of disturbs me. How do we know if permission has been granted if it's not posted?

How are you to know if permission is obtained if it IS posted? After all, the cache owner has already affirmed that adequate permission has been obtained and you are not believing this is true because he did not also include a similar affirmation for you to read. Is it your position that a cache owner would lie to you the first time, but not the second? That argument makes no sense to me.

 

One point I'll mention here is that if the cache owner explicitly puts a statement like "Permission has been granted by the land owner" in the listing, that gives the cacher something to show the land owner when they show up demanding to know why someone has entered their property.

 

I've used that method a few times to calm down an angry landowner and been met with reactions ranging from "I never said that! Get off my land!" to "Oh yes I remember now". It gives you a credible reason for being there, and if permission has not been granted you can assure the land owner it will be resolved quickly on the (geocaching) site.

 

--

 

With regards to the OP, I would not (and have not) hesitate(d) to use the Needs Archived log type to bring this issue up to the reviewers. Yes, I could email a reviewer in private but questions about permission to be there should be right there where other potential cachers can see that there may be an issue. The log type is "Needs Archived", which means that I believe it needs to be archived. It's not the same as actually being archived - that's between the reviewer and CO to determine.

[dwlover]

if all caches require permission it shouldnt matter if it is posted or not.

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

if all caches require permission it shouldnt matter if it is posted or not.

 

All caches require adequate permission. Don't confuse that with explicit permission. The simple truth is that if you are assuming that every cache has explicit permission from the land manager or owner you are making a foolish mistake.

 

I would not pass the No Trespassing signs without some very convincing assurances that permission has been granted by the person who has such authority over that piece of land. Odds are I would put this CO's caches on my ignore list. Another good argument for an ignore all caches by user option.

[+Castle Mischief]

if all caches require permission it shouldnt matter if it is posted or not.

 

The reality is that some caches are placed without permission.

 

Sometimes a cache spot will be discovered after the fact by the land owner and the signs will go up during the life of the cache. Sometimes land is sold and the new owner discovers that there is an awful lot of traffic in his newly purchased spot of grass and the signs go up.

[+DragonsWest]

It's sad when you encounter a CO who is an utter jerk.

 

Just like driving in this morning, watching all the rotten dirty tricks some drivers use to gain a one or two vehicle advantage, tends to bring out the worst in those around them. A little common courtesy and we can all get where we're going with smiles.

 

I've left notes for caches which were on land clearly marked as Private Property - No Trespassing, without any notification of owners permission and added them to my ignore list.

 

I have found some very nice caches on private lands, which have the warning signs present, because a CO has stated that the land owner has given permission or the CO is said land owner. It's a great world when people are willing to share and I redouble my efforts to be on my best behavior when visiting, even do a little CITO if the opportunity presents - because I see myself, not only as a Geocacher, but an ambassador for the game.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Just because the CO checked the box doesn't give me a warm feeling that EVERY aspect of the guidelines were reviewed by the CO and that he remembers every one of them when he checked it. I mean, how many people actually read those "I agree" statements that come with software. Some are quite extensive. I believe the checkbox is there to give Groundspeak some leverage of denial when issues arise about violations of posting guidelines and allows them the ability to Archive, modify, disable cache listings that do.

 

And, given the number of LPCs that are placed that we KNOW do not have "adequate permission", why would you assume that those with No Trespassing signs do have that permission?

 

I would skip the cache. Depending on mood, I might post a NA or, at least, a "Note".

Edited August 17, 2010 by Cache O'Plenty

[+GeoGeeBee]

Just because the CO checked the box doesn't give me a warm feeling that EVERY aspect of the guidelines were reviewed by the CO and that he remembers every one of them when he checked it. I mean, how many people actually read those "I agree" statements that come with software.

 

It would appear that not many people read those statements. Consider that some 7,500 people sold their soul to a software company without knowing it.

[+briansnat]

I think you did the right thing by letting the reviewer know so he/she could check it out.

 

I can't imagine why a cache owner wouldn't put a simple note on the cache page saying the cache is placed there with permission.

 

It would make sense to do so. Though the argument could be made that if the cache is there it supposedly has adequate permission. Not a chance that I'd be willing to take though.

 

If there is a no trespassing sign and the cache has permission it should be mentioned on the page. At least I won't hunt it unless it does.

 

Just because the CO checked the box doesn't give me a warm feeling that EVERY aspect of the guidelines were reviewed by the CO and that he remembers every one of them when he checked it. I mean, how many people actually read those "I agree" statements that come with software...

 

The check box only says that the CO read and understands the guidelines. Doesn't necessarily mean his cache is in compliance. He could have read them, understood them, then chose to ignore them. Reviewers will catch some things, but stuff like caches hidden on private property without permission are often hard to catch.

 

Of course someone could lie about permission on the page so we are still taking a chance. If the CO says he has permission and it still doesn't feel right I'll pass.

Edited August 17, 2010 by briansnat

[+hawkeyetob]

Being relatively new to geocaching, we read early on about the importance of cache placement.

We have often asked the question, "Why were we brought here!?!"

 

If we encountered a cache near a no trespassing sign, we would ask "Why were we brought here!?!" and turn around unless the description was VERY clear about permission.

 

It seems geocaching can get enough of bad press without adding to it but actively ignoring no trespass signs.

 

Seems like a bad cache placement to me.

 

Happy Geocaching! - hawkeyetob

[+dbrierley]

It's possible that Taylor University only allows its students, faculty and staff in that area, hence the "No Trespassing" signs. If permission was granted at all, it may have been given under the assumption it was just a university-only cache and not open to the general public.

 

Perhaps the University police can be contacted for confirmation:

 

http://www.taylor.edu/community/offices/police/contact.shtml

 

There seems to be another cache on campus (GC27XVP), but it's in the arboretum, which may have a different access policy.

Edited August 17, 2010 by dbrierley

[+Harry Dolphin]

I'v been to a number of areas wth No Trespassing signs posted. The state or county bought the land from the local hunt club and neglected to remove the No Trespassing signs. The best one had the NJ Department of Wildlife Management sign nailed right to the No Trespassing sign! (Of course, the cache pages make note of the fact that the area is now state or county owned.)

Posting an NA for a No Trespassing sign is wrong, and overkill. Post it to the cache page first. Then discuss it with the CO. With a nasty reply from the CO, then refer it to the Reviewer. But the NA is NOT the first step.

I was looking at an area that Google claims is a County Wildlife Area, but is posted by a hunting club. (I take wht Google Maps says with a grain of salt. It is highly prone to errors.) More research is necessary to find out who actually owns the land. If it is county owned, and I hide a cache there, the cache page will exlain the situation.

[+L0ne.R]

Posting an NA for a No Trespassing sign is wrong, and overkill.

 

What we really need is a "Needs Reviewer Attention" option instead of "Needs Archiving".

[+sbell111]

Being relatively new to geocaching, we read early on about the importance of cache placement.

We have often asked the question, "Why were we brought here!?!"

The answer to that question is the same for every cache in existence: To find a geocache.

[+Castle Mischief]

Being relatively new to geocaching, we read early on about the importance of cache placement.

We have often asked the question, "Why were we brought here!?!"

The answer to that question is the same for every cache in existence: To find a geocache.

 

True enough, but some of the verbiage of the getting started section (unless they changed it) and some of the actual spoken statements of the Reviewer panel during GWS7 talk about "unique location" and the like.

 

I don't disagree with you, but there is a mixed message issue from the Frog.

[+briansnat]

I'v been to a number of areas wth No Trespassing signs posted. The state or county bought the land from the local hunt club and neglected to remove the No Trespassing signs. The best one had the NJ Department of Wildlife Management sign nailed right to the No Trespassing sign! (Of course, the cache pages make note of the fact that the area is now state or county owned.)

Posting an NA for a No Trespassing sign is wrong, and overkill. Post it to the cache page first. Then discuss it with the CO. With a nasty reply from the CO, then refer it to the Reviewer. But the NA is NOT the first step.

I was looking at an area that Google claims is a County Wildlife Area, but is posted by a hunting club. (I take wht Google Maps says with a grain of salt. It is highly prone to errors.) More research is necessary to find out who actually owns the land. If it is county owned, and I hide a cache there, the cache page will exlain the situation.

 

True. I have a cache on land that was recently acquired for open space. It is still prominently posted because the county never bothered to take the signs down. I made sure to mention it on the page. Despite this one person was uncomfortable about seeking the cache until I sent him a link to the county open space map, showing it as public land.

[+hawkeyetob]

Being relatively new to geocaching, we read early on about the importance of cache placement.

We have often asked the question, "Why were we brought here!?!"

The answer to that question is the same for every cache in existence: To find a geocache.

 

Clearly, caches are meant to be found, but it is possible you may be overlooking my point about placement.

 

Is the point of being a CO just to place a cache anywhere he / she wants with little thought to importance of placement just so we can "find a geocache"?

 

Hopefully, a CO takes into account issues such as permission as well as the unique / historical / beauty or other aspects of the placement.

 

My response was meant to address the topic and not to just post a glib reply.

 

We have experienced a number of caches where the main point was to just be found.

However, in our opinion, the best / most memorable caches clearly took into account those additional factors for placement. YMMV

 

Happy Caching! - hawkeyetob

[+GeoGeeBee]

Being relatively new to geocaching, we read early on about the importance of cache placement.

We have often asked the question, "Why were we brought here!?!"

The answer to that question is the same for every cache in existence: To find a geocache.

 

True.

 

But for some caches, the answer is: To find a geocache and. . .

 

What comes after the "and" can be the difference between a memorable experience and just incrementing the find count.

[Clan Riffster]

Being relatively new to geocaching, we read early on about the importance of cache placement.

We have often asked the question, "Why were we brought here!?!"

The answer to that question is the same for every cache in existence: To find a geocache.

Sorry. I'm not buying that one. While it may be true for the P&G crowd, those folks who hunt for most of my hides are there for a significantly different reason than finding a cache. The folks who hunt my caches are at that spot because they know that getting there will give them an adventure, with memories that will last a lifetime. The locating of the ammo can at the middle of the adventure becomes somewhat secondary to the journey itself.

 

This is also true for the caches that I hunt.

 

I will be paddling my kayak down an 8 mile spring fed river in a national forest this coming Saturday. There are a couple caches along the way that I will probably nab, but the two extra smileys are not the reason I am going. This coming Sunday I will be paddling in an old flooded phosphate pit. There are several caches in there that I will likely locate, but again, the smileys are not my primary objective.

[+geodarts]

The answer to that question is the same for every cache in existence: To find a geocache.

 

Not really.

[+L0ne.R]

The answer to that question is the same for every cache in existence: To find a geocache.

 

Not really.

 

Same here, otherwise I wouldn't filter out micros.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

As a cacher that has spent time in the back seat of a Sheriff's car because I was searching for a cache near a no-tresspassing sign I can state that after that encounter I don't care if the owner had said he had permission to place the cache... I won't be looking for it.

 

Fortunatly in my case the prosecutor declined prosecution.

 

RCW 9A.52.080

Criminal trespass in the second degree.

 

(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.

 

(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a misdemeanor. (punishable by up to $1000 in fines and 90 days in jail).

Edited August 19, 2010 by Right Wing Wacko

[+J-Way]

I've cached in rural areas where you could get seriously hurt (intentionally or accidentally) if you ignore "No Trespassing" signs. Some people in rural areas are VERY particular about who they allow on their land, especially after they've picked up the trash left by inconsiderate campers who have wandered over from public land.

 

"I'm sorry, officer, I was just out back shooting at targets with my hunting rifle here. I had no idea that someone had illegally trespassed because he was behind those trees, and didn't even know I'd shot the fool until I went to pick up the target."

 

Example: Last log of THIS CACHE. No "No Tresspassing" sign, but a definite property boundary (unfinished fence). I was FTF in the new location, and feel lucky to be alive.

 

I won't cross "No Trespassing" signs unless the CO states explicit permission in the description and specifically mentions the signs.

[+Too Tall John]

Yes, I think that it is safe to assume that every cache marked "Private Property" has permission.

I'm torn. I feel the need to respond to this comment, but. . .

 

On the one hand, I have to hope the comment is sarcastic, so to say something seems silly if it is.

 

On the other hand, I have to break forum guidelines to truly respond to this, if it is sincere.

 

I guess I should just sit on my hands. . .

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Good choice, Too Tall John.

[Clan Riffster]

On the other hand, I have to break forum guidelines to truly respond to this, if it is sincere.

You could just chortle...