Nosey neighbors

[+popokiiti]

Shame there can't be a camera placed to catch those dumping stuff in a conservation area.....

[knowschad]

Shame there can't be a camera placed to catch those dumping stuff in a conservation area.....

Not that it is right, but I'm guessing that it is leaves and Christmas trees... stuff that people *think* is compostable (even though it still looks like junk and will be there for years).

[+hikingirl3]

Shame there can't be a camera placed to catch those dumping stuff in a conservation area.....

Not that it is right, but I'm guessing that it is leaves and Christmas trees... stuff that people *think* is compostable (even though it still looks like junk and will be there for years).

 

It has to be him, because he'd see anyone else doing it. The most obvious crap is a rusted swingset frame right off his property, a Christmas tree, and a whole ton of boards and things with hinges that look like pieces of a dismantled shed. They cover the top of the pine ledge.

 

Basically the issue is that the man can easily figure out where I live, and we don't want to show up on his camera. I'm not sure if he's a psycho or not. If he is, that's not the type of person that you want having your address and knowing you're the person who dared tell people about "his" woods. He's someone that instead of just going over to a hiker and asking what they are up to in a friendly manner, instead buys a brand new expensive tree camera to intimidate people. He also has spread out chopped wood and stuff, infringing on the trail and town land. He comes across as less than sane.

 

My other issue is that while my cache follows all the local guidelines, I must now provide explicit permission even though I can prove via the conservation map that the whole area is fine. I don't really understand how this additional constriction came into play. All other caches placed on town land around here do not have to jump through this hoop. While I don't believe this will be a problem, and a letter about the caching on Sunday and his subsequent camera placement is being presented at the meeting this week, now the man has another channel of knowing who I am.

Edited March 22, 2011 by hikingirl3

[+roziecakes]

Anyone have personal experience with a neighbor like that? Does it work out OK when you tell them?

 

I do! We have a cache in front of our house. We live across the street from a storage lot for one of the local RV dealerships. They have security guards who drive up and down our road and to the house (which is I think used for an office) in front of the lot, through the lot and back again throughout a lot of the day.

 

I went over to talk to them to let them know that I might have people searching through the woods on my property, and if they see anyone to not be alarmed, it's probably a geocacher. I explained caching to them, and they were receptive and took my brochures that I handed them. It worked out great, and they were happy that I informed them.

 

I would say try it! The only issue I see is that if he is "less than sane" are you sure you feel safe having cachers walking past him and his camera? That's something to take into consideration, but ultimately it's your choice.

 

Best.

Edited March 22, 2011 by nymphnsatyr

[knowschad]

Shame there can't be a camera placed to catch those dumping stuff in a conservation area.....

Not that it is right, but I'm guessing that it is leaves and Christmas trees... stuff that people *think* is compostable (even though it still looks like junk and will be there for years).

 

It has to be him, because he'd see anyone else doing it. The most obvious crap is a rusted swingset frame right off his property, a Christmas tree, and a whole ton of boards and things with hinges that look like pieces of a dismantled shed. They cover the top of the pine ledge.

 

Basically the issue is that the man can easily figure out where I live, and we don't want to show up on his camera. I'm not sure if he's a psycho or not. If he is, that's not the type of person that you want having your address and knowing you're the person who dared tell people about "his" woods. He's someone that instead of just going over to a hiker and asking what they are up to in a friendly manner, instead buys a brand new expensive tree camera to intimidate people. He also has spread out chopped wood and stuff, infringing on the trail and town land. He comes across as less than sane.

 

My other issue is that while my cache follows all the local guidelines, I must now provide explicit permission even though I can prove via the conservation map that the whole area is fine. I don't really understand how this additional constriction came into play. All other caches placed on town land around here do not have to jump through this hoop. While I don't believe this will be a problem, and a letter about the caching on Sunday and his subsequent camera placement is being presented at the meeting this week, now the man has another channel of knowing who I am.

From what you've said, it sounds to me like the guy has probably lived there for many years, and has come to believe, right or wrong, that the place is part of his domain... his "back forty", if you will. I think you did right to archive your cache and forget it. Yeah, its a shame for the geocaching community to not get to discover that place (the pics show that it is nice, with tall old pines) but if he is going to harass cachers, their experience will be ruined anyway.

[+Chokecherry]

Never hurts to get explicit permission either from the town or whoever. I talked to the people in the town I was going to hide caches (due to a highway move I'm going to have to reconsider my plans now)and got permission from them to use city property. It's a small town so now the people who may run into people searching around those parks and what not will know what going on. If I ever considered place it right next to someone's private property I would also alert that property owner and make sure they were comfortable with it too. Caches and cachers drift. Best to cover your bases ahead of time instead of just assuming it's all ok. You get to be a good representative of the hobby then and find people potentially more receptive to you as well for being proactive instead of being mad and reactive when it doesn't go your way.

[+GeoGeeBee]

To avoid a confrontation we have decided to just remove it. Thanks for the kind advice from some of you. However, I must say I will definitely rethink posting here for advice in the future. I've never encountered such hostility towards myself on a forum.

 

 

I didn't see any hostility aimed at you in this forum. I saw lots of good advice offered. It was offered in direct language, nothing was sugar-coated, but there was no hostility.

[+hikingirl3]

Double post

Edited March 22, 2011 by hikingirl3

[+hikingirl3]

 

I didn't see any hostility aimed at you in this forum. I saw lots of good advice offered. It was offered in direct language, nothing was sugar-coated, but there was no hostility.

 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. By the way, the county tax assessors map IS wrong. It shows just parcels of land and does not distinguish conservation land.

Edited March 22, 2011 by hikingirl3

[+GeoGeeBee]

Shame there can't be a camera placed to catch those dumping stuff in a conservation area.....

Not that it is right, but I'm guessing that it is leaves and Christmas trees... stuff that people *think* is compostable (even though it still looks like junk and will be there for years).

 

It has to be him, because he'd see anyone else doing it. The most obvious crap is a rusted swingset frame right off his property, a Christmas tree, and a whole ton of boards and things with hinges that look like pieces of a dismantled shed. They cover the top of the pine ledge.

 

Basically the issue is that the man can easily figure out where I live, and we don't want to show up on his camera. I'm not sure if he's a psycho or not. If he is, that's not the type of person that you want having your address and knowing you're the person who dared tell people about "his" woods. He's someone that instead of just going over to a hiker and asking what they are up to in a friendly manner, instead buys a brand new expensive tree camera to intimidate people. He also has spread out chopped wood and stuff, infringing on the trail and town land. He comes across as less than sane.

 

You sure are making up a lot of stories about this guy in your head. Maybe he's a deer hunter. Maybe he got the game camera for his birthday and decided to try it out on the trail in his yard. Maybe he wants to get a picture of the animals that have been eating his shrubbery. You've never even met him, and you are labeling him as a maniac.

 

My other issue is that while my cache follows all the local guidelines, I must now provide explicit permission even though I can prove via the conservation map that the whole area is fine. I don't really understand how this additional constriction came into play. All other caches placed on town land around here do not have to jump through this hoop. While I don't believe this will be a problem, and a letter about the caching on Sunday and his subsequent camera placement is being presented at the meeting this week, now the man has another channel of knowing who I am.

You brought this on yourself. I'll take you at your word that Google maps and the tax maps both are off -- it happens enough to be believable. But when you disabled your cache with the note about the maniac with the game camera, YOU raised the red flags. Between the issues in the cache logs, and the maps showing the cache to appear to be on private property, it's not surprising that the reviewers are wanting to cover themselves by asking for explicit permission.

 

I'm sorry if I come across as harsh, and if I've made you feel unwelcome here. My posts were intended to be helpful, even the first one that asked if you knew that the cache appeared to be on private property on Google maps. Even this post, although it's critical, is meant as constructive criticism.

 

The fact is that someone has placed a game camera at the entrance to the trail. Period. It was probably placed by the owner of the adjacent property, but you can't be certain of that since you won't talk to him. It may have been placed in response to the sudden appearance of geocachers there, but again, you don't really know. You're just guessing. And in the process, you are painting a curious property owner as some sort of madman.

Edited March 22, 2011 by GeoGeeBee

[+hikingirl3]

 

You sure are making up a lot of stories about this guy in your head. Maybe he's a deer hunter. Maybe he got the game camera for his birthday and decided to try it out on the trail in his yard. Maybe he wants to get a picture of the animals that have been eating his shrubbery. You've never even met him, and you are labeling him as a maniac.

 

You brought this on yourself. I'll take you at your word that Google maps and the tax maps both are off -- it happens enough to be believable. But when you disabled your cache with the note about the maniac with the game camera, YOU raised the red flags. Between the issues in the cache logs, and the maps showing the cache to appear to be on private property, it's not surprising that the reviewers are wanting to cover themselves by asking for explicit permission.

 

I'm sorry if I come across as harsh, and if I've made you feel unwelcome here. My posts were intended to be helpful, even the first one that asked if you knew that the cache appeared to be on private property on Google maps. Even this post, although it's critical, is meant as constructive criticism.

 

The fact is that someone has placed a game camera at the entrance to the trail. Period. It was probably placed by the owner of the adjacent property, but you can't be certain of that since you won't talk to him. It may have been placed in response to the sudden appearance of geocachers there, but again, you don't really know. You're just guessing. And in the process, you are painting a curious property owner as some sort of madman.

 

The camera was placed either Sunday night or Monday. It was not there when I placed the cache. It is pointed at the trail, not at his property to watch game entering. The camera is on his property.

 

The note you reference is posted AFTER the mods note. I initially disabled it because there was a DNF and I didn't want anyone else going wasting time until I checked on it. However, yes, I DID bring the mods note upon myself by daring to ask for advice in this forum. As soon as I did clearly someone contacted the mod with inaccurate maps. Or perhaps I'm just making up more stories in my head I guess. Who knows.

[knowschad]

Or perhaps I'm just making up more stories in my head I guess. Who knows.

People really are trying to help nicely, but sarcasm like that sure isn't helping your case. Nobody here caused the problems with your cache, even if somebody really did contact the reviewer. Of course, don't forget that many reviewers do read the forums from time to time.

[GOF and Bacall]

You could have talked to him. It may have been interesting to see those pictures posted to the cache page.

 

I really don't understand why people are surprised that a neighbor starts getting suspicious when strangers start showing up out of the blue. If all of a sudden a bunch of people start poking around just off my back property line I'm gonna get real curious.

[+hikingirl3]

Or perhaps I'm just making up more stories in my head I guess. Who knows.

People really are trying to help nicely, but sarcasm like that sure isn't helping your case. Nobody here caused the problems with your cache, even if somebody really did contact the reviewer. Of course, don't forget that many reviewers do read the forums from time to time.

 

I don't have an issue with the reviewer. The quote you are referencing refers to the previous poster's comment about me.

[+hikingirl3]

You could have talked to him. It may have been interesting to see those pictures posted to the cache page.

 

I really don't understand why people are surprised that a neighbor starts getting suspicious when strangers start showing up out of the blue. If all of a sudden a bunch of people start poking around just off my back property line I'm gonna get real curious.

 

I'm not surprised, but I feel like the reaction was pretty drastic. I don't understand why he wouldn't have just approached someone and talked to them.

[knowschad]

Or perhaps I'm just making up more stories in my head I guess. Who knows.

People really are trying to help nicely, but sarcasm like that sure isn't helping your case. Nobody here caused the problems with your cache, even if somebody really did contact the reviewer. Of course, don't forget that many reviewers do read the forums from time to time.

 

I don't have an issue with the reviewer. The quote you are referencing refers to the previous poster's comment about me.

 

OK, I will quote the entire piece, then:

 

However, yes, I DID bring the mods note upon myself by daring to ask for advice in this forum. As soon as I did clearly someone contacted the mod with inaccurate maps. Or perhaps I'm just making up more stories in my head I guess. Who knows.

 

It seems, by that statement, that you are blaming forum posters for at least some of your problems. Am I mis-reading the point you are trying to make?

[GOF and Bacall]

You could have talked to him. It may have been interesting to see those pictures posted to the cache page.

 

I really don't understand why people are surprised that a neighbor starts getting suspicious when strangers start showing up out of the blue. If all of a sudden a bunch of people start poking around just off my back property line I'm gonna get real curious.

 

I'm not surprised, but I feel like the reaction was pretty drastic. I don't understand why he wouldn't have just approached someone and talked to them.

 

He had no way of knowing it was the mostly harmless game of geocaching. What if it turned out to be something more nefarious? It's your cache. It's your responsibility. Step up and make contact. Put the guys mind at ease.

[+hikingirl3]

 

OK, I will quote the entire piece, then:

 

However, yes, I DID bring the mods note upon myself by daring to ask for advice in this forum. As soon as I did clearly someone contacted the mod with inaccurate maps. Or perhaps I'm just making up more stories in my head I guess. Who knows.

 

It seems, by that statement, that you are blaming forum posters for at least some of your problems. Am I mis-reading the point you are trying to make?

 

I'm just thinking that it's possible, as the timing is odd. If someone did send maps to the reviewer, then I totally see why they would flag the posting. I'm not certain if the flag was from my disabling it or if it was from a map being sent. You must understand why I would think that.

 

If someone DID send maps, yes, I would feel resentful because they did not check into it throughly and actually sent inaccurate information.

 

To clarify, the last three sentences were meant to come off as somewhat sarcastic, not as fact.

Edited March 22, 2011 by hikingirl3

[knowschad]

To clarify, the last three sentences were meant to come off as somewhat sarcastic, not as fact.

And as I said earlier, that sarcasm is not helping your case.

 

I know of about a half-dozen reviewers that regularly read and post to this forum, and quite a few that read but seldom post to it. And they don't all do so using their reviewer's account either, so your reviewer could very well be reading this thread and you wouldn't know it.

[+hzoi]

I'll throw three cents in on this one (you know, inflation and all).

 

Cent one, on the cameras: I do find it odd that the homeowner has a game camera up. But unless there is a state law to the contrary, it's not per se unlawful to set up a game camera or a surveillance camera or even for the guy to go stand on the edge of the property and give folks the stink eye as they pass. Creepy? Perhaps. But not necessarily breaking the law.

 

Cent two, on fences and property lines: There is a difference between a fence and a property line. A fence does not necessarily mark a property line. A fence just marks the edge of land that a property owner wants fenced. In fact, often a property owner will set a fence back slightly from the property line itself, to avoid encroaching on adjacent land. I saw this all the time when I used to do real estate title examinations back in law school.

 

Cent three, on conservation land: I do not know what the actual legal status of the property in question is, and I am not questioning the OP's assertion that this particular parcel is town land. However, as more and more land is made available for public use, I just want to put the caveat out there that conservation land may not necessarily be owned by a town or a public entity. It costs money for towns or other governments to buy land, and these days a lot of communities are turning to a much cheaper alternative that doesn't involve the property changing hands. I've seen several instances where a property owner has granted a conservation easement to the local community and allowed access to a trail or greenspace or whatever on their land. An easement is a limited exception to the right of a landowner's right to exclusive use, possession, and enjoyment of their property. If land is made available through a conservation easement, the terms of that easement may actually be quite limited: an area may be set aside for conservation, but the general public may in fact be restricted to, say, movement along a trail, and may not be allowed to conduct other activities, caching included. Again -- I don't know whether that's the case here, I'm just encouraging folks to do their homework when hiding caches.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Having read along with interest, I can't help but laugh. I have told this story before, but the Reader's Digest condensed version is: Had I not been a "nosy neighbor" as described, I would probably have never learned about Geocaching. A wonderful Nebraska couple (AntelopeHunter and spouse) introduced me to the hobby after I muggled them in the alley behind out home. Turns out a cache had been in place there for several years, and we never knew it.

Might be worth a shot to explain the game to the neighbor.

[+roziecakes]

That's what I'm saying, just get brave and talk to the neighbor, then you'll really know what his motivation is, and get his side of everything. It really might help! If you're scared, bring a friend. But seriously, it's the only way you'll really know. Best of luck.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Cent two, on fences and property lines: There is a difference between a fence and a property line. A fence does not necessarily mark a property line. A fence just marks the edge of land that a property owner wants fenced. In fact, often a property owner will set a fence back slightly from the property line itself, to avoid encroaching on adjacent land. I saw this all the time when I used to do real estate title examinations back in law school.

 

In New England, many times the center of old stone fences (walls) are the property line.

[GOF and Bacall]

Cent two, on fences and property lines: There is a difference between a fence and a property line. A fence does not necessarily mark a property line. A fence just marks the edge of land that a property owner wants fenced. In fact, often a property owner will set a fence back slightly from the property line itself, to avoid encroaching on adjacent land. I saw this all the time when I used to do real estate title examinations back in law school.

 

In New England, many times the center of old stone fences (walls) are the property line.

 

This was how they marked the boundaries, as well as penned in the livestock, back in the day. In many, if not most, places there are setback laws. A fence is likely a foot or two away from the property line even when it dose follow that line.

[+hzoi]

Cent two, on fences and property lines: There is a difference between a fence and a property line. A fence does not necessarily mark a property line. A fence just marks the edge of land that a property owner wants fenced. In fact, often a property owner will set a fence back slightly from the property line itself, to avoid encroaching on adjacent land. I saw this all the time when I used to do real estate title examinations back in law school.

 

In New England, many times the center of old stone fences (walls) are the property line.

 

This was how they marked the boundaries, as well as penned in the livestock, back in the day. In many, if not most, places there are setback laws. A fence is likely a foot or two away from the property line even when it dose follow that line.

 

Exactly my point. A rock wall may have been laid out years ago to mark a property boundary. Or a property owner may have placed or even moved a rock wall a couple of feet inside the property line. Without checking, it's hard to say which is the case for a given fence or wall.

[+Sioneva]

Having read along with interest, I can't help but laugh. I have told this story before, but the Reader's Digest condensed version is: Had I not been a "nosy neighbor" as described, I would probably have never learned about Geocaching. A wonderful Nebraska couple (AntelopeHunter and spouse) introduced me to the hobby after I muggled them in the alley behind out home. Turns out a cache had been in place there for several years, and we never knew it.

Might be worth a shot to explain the game to the neighbor.

 

You muggled *AntelopeHunter*? Well done!

[+hikingirl3]

To clarify, the last three sentences were meant to come off as somewhat sarcastic, not as fact.

And as I said earlier, that sarcasm is not helping your case.

 

I know of about a half-dozen reviewers that regularly read and post to this forum, and quite a few that read but seldom post to it. And they don't all do so using their reviewer's account either, so your reviewer could very well be reading this thread and you wouldn't know it.

 

I'm not sure how I'm insulting the reviewer? Again, my issue is that I suspect someone provided the reviewer with the inaccurate maps. Maybe it's not the case.

 

It really doesn't matter though since the guy did take the cache. So he did know what people were doing out there. He just didn't want them at "his" trailhead. The cache itself was not viewable from any houses.

Edited March 22, 2011 by hikingirl3

[+GeoGeeBee]

To clarify, the last three sentences were meant to come off as somewhat sarcastic, not as fact.

And as I said earlier, that sarcasm is not helping your case.

 

I know of about a half-dozen reviewers that regularly read and post to this forum, and quite a few that read but seldom post to it. And they don't all do so using their reviewer's account either, so your reviewer could very well be reading this thread and you wouldn't know it.

 

I'm not sure how I'm insulting the reviewer? Again, my issue is that I suspect someone provided the reviewer with the inaccurate maps. Maybe it's not the case.

 

It really doesn't matter though since the guy did take the cache. So he did know what people were doing out there. He just didn't want them at "his" trailhead. The cache itself was not viewable from any houses.

I think what he meant is that no one had to provide the reviewer with the maps, if the reviewer was reading here and following along on his own. For all one know, one of the people who responded in this thread might BE your reviewer.

 

Oh, and now you've decided that Game Camera Guy is also Cache Thief Guy? Based on what? How did he find the cache? From your description, and the maps, he would have had to follow a cacher from the trailhead to the cache, and then steal it after they left. But if he's going to follow people from the trailhead, why does he need the camera?

[+hikingirl3]

 

I think what he meant is that no one had to provide the reviewer with the maps, if the reviewer was reading here and following along on his own. For all one know, one of the people who responded in this thread might BE your reviewer.

 

Oh, and now you've decided that Game Camera Guy is also Cache Thief Guy? Based on what? How did he find the cache? From your description, and the maps, he would have had to follow a cacher from the trailhead to the cache, and then steal it after they left. But if he's going to follow people from the trailhead, why does he need the camera?

 

Let's look at the simplest answer. Guy gets mad about hikers. Guy follows hikers to see what they are doing. From afar, he sees them at the cache location. Guy takes geocache and sets up camera to deter people from visiting the area again or maybe to show the police. Can I prove this? Of course not.

 

The cache would not have been seen by someone just walking or kids playing around. Maybe eventually...but on the first day? That is too much of a stretch. So whoever took it intentionally looked for it and took it. Could it have been another neighbor? Sure! But who is the most likely suspect here? This scenario also now adds another person who could have easily just approached someone and ask them what they were doing.

 

The box was labeled geocache and had a full-sized tie-dye sheet with the traditional cache note on it, so whoever found it for sure then knew what it was.

[+bflentje]

Maybe I'm just hardened from hanging around here too much, but all I saw was some questions being asked.

 

No comment..

[+hikingirl3]

 

I think what he meant is that no one had to provide the reviewer with the maps, if the reviewer was reading here and following along on his own. For all one know, one of the people who responded in this thread might BE your reviewer.

 

Oh I see. Alright, well if that was the case, then my qualm would be that instead of getting advice about the trailhead camera, my cache location itself (which was never the issue) was attacked and some inaccurate maps were posted by forum members, which was probably what resulted in getting my cache in trouble.

 

So then I'm sure you would say that was done to be helpful. However, the most helpful thing that could have been done at that point in the discussion would be to ask if I had proof of the conservation land. I could have then provided the town conservation map, rather than after the fact.

[mresoteric]

Let's look at the simplest answer. Guy gets mad about hikers. Guy follows hikers to see what they are doing. From afar, he sees them at the cache location. Guy takes geocache and sets up camera to deter people from visiting the area again or maybe to show the police. Can I prove this? Of course not.

 

The cache would not have been seen by someone just walking or kids playing around. Maybe eventually...but on the first day? That is too much of a stretch. So whoever took it intentionally looked for it and took it. Could it have been another neighbor? Sure! But who is the most likely suspect here? This scenario also now adds another person who could have easily just approached someone and ask them what they were doing.

 

The box was labeled geocache and had a full-sized tie-dye sheet with the traditional cache note on it, so whoever found it for sure then knew what it was.

 

I've developed an opinion about you from reading this thread. It isn't exactly a positive one.

 

However, I am pretty sure that if I actually took the time to have a beer with you and talk one on one that my opinion might change.

[knowschad]

To clarify, the last three sentences were meant to come off as somewhat sarcastic, not as fact.

And as I said earlier, that sarcasm is not helping your case.

 

I know of about a half-dozen reviewers that regularly read and post to this forum, and quite a few that read but seldom post to it. And they don't all do so using their reviewer's account either, so your reviewer could very well be reading this thread and you wouldn't know it.

 

I'm not sure how I'm insulting the reviewer? Again, my issue is that I suspect someone provided the reviewer with the inaccurate maps. Maybe it's not the case.

 

It really doesn't matter though since the guy did take the cache. So he did know what people were doing out there. He just didn't want them at "his" trailhead. The cache itself was not viewable from any houses.

I wasn't saying anything about you insulting your reviewer. You misread that. I was saying two different things.... one, that your admitted sarcasm was not helping your case here, and two, that your reveiwer could have been made aware of the potential issues with your cache by simply reading this thread.

[knowschad]

Maybe I'm just hardened from hanging around here too much, but all I saw was some questions being asked.

 

No comment..

That is a comment.

[+Semper Questio]

 

I think what he meant is that no one had to provide the reviewer with the maps, if the reviewer was reading here and following along on his own. For all one know, one of the people who responded in this thread might BE your reviewer.

 

Oh, and now you've decided that Game Camera Guy is also Cache Thief Guy? Based on what? How did he find the cache? From your description, and the maps, he would have had to follow a cacher from the trailhead to the cache, and then steal it after they left. But if he's going to follow people from the trailhead, why does he need the camera?

 

Let's look at the simplest answer. Guy gets mad about hikers. Guy follows hikers to see what they are doing. From afar, he sees them at the cache location. Guy takes geocache and sets up camera to deter people from visiting the area again or maybe to show the police. Can I prove this? Of course not.

 

The cache would not have been seen by someone just walking or kids playing around. Maybe eventually...but on the first day? That is too much of a stretch. So whoever took it intentionally looked for it and took it. Could it have been another neighbor? Sure! But who is the most likely suspect here? This scenario also now adds another person who could have easily just approached someone and ask them what they were doing.

 

The box was labeled geocache and had a full-sized tie-dye sheet with the traditional cache note on it, so whoever found it for sure then knew what it was.

 

Well, no, the simplest answer is that some kids were in there goofing off, found your cache, and made off with it.

 

No one would have seen it? Doesn't matter. I had one 8 feet up in a rock wall in a crevice in a place no one had any reason to go, hidden by rocks. Got muggled just that way.

 

Caches being muggled within a day of publication happens far more often than one would suspect. I've even seen them muggled between the time they were hidden and the time they were published. It is not that unusual.

 

Labeled caches get muggled just as quickly and easily as unlabeled ones. Labels guarantee nothing except that when they get mnuggled, the muggles know what they are taking.

 

So, yeah, you may be right. But it is also just as likely, maybe even more so, that you are not.

 

I don't know anything about your neighbor, but the simple fact is that caches get muggled all the time, by all kinds of people, and despite our best efforts to prevent it. Usually we have no idea who, how, or why. It just happens. Accept it and move on.

 

As for the game camera...oddly enough we had a cache here that popped up with one also. I was the 2nd or 3rd person to spot it. The cache is a multi and the camera was pointing right at the location of the first stage. This wasn't a trail head or anything. It was right along a residential street. I guess someone in the neighborhood got curious about who was poking around there also.

[+hikingirl3]

 

I've developed an opinion about you from reading this thread. It isn't exactly a positive one.

 

However, I am pretty sure that if I actually took the time to have a beer with you and talk one on one that my opinion might change.

 

Words cannot sum up my response to this, so I guess emoticons will have to do.

 

I will say though, in my defense, that I am a technical book editor, so this is just how I write, not speak.

Edited March 22, 2011 by hikingirl3

[+the3gmen]

Those of us out here in the forums have little other choice than to speculate about this whole situation. You have the option of simply speaking with the neighbor and clearing up the confusion.

 

Archiving the cache is another of your options but you (and we) will never know the true story that way.

[+hikingirl3]

Those of us out here in the forums have little other choice than to speculate about this whole situation. You have the option of simply speaking with the neighbor and clearing up the confusion.

 

Archiving the cache is another of your options but you (and we) will never know the true story that way.

 

Ugh, yeah, I know. I DID archive it. But this thread keeps going and I feel like I have to keep defending myself and rehashing the situation. You all want to call this a day? Or do I have to continue?

[mresoteric]

 

I've developed an opinion about you from reading this thread. It isn't exactly a positive one.

 

However, I am pretty sure that if I actually took the time to have a beer with you and talk one on one that my opinion might change.

 

Words cannot sum up my response to this, so I guess emoticons will have to do.

 

I will say though, in my defense, that I am a technical book editor, so this is just how I write, not speak.

 

You're still missing the point.

 

The point is my impression of you right now is probably WRONG because I haven't taken the time to talk to you. You have no real clue what is going on with camera guy because you haven't bothered to talk to him. You are just making assumptions based on what you think you know about him.

[mresoteric]

Those of us out here in the forums have little other choice than to speculate about this whole situation. You have the option of simply speaking with the neighbor and clearing up the confusion.

 

Archiving the cache is another of your options but you (and we) will never know the true story that way.

 

Ugh, yeah, I know. I DID archive it. But this thread keeps going and I feel like I have to keep defending myself and rehashing the situation. You all want to call this a day? Or do I have to continue?

 

No. Click the report button at the bottom and ask them to close it if you don't want it to continue. I'm pretty sure you can just say so and they will close it but it might take longer.

[knowschad]

I still wish that you would talk to the neighbor. Explain caching to him. See if he believes that he owns that land (right or wrong).

[+hikingirl3]

 

I've developed an opinion about you from reading this thread. It isn't exactly a positive one.

 

However, I am pretty sure that if I actually took the time to have a beer with you and talk one on one that my opinion might change.

 

Words cannot sum up my response to this, so I guess emoticons will have to do.

 

I will say though, in my defense, that I am a technical book editor, so this is just how I write, not speak.

 

You're still missing the point.

 

The point is my impression of you right now is probably WRONG because I haven't taken the time to talk to you. You have no real clue what is going on with camera guy because you haven't bothered to talk to him. You are just making assumptions based on what you think you know about him.

 

I have archived the cache, so it really doesn't matter anymore. Why would I talk to him when I no longer have anything to gain? If he is a nut, then by talking to him now he will have a new target for his anger - me.

[+Semper Questio]

Those of us out here in the forums have little other choice than to speculate about this whole situation. You have the option of simply speaking with the neighbor and clearing up the confusion.

 

Archiving the cache is another of your options but you (and we) will never know the true story that way.

 

Ugh, yeah, I know. I DID archive it. But this thread keeps going and I feel like I have to keep defending myself and rehashing the situation. You all want to call this a day? Or do I have to continue?

 

You don't HAVE to continue. You CHOOSE to. You can stop coming back to read additional posts or, as the thread originator, you can request that a moderator close this thread any time you want to.

[+hikingirl3]

 

You don't HAVE to continue. You CHOOSE to. You can stop coming back to read additional posts or, as the thread originator, you can request that a moderator close this thread any time you want to.

 

I was not aware I could get a thread archived, and have just requested it be done.

[mresoteric]

 

I've developed an opinion about you from reading this thread. It isn't exactly a positive one.

 

However, I am pretty sure that if I actually took the time to have a beer with you and talk one on one that my opinion might change.

 

Words cannot sum up my response to this, so I guess emoticons will have to do.

 

I will say though, in my defense, that I am a technical book editor, so this is just how I write, not speak.

 

You're still missing the point.

 

The point is my impression of you right now is probably WRONG because I haven't taken the time to talk to you. You have no real clue what is going on with camera guy because you haven't bothered to talk to him. You are just making assumptions based on what you think you know about him.

 

I have archived the cache, so it really doesn't matter anymore. Why would I talk to him when I no longer have anything to gain? If he is a nut, then by talking to him now he will have a new target for his anger - me.

 

You can use the advise you got for your next cache or for life in general. It seems like you are enjoying the thread, so it's all good.

[+hikingirl3]

 

You can use the advise you got for your next cache or for life in general. It seems like you are enjoying the thread, so it's all good.

 

Aaaand they keep coming.

 

Our definitions of enjoy must differ greatly.

[+BruceS]

Topic closed at OP's request.