Jump to content

"No Trespassing" Dilemma


Recommended Posts

The story: I'm currently in a city in China of 4 million people and only one geocache which is located right next to a big tourist attraction (just on the other side of a wall separating the attraction from a green space where the cache is hidden). Ok no biggie, I went towards the cache after checking out the tourist spot only to discover there was a "no admittance" sign in the area and with all the security around the tourist site it didn't seem to be prudent to go for a find, so I didn't.

 

Confused, I went back to check the cache page when I returned to the hostel (because my understanding is caches behind signs like that aren't allowed) and it turns out said cache has been behind a "no admittance" sign for pretty much its entire history if not all of it, and it seems obvious the CO hid it while on vacation and never acknowledged this permission issue on the log page. So most cachers just outright admit they ignored the sign for the find, and it sounds like a few like me who were reluctant just logged the smiley anyway because it's not like most of us come to China all that often.

 

While a smiley would be nice I already have 10 in China, so whatever, but the fact that the cache is illegally placed really bugs me. So I guess my point is if you came across a cache like this would you just ignore it and move on or post a needs archived? Bearing in mind that-

 

a. This is China, so I doubt anyone really cares about Westerners going behind a no admittance sign. Loads of people have logged something on the lines of their guide really not liking the idea but giving them a few minutes to find the cache anyway etc.

 

b. There are hardly any caches in most of China- in fact my GPS tells me the next closest one is nearly 200 miles away. Several say in their logs this was their only physical find in China, so this rarity factor leaves me tempted to just turn a blind eye. As a fair number of cachers in the log show, many find this ample reason to ignore an illegally placed cache and I don't want to be a b*tch or anything.

 

Ok, t'sall I got... and before anyone asks no I'm not posting the exact GC# as yet should I decide on the blind eye route, it's just I'm curious to hear what others think about this. <_<

Link to comment

From what you say this sounds like a vacation cache with no permission that is located on private property. What happens if one of the guards catches a geocacher back there. This is communist China who knows how that will go down. I would post a Needs Archived log. IF the owner does have permission and is local all will be fine, if the cache is in fact against the guidelines it will be removed. The CO may not like it, but that's their fault.

Link to comment

I'd log a Needs Archived, just like any other cache behind a No Trespassing sign.

 

I'd contact the reviewer privately. But it's already too late for that. :lol: So I suppose I'd log the SBA. Not saying I would do it myself, but I can see somewhat how in the unique situation of a rare cache in China, people would be more likely to go into a no admittance area.

Link to comment

I'd log a Needs Archived, just like any other cache behind a No Trespassing sign.

 

I'd contact the reviewer privately. But it's already too late for that. :lol: So I suppose I'd log the SBA. Not saying I would do it myself, but I can see somewhat how in the unique situation of a rare cache in China, people would be more likely to go into a no admittance area.

 

That's why I haven't said where I am- a city of 4 million is pretty generic in China. :ph34r:

Link to comment
a. This is China, so I doubt anyone really cares about Westerners going behind a no admittance sign.
OTOH, this is China, so if someone does care about Westerners going behind that sign, you may never be heard from again.

 

I prefer to return home from my travels on my terms.

Link to comment

This is a tough one for me.

 

Since I don't have any finds in China I would be very tempted to go get it. However, the further I go from home the more wary I am of local laws and being in a country where I don't know my rights (or if I have any!) would make me very nervous so I would have a real tough choice to make. Since you have other caches in China already it isn't as tough a choice for you.

 

I certainly would not log the smiley anyway as you said some others have done. I'd feel really cheap and dirty in the case.

 

As for whether or not I'd pull the SBA on this one? I'd likely talk to the reviewer privately because there is no way I would want my name associated with getting the only cscvhe in the area archived. :ph34r:

Link to comment

You know, I'll be honest here. If I was brave enough to step past a no-trespassing sign in China (which I probably wouldn't be), then I would certainly be claiming the smilie. Call me whatever you'd like, but that's what I'd do. Not saying it's the right thing, but it's my honest answer.

Link to comment
a. This is China, so I doubt anyone really cares about Westerners going behind a no admittance sign.
OTOH, this is China, so if someone does care about Westerners going behind that sign, you may never be heard from again.

 

I prefer to return home from my travels on my terms.

 

I think your concerns may be somewhat justified however having spent a week in China my experience suggested that westerners might have less scrutiny regarding security issue than local residents. I'd be curious to hear whether Yvette experienced the same acceptance of westerners than I did when going after the cache in Tiananmen Square. When I did it I had to cross under a wide road through a tunnel coming from the Forbidden Palace area and encountered a security checkpoint. All bags had to go through an x-ray machine then I stood in line waiting to collect my bag. I watched as numerous Chinese had their bags hand searched then when I got to the front of the line I was just waved through.

 

However, going behind a no admittance sign in search of a cache is probably not a good idea anywhere one might go, but going behind a no admittance sign while in possession of a GPS is really asking for trouble. Prior to my trip I read several threads which discussed whether someone traveling to China should even bring a GPS with them as they're have been incidents where GPS users have been questioned and detained by officials which claimed that the user of the GPS might be using it to map out secure areas.

 

Personally, I'm torn between letting the issue drop and sending a note to the reviewer describing the no admittance sign. As someone else suggested, this might be a "vacation hide" where the CO is long gone and is not maintaining the cache. The no admittance sign might even be a recent addition but that's just the kind of situation that the "no vacation caches" guideline is trying to avoid.

Link to comment

I'd post an NA log in a heartbeat. But then, I've never been overly concerned about what strangers think about me. :)

 

Seriously, when you have multiple guideline violations on a cache (behind no trespassing sign, vacation cache) it's sad that anyone would suggest you were being a "bad guy" for doing what needs to be done. Even sadder that anyone would get angry with you for calling out these obvious problems which others have chosen to ignore.

Link to comment

I would ask the CO first. Perhaps they have permission but forgot to put a line in the cache page. I have seen it happen. If the CO does not respond appropriately then I would post a NA log or email the local reviewer.

 

(editing for a typo)

Edited by lamoracke
Link to comment

I'm definitely in the NA crowd. You don't want somebody to get arrested, and given the particular attractiveness of this cache being the only one in the area, traveling cachers are a lot more likely to ignore the sign.

 

If I'm you, I post a NA on the cache and then place my OWN cache somewhere else in the city to give travelers something else to look for, "vacation caches" be damned. It makes sense to not allow them when there are other people placing caches in the area, but some places are simply too remote from this hobby's population to make a non-vacation cache possible.

Link to comment

Feel for the OP. I'm someone who's managed to run afoul of a few of my peers by being the stick in the mud to raise concerns over things like this when dozens if not hundreds of others have not. <sigh>

 

in your case under the circumstances described - i'd walk away & drop a note to the reviewer when you get home...

 

I have two standard approaches:

 

-for things that are blatant violations, i try to take pictures & contact reviewer with links to photos explaining my concerns

-for things that are uncomfortable but maybe not completely, totally and obviously wrong - i'll log the find, my log will be atypically short (found it) and will usually include some sort of statement that says something along the lines of "i didnt think we were allowed to do that - learn something new everyday i guess".

 

What i used to do, was email the CO directly to ask about the problem. This has turned out almost exclusively badly. Unless its a cacher i know well enough to anticipate their reaction as positive, i dont make the effort to do that anymore.

 

Good luck.

Link to comment

I'd contact the reviewer privately.

Me too. I believe that any cache hidden behind a "No Trespassing" sign, without something very specific on the cache page exposing why it is OK to ignore said sign, should be archived. By posting a "Needs Archived" log, or by quietly contacting a Reviewer, you accomplish this goal. By opting for the more subtle route, you avoid any potential drama.

Link to comment

I've been in some pretty lousy places in the world (also some pretty nice ones) and one thing I've learned, is don't EVER mess with the local police. Not a wise move. Ignorance of their law is never a good excuse. Breaking their rules is not only a bad choice but also a dangerous one too. 1 smilie isn't worth it ever. You never know when the person who see's you breaking the rules/laws is having a bad day and is just looking for an excuse.

Link to comment

I'd contact the reviewer privately.

Me too. I believe that any cache hidden behind a "No Trespassing" sign, without something very specific on the cache page exposing why it is OK to ignore said sign, should be archived. By posting a "Needs Archived" log, or by quietly contacting a Reviewer, you accomplish this goal. By opting for the more subtle route, you avoid any potential drama.

I've tried option 1 with no results. I've tried option 2 and have gotten blown off. I have decided that for the most part this is a non-issue so I ignore it.

Link to comment

The cache needs to be archived. It's unfair to send people on a wild goose chase, perhaps a long distance, just for a poor experience like that.

 

Vacation caches: worst idea ever.

 

Now that you put it that way I agree that a NA is the way to go. The CO mentioned that the next closest cache was 200 miles away. Suppose someone searched for that cache and got a DNF and decided to travel to the cache located in the cache located in the "no admittance" area only to discover that they couldn't (legally) access the cache. I know that when I'm traveling I always read the cache descriptions and recent logs carefully to make sure I'm going to be looking for a "findable" cache so if a note is sent to the reviewer instead of a NA log there should also be a DNF log with an explicit description regarding the reason for the DNF. That might help future seekers of that cache until the reviewer takes action.

Link to comment

No offense but I am still trying to figure out what the dilemma is. The issue sounds pretty cut and dry. And I'm even an implicit permission kind of guy. NA.

 

I think that some may consider the fact that it's the only cache within 200 miles be somewhat significant and the possibility that the no admittance sign might be a temporary condition. I've been in a couple of cache locations when there were no others within 200 miles. In one case I wasn't able to search for the cache and I was in the country for almost a week but haven't found a cache there. At the time, there were only three other caches in that country (Ethiopia).

Link to comment
Now that you put it that way I agree that a NA is the way to go. The CO mentioned that the next closest cache was 200 miles away. Suppose someone searched for that cache and got a DNF and decided to travel to the cache located in the cache located in the "no admittance" area only to discover that they couldn't (legally) access the cache. I know that when I'm traveling I always read the cache descriptions and recent logs carefully to make sure I'm going to be looking for a "findable" cache so if a note is sent to the reviewer instead of a NA log there should also be a DNF log with an explicit description regarding the reason for the DNF. That might help future seekers of that cache until the reviewer takes action.

The OP mentioned that many logs mentioned ducking behind the sign or getting permission from a guide or even not finding the actual cache because of the access issues. So, the information is there for anyone to see, regardless of whether the NA is done though a public log or private email.

 

I guess if someone doesn't read the cache information first, then it's mea culpa for them,

Link to comment

I guess if someone doesn't read the cache information first, then it's mea culpa for them,

Yes, of course the onus is completely on the cache seeker. We always study the cache pages carefully, including all the previous logs. It's the only way to ensure that nothing bad will happen. After carefully contemplating the cache information, we take a quick peek, wait a few minutes and only then do we come out from under our bed.

 

The cache was only published last June. The cache owner appears to be a foreign national who was residing temporarily in another city 1500km away. It does make one wonder how it got published in the first place. It would most likely be a waste of time contacting the owner since they are no longer in China. If you can document the situation clearly, contact the publishing reviewer or log a Needs Archived. Don't be surprised if nothing happens for awhile.

Link to comment

As previously noted, I'd express my concerns to the local reviewer.

They may be aware of conditions that would make the location viable, and that arrangements have been made for local maintenance.

 

If I went for the cache and was detained/questioned, I'd post a NA in a heartbeat...assuming I had internet access from my cell.

Link to comment
Confused, I went back to check the cache page when I returned to the hostel (because my understanding is caches behind signs like that aren't allowed) and it turns out said cache has been behind a "no admittance" sign for pretty much its entire history if not all of it, and it seems obvious the CO hid it while on vacation and never acknowledged this permission issue on the log page. So most cachers just outright admit they ignored the sign for the find, and it sounds like a few like me who were reluctant just logged the smiley anyway because it's not like most of us come to China all that often.

 

So you were reluctant and didn't actually find the cache.

Link to comment

Ask the staff at the big tourist attraction? "Say, I noticed a very pretty green space just behind the [attraction]. Are visitors permitted there?" And if so, what is the right way to enter the property.

This might be the best option. If they tell you that you are not allowed back there, THEN log an NA. You will have definite info from the people that own/maintain the area.

Link to comment

No offense but I am still trying to figure out what the dilemma is. The issue sounds pretty cut and dry. And I'm even an implicit permission kind of guy. NA.

 

I think that some may consider the fact that it's the only cache within 200 miles be somewhat significant and the possibility that the no admittance sign might be a temporary condition. I've been in a couple of cache locations when there were no others within 200 miles. In one case I wasn't able to search for the cache and I was in the country for almost a week but haven't found a cache there. At the time, there were only three other caches in that country (Ethiopia).

 

I understand your point. In that case, go grab the cache and move on. Why is it a dilemma is all I am asking..

Link to comment

No offense but I am still trying to figure out what the dilemma is. The issue sounds pretty cut and dry. And I'm even an implicit permission kind of guy. NA.

 

I think that some may consider the fact that it's the only cache within 200 miles be somewhat significant and the possibility that the no admittance sign might be a temporary condition. I've been in a couple of cache locations when there were no others within 200 miles. In one case I wasn't able to search for the cache and I was in the country for almost a week but haven't found a cache there. At the time, there were only three other caches in that country (Ethiopia).

 

I understand your point. In that case, go grab the cache and move on. Why is it a dilemma is all I am asking..

 

The dilemma is whether to risk grabbing the cache, and potentially getting arrested in a foreign country, or ignoring the cache and perhaps the only opportunity to find a cache in that country. After that decision is made, whether or not one posts a NA log, contacts the CO or reviewer, takes other action might have an impact of future cachers put into the same position as the CO. I've found caches in foreign countries where I wasn't really sure I should be there, and I've also been near a couple of cache locations where there wasn't another cache within more than 100 miles (in one case it was over 300, in another about 150). I found one of them and the other I didn't get a chance to search for (it's now archived) so I have a pretty good idea why the CO would describe it as a dilemma.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...