VDOT and guardrails

April 22, 2011

Point taken. However, the original cache in question had been in place for over two years and over 100 finds with no problems. I understand the permission issue. Doesn't make it right. But, if he had raised his question to the CO an adjustment could have been made and saved guard rail caches in the state of Virginia. He went all the way to the top and forced them to issue a blanket statement which does not allow for any wiggle room.

Being unfamiliar with the cache in question, did the person making the complaint ever make a public complaint even if it wasn't directly to the CO or did he just decided he didn't like it and went directly to VDOT? If the latter, there seems to be some kind of disconnect.

April 22, 2011

Point taken. However, the original cache in question had been in place for over two years and over 100 finds with no problems. I understand the permission issue. Doesn't make it right. But, if he had raised his question to the CO an adjustment could have been made and saved guard rail caches in the state of Virginia. He went all the way to the top and forced them to issue a blanket statement which does not allow for any wiggle room.

Being unfamiliar with the cache in question, did the person making the complaint ever make a public complaint even if it wasn't directly to the CO or did he just decided he didn't like it and went directly to VDOT? If the latter, there seems to be some kind of disconnect.

The person signed the log. Then, about two weeks later posted pictures and made comments implying that the object the cache was located in had been altered by someone (this was totally not the case). Apparently he had already gone to VDOT to report it and reported his findings to the reviewer. No attempt was made to contact the CO, no questions asked. He was completely wrong about the situation, made false accusations, and took matters into his own hands. The cache was archived without notifying the CO that this was going to happen. Groundspeak looked at the CO's appeal and the posting has since been reactivated and the hide changed to another spot nearby the original.

April 22, 2011

The person signed the log.

At least he got his smiley first. <_<

June 8, 2011

About VA rule: Heres exerpt from local reviewers profile with rules for cache placements:

UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE caches on any property owned by VDOT will be archived. No new caches will be allowed. VDOT property includes and signage and guardrails. This does not include property on non-state maintained roads.

This overall does not just include the guardrails, but also all the road signs wich technically should get thousands of caches archived in VA alone. Are stop-light poles and pedestrian crossing lights VDOT property? THere are some really nice and safe caches that could disappear due to that also.

Seems like this happened due to a combination of factors, like CO placing a cache not considering that some cachers would fail to use common sence when trying to make a grab, COs failed to use common sence themselves while placing some caches, and Cachers being too lazy to walk extra 100 feet from a safe parking location or not using common sence while searching for the cache...

One of the aids to a solution to one of the mentioned problems could be a slight change of registering new accounts. While signing up to some web-services many had to click that "I Agree to terms and conditions". However some sites go beyond that and make sure you used the scroll bar all the way down before you could even click that part. In that Terms and conditions, outline that cachers are not to break any civil, criminal and traffic laws of the area they're caching in and are responsible themselves for checking those rules/regulations.

As for new caches placements: have a better Questionnaire style guide for placemnts of new caches that folks would have to fill in before sending it for approval to the lackeys. Examples of questions could include:

*is the hide on private property (if yes - did you obtain a written permission from the owner?)

*is the hide near a roadway ( )yes ( )no

***if yes, is there a safe and lawful access to the cache not from roadway ( )yes ( )no

..etc... I mean if a few minds come together to make up a list of possilbe questions for this guide it could be done and implemented and responces could be automated.

20.7k · June 8, 2011

As for new caches placements: have a better Questionnaire style guide for placemnts of new caches that folks would have to fill in before sending it for approval to the lackeys. Examples of questions could include:
*is the hide on private property (if yes - did you obtain a written permission from the owner?)

*is the hide near a roadway ( )yes ( )no

***if yes, is there a safe and lawful access to the cache not from roadway ( )yes ( )no

..etc... I mean if a few minds come together to make up a list of possilbe questions for this guide it could be done and implemented and responces could be automated.

My initial contribution is to throw out the last two questions.

1) Permission need not be in writing.

2) The question is confusing and ignores the fact that many times access 'from the roadway' is perfectly 'safe and legal'.

June 9, 2011

That was just some ideas to get any feedback. It's not necesserily perfect That's why we're not Geolackeys afterall... But disagree that last question needs to be thrown out. Instead, just like About "not from a roadway" you could ask :

is there a safe and lawful way to acces this cach from a roadway ( )yes ( )no.

And if the both of these sub-questions get NO checked - the cache application would get red-flagged for reviewers individual personalized attention.

As for first question" Is the cache on private property - ( ) yes ( ) no (check what applies)" have Subquestions" If YES, do you have owners permission to place the cache on their property ( ) yes ( ) no. If yes - if need be is it possible to have a written permission?

In this day and age written word is better to have than just spoken one. In only a few states a verbal agreement is legally binding. And if something does happen, like someone gets hurt while attempting to get a cache, and then tries to sue the property owner - the owner will deny any permission and come after you for trespassing.... - Just a possible scenario.

And anyways - you could "initally" suggest changing the questions instead of having them "thrown out". Would be a nicer feedback and get more done, besides just filibuster... :anitongue:

Edited June 9, 2011 by CluelessnLuV

June 9, 2011

I just watched a couple of 'kids' (under thirty), park and block a one lane bridge to look along the outer edge of the guardrail to find the cache. Now, to me, the person who placed the cache there, the reviewer who allowed it to be placed there and the people who blocked the bridge are all at fault.

That seems wrong to me. I could easily go hijack someone's Jeep, and drive it on pedestrian designated trails all the way to the GZ of a mountain summit cache. That doesn't make it the cache placer or reviewer's fault. Geez... you don't even have to have common sense, just basic human survival intuition to know not to park on a one lane bridge.

20.7k · June 9, 2011

That was just some ideas to get any feedback. It's not necesserily perfect That's why we're not Geolackeys afterall... But disagree that last question needs to be thrown out. Instead, just like About "not from a roadway" you could ask :

is there a safe and lawful way to acces this cach from a roadway ( )yes ( )no.

And if the both of these sub-questions get NO checked - the cache application would get red-flagged for reviewers individual personalized attention.

As for first question" Is the cache on private property - ( ) yes ( ) no (check what applies)" have Subquestions" If YES, do you have owners permission to place the cache on their property ( ) yes ( ) no. If yes - if need be is it possible to have a written permission?

In this day and age written word is better to have than just spoken one. In only a few states a verbal agreement is legally binding. And if something does happen, like someone gets hurt while attempting to get a cache, and then tries to sue the property owner - the owner will deny any permission and come after you for trespassing.... - Just a possible scenario.

And anyways - you could "initally" suggest changing the questions instead of having them "thrown out". Would be a nicer feedback and get more done, besides just filibuster...

OK, here's my suggested changes:

1) Can the cache location be legally accessed? y/n

2) Does the cache placement have adequate permission? y/n

It should also be noted that in most locales, the mere fact that a person was, at some point in teh past, on a piece of private property without express permission does not mean that they were guilty of trespassing. Local laws apply, but generally the property must be posted or you must have been asked to leave and/or not return.

Also, it should be noted that many locales have laws which shield a land owner from liability if someone gets injured while using the property for recreational purposes if no fee was requested.

June 9, 2011

Thanks for some nice input.

June 14, 2011

Back on April 18 the cache in question was changed out to be a sprinkler head under the bushes, several feet away from the sign. This little bit if green is located along a sidewalk in a small town. There is plenty of room to park the car at the gas station. Apparently this wasn't good enough because there was a notification tonight that read: "Groundspeak is archiving this cache per an explicit request from the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Please remove the container with appropriate caution."

So, apparently it's not just signs and guardrails. It includes all the bushes, sidewalks and any area around a road. I guess geocaching will soon no longer be allowed in Virginia.

Heavy Sigh.

19k · June 14, 2011

Back on April 18 the cache in question was changed out to be a sprinkler head under the bushes, several feet away from the sign. This little bit if green is located along a sidewalk in a small town. There is plenty of room to park the car at the gas station. Apparently this wasn't good enough because there was a notification tonight that read: "Groundspeak is archiving this cache per an explicit request from the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Please remove the container with appropriate caution."

So, apparently it's not just signs and guardrails. It includes all the bushes, sidewalks and any area around a road. I guess geocaching will soon no longer be allowed in Virginia.

Heavy Sigh.

The restriction is most likely on the land governed by VDOT, not simply the equipment installed on that property.

June 14, 2011

The restriction is most likely on the land governed by VDOT, not simply the equipment installed on that property.

Well that just about covers the entire state.

19k · June 14, 2011

The restriction is most likely on the land governed by VDOT, not simply the equipment installed on that property.

Well that just about covers the entire state.

Really? The Virginia Department of Transportation covers almost the entire state? Awesome!!

June 14, 2011

Back on April 18 the cache in question was changed out to be a sprinkler head under the bushes, several feet away from the sign. This little bit if green is located along a sidewalk in a small town. There is plenty of room to park the car at the gas station. Apparently this wasn't good enough because there was a notification tonight that read: "Groundspeak is archiving this cache per an explicit request from the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Please remove the container with appropriate caution."

So, apparently it's not just signs and guardrails. It includes all the bushes, sidewalks and any area around a road. I guess geocaching will soon no longer be allowed in Virginia.

Heavy Sigh.

From the VDOT letter:

"In order to maintain the safety of our citizens and your members, we ask that you suspend all placement of materials on or in our property."

(bold by me)

I found that cache a couple years ago and really enjoyed it. I parked in the nearby lot and walked on the sidewalk to the cache that, if anything, is further away from the roadway than the sidewalk would be if it ran straight beside the road. For the life of me I can't figure out what is unsafe about walking on a sidewalk or looking for a cache that far from a road.

I'll join you in a depressed sigh.

June 14, 2011

Our reviewer posted this note on some archived caches:

Archiving at the request of the Virginia DOT. Guardrail caches are now prohibited by VDOT.

It seems obvious to me that the only reason the Department of Transportation would even be aware of geocaching is because there were caches placed in such a way that it was hazardous to look for them. Is there a way we could encourage people to consider our impact on traffic safety (for other states, the damage is done in Virginia) or do we have to rely on the usually unreliable common sense?

Nope VaGriz. It's not the reason VDOT is aware of them. A local cacher decided to take it upon himself to challenge the placement of one cache without asking the CO about the hide. VDOT had not choice but to issue a blanket statement that covered all their property. It was senseless and vindictive. Appears to be a personal attack which is resulting in the archival of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of caches across the Commonwealth.

2.1k · June 14, 2011

So, apparently it's not just signs and guardrails. It includes all the bushes, sidewalks and any area around a road. I guess geocaching will soon no longer be allowed in Virginia.

Please spare us the breathless hyperbole. The DOT doesn't own all of the land in Virginia. You might have to get out of your car and walk a few feet to get to the cache, though.

9.3k · June 14, 2011

You might have to get out of your car and walk a few feet to get to the cache, though.

But... but... They might burn a calorie!

Besides, the 51 seconds they spend walking past the VDOT right of way could be spent hunting more P&Gs.

Let's not minimize the distress some folks are feeling with this change! <_< :huh:

5.7k · June 14, 2011

It did effect some of my listings, but I just relocated them off of the guardrails. Those hides in the end of a guardrail are common for wasps nests anyway. :laughing:

10.2k · June 15, 2011

So, apparently it's not just signs and guardrails. It includes all the bushes, sidewalks and any area around a road. I guess geocaching will soon no longer be allowed in Virginia.

Please spare us the breathless hyperbole. The DOT doesn't own all of the land in Virginia. You might have to get out of your car and walk a few feet to get to the cache, though.

The 1/1 micro afficienado's of the Commonwealth of Virgina can simply move on to store parking lots now. Don't forget to get permission.

Edit: in all seriousness, is it a known fact that this is all due to the actions of one cacher regarding one cache? rumors can fly around.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

June 15, 2011

Our reviewer posted this note on some archived caches:

Archiving at the request of the Virginia DOT. Guardrail caches are now prohibited by VDOT.

It seems obvious to me that the only reason the Department of Transportation would even be aware of geocaching is because there were caches placed in such a way that it was hazardous to look for them. Is there a way we could encourage people to consider our impact on traffic safety (for other states, the damage is done in Virginia) or do we have to rely on the usually unreliable common sense?

Nope VaGriz. It's not the reason VDOT is aware of them. A local cacher decided to take it upon himself to challenge the placement of one cache without asking the CO about the hide. VDOT had not choice but to issue a blanket statement that covered all their property. It was senseless and vindictive. Appears to be a personal attack which is resulting in the archival of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of caches across the Commonwealth.

Having grown tired of reading the misstatements and incorrect claims made in this matter I've decided that I will comment.

First and foremost, what you read sprinkled throughout this thread about claims of a cacher taking action without asking the CO about the hide is incorrect. And the cacher did not at any time accuse the CO of altering the sign in which the cache was located.

So let's lay out the actual facts, opposed to the fiction or warped perspectives presented:

Fact: I logged the cache. The cache was located along a state highway located within the city limits of Smithfield, VA. Then having thought better of it (a cache placed in a hole running through the entire base of the sign, located about two feet from the curb on a state highway - the more I thought about it, the more I questioned it), and wondering how exactly the CO would have received permission to place a cache inside of a highway sign, I started asking questions. I first contacted both the Virginia State Police who indicated that placing the cache there was not allowed (well, they had stronger terms for it, but that's for later). I confirmed that then by (at the Virginia State Police's suggestion) contacting VDOT's help center. I was told that permission had not been given to place a cache in a VDOT sign or on any VDOT property. I asked what rules or laws were involved. Both the police and VDOT cited a particular Virginia Code (more on that below) and also indicated that it could also be considered to be trespassing on state property.

Brief interlude from the above and below facts: This is also factual, but it will most likely help before going further in understanding why I wasn't so eager to just zing off an email to the CO. Prior to this incident, some time in the recent past, this particular cacher had been seeking one of my own caches. She lost the cache (dropped it inside of a metal pole, and the cache was damaged beyond repair because of that). And the cacher had also LOGGED it as found, despite the fact that she'd knew that she'd never signed the log. After spending about an hour digging the cache container out of the pole, I then deleted her "found it" log entry, and then received nasty emails even after I explained that she needed to sign the log. In reply she posted a log note saying that she was frustrated that I'd deleted her log after she was the one to alert me to the problem with the cache being dropped in the pole (ah huh - she loses the cache and then told me she lost it and then thinks that this somehow gets her "bonus points" with a CO?). So this incident (the current situation with VDOT) has NOTHING whatsoever to do with my being vindictive toward this cacher/CO, it has everything to do with the cacher/CO being unpleasant in emails and also being unreasonable. This is ALSO the same cacher who posted a thread (just check her forum posts) to question about whether I was allowed to place a beacon cache that required a capable GPS to find it (vs. also providing an alternative way to find it). That was after she first posted a negative comment in the cache log of my beacon cache - despite never even having searched for it. So it seems to me that this is all about this cacher/CO being vindictive, not me being vindictive toward her.

Fact: After considering all things I then logged a NA on the cache. I was told by a reviewer that this was the correct thing to do. And as suggested by the police, I cited the applicable state code. I included pictures so that it would be clear for anyone to see where the cache was and why it needed to be archived. That NA log did not say that the CO did any damage to the sign, I simply said that as I was told, that was the code that covered doing things like placing a geocache in a highway sign.

Fact: Groundspeak Guidelines 6.12 "Permanent Removal: Archiving a Cache" states that, "If you feel that a cache listing needs to archived, log onto the cache page, use "log your visit" and select the log type, "needs archived". Please explain in your log why the listing needs to be archived. This log will be received by both the cache owner and a local reviewer" and "Please use this log only when there are serious problems with the cache or its location." Yes, it does also later say, "Please consider first contacting the owner of the geocache with your concerns" but the process is in place for something serious to submit the NA, and the forum is full of threads where cachers were advised to submit a NA related to caches that involve trespass and such, and so that seemed to fit this situation as something similar and something serious. Having been told by the Virginia State Police that if they found someone at that sign, placing or removing the cache that they may well be cited under the state code certainly seemed to be a "serious problem" and the fact that no permission had been received seemed to support the VDOT assertion that it would be trespassing. And the NA is certainly utilized to report caches that would involve trespassing. Refer to the above explanation as to why it was preferable to not otherwise contact the CO.

Fact: The CO then sent me an email threatening me with a lawsuit for libel, claiming that I had stated that the CO had committed a "criminal act." The NA log said no such thing. Again, this supports my concern that the CO would act in this way, and why I wasn't going to send an email to the CO (a NA is a nice official record, an email isn't).

Fact: Based on the CO's email (threat) I then re-looked at the NA log, and didn't understand her reaction to that, nor why she considered that to be libel. I decided that I would reword the NA log to ensure that it was absolutely clear to anyone reading it by directly stating that I was NOT saying that the CO had damaged the sign, just that the cache wasn't allowed under that code. And BTW, as I understand it and was told that code was the correct code as it was the code about doing things to signs. (Yes, being vague for a reason - and for the record, again state that I'm not claiming that the CO committed a criminal act or such.)

Fact: The CO responded to me by email restating that I had committed libel, and had somehow accused the CO of a criminal act and that unless I deleted the log that the CO intended to take legal action against me. I also told the CO that it was the Virginia State Police that had said that the code I cited to was applicable, and the CO's response was to then say that what the "officer told you (me) was totally irrelevant." The CO then deleted the NA log.

Fact: When I'd received that email and saw the new log entry the next morning, I immediately apologized to the CO for her belief that I had accused her of a criminal act, that I didn't intend to do that and didn't believe that I had, but was apologizing if that's the way that it was somehow taken. I also restated that it was my belief that the cache was not authorized to be located where it was. The CO replied, accepting my apology, and then chastised me for not having contacted her first. It was clear however that the CO had no intention of removing or moving the cache, and she had already deleted the NA log.

Fact: The CO had begun posting in a caching forum, and it was clear from the specific things said that not only was the CO not going to remove the cache (such as claiming that this was about a hole, that this was because I was an inexperienced cacher, or that by the twisted logic that there were caches like that all over Virginia and that this somehow made it right), but that others thought that it was okay to have caches in highway signs, etc. The CO also posted derogatory things, and things that I believe were clearly not factual.

Fact: As it was apparent that the CO would not remove the cache and did not have permission to place that cache, I then contacted a reviewer and passed along the information that VDOT had provided to me. The reviewer stated agreement about the cache being prohibited. THE REVIEWER asked if I had any information on the the particular rule that VDOT was citing to. I said that VDOT hadn't provided that information but volunteered to the reviewer to ask VDOT for that and was encouraged by the reviewer to recontact VDOT.

Fact: I then recontacted the VDOT help line and they indicated that they would have a VDOT representative contact me. I was then contacted by VDOT and I spoke at length with that individual. The person that I spoke with knew exactly what geocaching was through friends who are cachers. The VDOT representative indicated that VDOT does not and would not give permission to place caches on or in VDOT signs. They asked about the location of the cache so that they could confirm that this was a sign owned or controlled by VDOT, and as that was public information readily available I provided that to them. I told the VDOT representative that our local reviewer had asked for any documentation of the rule and VDOT indicated that they would issue a letter and asked if I could pass that along to our reviewers and such. I agreed to pass along their information and said that I'd also forward the letter to the reviewer.

Fact: I then provided the detailed information received verbally from VDOT to a local reviewer and also provided the VDOT contact information so that the reviewer could directly contact VDOT. I also told the reviewer that VDOT indicated that they intended to remove the cache as soon as possible as they were concerned for safety reasons with that cache being located where it was. It appears that the reviewer didn't further contact the CO, of if there was contact I am not aware of it.

Fact: VDOT removed the cache. Another cacher noticed the cache missing and logged a NM on the cache. The CO responded to the NM log and indicated that the cache would be replaced. I asked a reviewer about it and was told that the reviewer needed specific information from VDOT to "convince" the cache owner. My understanding of that discussion is that the CO having been told that VDOT requested the cache be removed was demanding proof or such.

Fact: Over the next two weeks or so I continued asking VDOT for their letter and on 4/11/11, they provided that letter which I then immediately forwarded to our local reviewers, to Groundspeak and also provided to a local geocaching forum. As the letter indicated much more than I had asked about (which was limited to highway signs), I recontacted VDOT and asked them to clarify about what was VDOT property and their reply was that their rule included anything on roadways in Virginia ("sign, guardrail, bridge, light post, etc."). I was also told that VDOT as a state agency had authority over all other local jurisdictions (based on preeminence over local governments as Virginia is a "Dillon Rule" state), and was told that VDOT could have directed Smithfield to remove the cache but chose to remove it themselves as they wanted it done immediately. It is my understanding that they also began looking for other similar caches, both physically and through searching geocaching listings.

Fact: As I had been previously told that guardrail caches were okay, and had even been told by a very experienced cacher that you didn't need permission, I had a few (4) of my own. Upon receipt of the VDOT letter and learning otherwise, I archived my own four guardrail caches. And I have also recently archived one on a historical sign, as from what I can now see it appears that VDOT has control over those as well even though they are owned by another agency.

Fact: Groundspeak then archived the cache ("Archiving at the request of the Virginia DOT."). The CO then asked for permission to replace and relocate the cache (and from the CO's post further above in this thread that sounds like it was done through an Appeal). I then recontacted VDOT to ask whether in this particular case relocating the cache to the area adjacent to the sign was still considered placing the cache on VDOT property, and I was told that this would also be prohibited as the right of way was also VDOT property. VDOT expressed frustration that even with having issued a letter that the cache was still on VDOT property, and they also knew that this same cacher still had another cache of the same kind, also in a highway sign, and also located in the vicinity. I then passed that information to a reviewer.

Fact: Despite the VDOT letter prohibiting caches on property owned or controlled by VDOT, and despite everyone involved being aware of that, seven days after VDOT had issued the letter prohibiting the caches, a local reviewer unarchived the cache so that the cache could be relocated to the VDOT property located adjacent to the sign. And at the same time a discussion took place in at least one forum, with participants arguing against VDOT and outright attacking me. And various things were said, by multiple parties, misstating the facts, including assertions that the letter wasn't legitimate or that it didn't somehow apply (and even to this day, at least one blogger out there vows to determine from VDOT if their letter was legitimately issued by VDOT, implying - I assume - that I what, faked a VDOT letter???).

Fact: VDOT was already aware of other caches that were in violation of their rule, including one other cache owned by this CO. VDOT was also aware that despite having provided their notification about the caches being prohibited and knowing that this one particular cache had been specifically brought to the attention of Groundspeak and reviewers, that the cache was still active and located on VDOT property, and that no permission had been given to place it in either the first location or the second location. And they knew that no action had been taken regarding the second cache, which was ALSO located in a highway sign. VDOT was now also following the forum discussions and had learned about a heated discussion where CO's indicated that they didn't intend to comply with VDOT's rule and that no caches were being removed. IMHO, the "final straw" was that some CO's actually posted in the forum to encourage cachers to go out and find all of those caches before they were eventually forced to archive them. I was told by VDOT that VDOT senior management had determined to escalate the issue since their previous letter was being ignored. I was directly asked by VDOT to confirm that they had the correct information for sending legal correspondence to Groundspeak. And I presume that as a result of that, the letter from the Virginia Attorney General was then sent to VDOT.

Fact: I did nothing whatsoever to attempt to influence VDOT. I did not discuss these caches other than to ask if we had permission to place them. I mention this because some folks in our local forum threads have actually accused me of somehow turning VDOT against geocaching. Of course those same folks also believe that I somehow am able to get the Attorney General to send a letter to Groundspeak.

So, the factual summary is that:

- VDOT has stated that the CO did not have permission to place the cache in the VDOT sign

- The CO was contacted IAW Groundspeak guidelines through a NA log

- CO threatened to sue me, then deleted the NA log

- CO did not remove the cache and even attempted to replace it after VDOT removed the cache

- VDOT issued letter to say that caches on VDOT property or VDOT controlled property were prohibited

- CO then went ahead and replaced the cache and moved it from the VDOT sign to the VDOT property adjacent to the sign

- CO also did not remove the OTHER cache located in another nearby highway sign

- Because the CO refused to comply with the VDOT request, and seeing that other caches on VDOT property were not being removed, VDOT management then sought legal assistance from the Attorney General

And THAT'S why VDOT did what they did. Cachers never had permission to do what they did, and VDOT apparently simply wasn't aware of those caches (well, actually, apparently at least ONE VDOT employee who is also a local cacher knew and chose to defend the CO and spoke out against the VDOT policy, and I assume that didn't go well for him). But that didn't make it right, and there is no excuse for CO's and cachers to whine away about something that shouldn't have been to begin with.

Now the CO and multiple other cachers are complaining that for whatever reason, they are now being prohibited from having caches where they never had permission to place caches to begin with. And any claims that these CO's would have responded positively to emails seems rather bogus, given that even though they all now know that the caches are prohibited we're not seeing a flurry of archiving taking place despite pleas from reviewers that they do so. Instead, they're posting that they should join together to meet with and educate VDOT about geocaching in hopes that VDOT will then now determine that caches on VDOT owned or controlled property are now not a safety issue. Good luck with that.

But for the most part, these are the same cachers who complained when I submitted NAs on a cache placed at the airport (which Groundspeak ultimately had to retract the listing because a reviewer wouldn't do so), caches on fire hydrants, caches at sewage treatment facilities (posted no trespassing), and so on. And that's not counting the rash of FTF hounds that we've had recently, entering parks after closing time (which is trespassing here locally, and posted as such). And at least some of these complainers are the same ones who when I was asked by a reviewer to organize an event where the local police would meet with cachers to discuss their concern for these same issues, nobody wanted to do that. (Side note, I was asked to do that because I am actively involved in local crime prevention activities where these very kind of issues are discussed - hence the reason why I tend to pay attention to them myself.)

I'm certainly not the only person who takes the time to submit a NA or to contact a reviewer when a cache doesn't seem right. But I am apparently the scapegoat for what happens when cachers lacked any permission to put caches in places that compromise public safety (according to VDOT and the Attorney General of Virginia) and then apparently worked especially hard to really tick the VDOT PTB's off.

My intent in posting (this long reply) isn't to get involved in yet another discussion (frankly I probably won't even further monitor the thread) with those who apparently are seriously lacking in clues, it's just to set the record straight as I'm tired of reading all the misrepresentations and such.

Thanks for listening.

8.3k · June 15, 2011

Man, I thought Toz posted long posts. Toz doesn't even come close. But it really does read like getting back at a CO behind a badge of authority.

June 15, 2011

Man, I thought Toz posted long posts. Toz doesn't even come close. But it really does read like getting back at a CO behind a badge of authority.

I rest my case.

Edited June 15, 2011 by chihuahuak94me

19k · June 15, 2011

Oh, my!!

Fact: This looks like a job for Judge Judy!!

June 16, 2011

....... I asked what rules or laws were involved. Both the police and VDOT cited a particular Virginia Code (more on that below) and also indicated that it could also be considered to be trespassing on state property........

Would you be so kind as to mention the code? I am curious how walking on a public sidewalk could be considered trespassing.

June 16, 2011

But it really does read like getting back at a CO behind a badge of authority.

No, it reads like not being willing to play along with the mass delusion about what "adequate permission" actually means.

19k · June 16, 2011

....... I asked what rules or laws were involved. Both the police and VDOT cited a particular Virginia Code (more on that below) and also indicated that it could also be considered to be trespassing on state property........

Would you be so kind as to mention the code? I am curious how walking on a public sidewalk could be considered trespassing.

Sometimes the problem with asking is that, once asked, they have to say "no". Don't ask, and even if they find out on their own, they probably would never say anything.

I only looked at the street view for one of the two archived caches, but the one I saw, the sign was even in a little landscaped wide area next to the sidewalk.

I think this whole situation is disgraceful.

June 16, 2011

Edited June 16, 2011 by chihuahuak94me

June 16, 2011

So basically you got into a pissing match with another cacher and you decided to one up her by going to the big dogs and managed to get caching banned on all VDOT property. That's pretty much what others have said but with a lot less words.

At least you feel good about it. <_<

Our reviewer posted this note on some archived caches:

Archiving at the request of the Virginia DOT. Guardrail caches are now prohibited by VDOT.

It seems obvious to me that the only reason the Department of Transportation would even be aware of geocaching is because there were caches placed in such a way that it was hazardous to look for them. Is there a way we could encourage people to consider our impact on traffic safety (for other states, the damage is done in Virginia) or do we have to rely on the usually unreliable common sense?

Nope VaGriz. It's not the reason VDOT is aware of them. A local cacher decided to take it upon himself to challenge the placement of one cache without asking the CO about the hide. VDOT had not choice but to issue a blanket statement that covered all their property. It was senseless and vindictive. Appears to be a personal attack which is resulting in the archival of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of caches across the Commonwealth.

Having grown tired of reading the misstatements and incorrect claims made in this matter I've decided that I will comment.

First and foremost, what you read sprinkled throughout this thread about claims of a cacher taking action without asking the CO about the hide is incorrect. And the cacher did not at any time accuse the CO of altering the sign in which the cache was located.

So let's lay out the actual facts, opposed to the fiction or warped perspectives presented:

Fact: I logged the cache. The cache was located along a state highway located within the city limits of Smithfield, VA. Then having thought better of it (a cache placed in a hole running through the entire base of the sign, located about two feet from the curb on a state highway - the more I thought about it, the more I questioned it), and wondering how exactly the CO would have received permission to place a cache inside of a highway sign, I started asking questions. I first contacted both the Virginia State Police who indicated that placing the cache there was not allowed (well, they had stronger terms for it, but that's for later). I confirmed that then by (at the Virginia State Police's suggestion) contacting VDOT's help center. I was told that permission had not been given to place a cache in a VDOT sign or on any VDOT property. I asked what rules or laws were involved. Both the police and VDOT cited a particular Virginia Code (more on that below) and also indicated that it could also be considered to be trespassing on state property.

Brief interlude from the above and below facts: This is also factual, but it will most likely help before going further in understanding why I wasn't so eager to just zing off an email to the CO. Prior to this incident, some time in the recent past, this particular cacher had been seeking one of my own caches. She lost the cache (dropped it inside of a metal pole, and the cache was damaged beyond repair because of that). And the cacher had also LOGGED it as found, despite the fact that she'd knew that she'd never signed the log. After spending about an hour digging the cache container out of the pole, I then deleted her "found it" log entry, and then received nasty emails even after I explained that she needed to sign the log. In reply she posted a log note saying that she was frustrated that I'd deleted her log after she was the one to alert me to the problem with the cache being dropped in the pole (ah huh - she loses the cache and then told me she lost it and then thinks that this somehow gets her "bonus points" with a CO?). So this incident (the current situation with VDOT) has NOTHING whatsoever to do with my being vindictive toward this cacher/CO, it has everything to do with the cacher/CO being unpleasant in emails and also being unreasonable. This is ALSO the same cacher who posted a thread (just check her forum posts) to question about whether I was allowed to place a beacon cache that required a capable GPS to find it (vs. also providing an alternative way to find it). That was after she first posted a negative comment in the cache log of my beacon cache - despite never even having searched for it. So it seems to me that this is all about this cacher/CO being vindictive, not me being vindictive toward her.

Fact: After considering all things I then logged a NA on the cache. I was told by a reviewer that this was the correct thing to do. And as suggested by the police, I cited the applicable state code. I included pictures so that it would be clear for anyone to see where the cache was and why it needed to be archived. That NA log did not say that the CO did any damage to the sign, I simply said that as I was told, that was the code that covered doing things like placing a geocache in a highway sign.

Fact: Groundspeak Guidelines 6.12 "Permanent Removal: Archiving a Cache" states that, "If you feel that a cache listing needs to archived, log onto the cache page, use "log your visit" and select the log type, "needs archived". Please explain in your log why the listing needs to be archived. This log will be received by both the cache owner and a local reviewer" and "Please use this log only when there are serious problems with the cache or its location." Yes, it does also later say, "Please consider first contacting the owner of the geocache with your concerns" but the process is in place for something serious to submit the NA, and the forum is full of threads where cachers were advised to submit a NA related to caches that involve trespass and such, and so that seemed to fit this situation as something similar and something serious. Having been told by the Virginia State Police that if they found someone at that sign, placing or removing the cache that they may well be cited under the state code certainly seemed to be a "serious problem" and the fact that no permission had been received seemed to support the VDOT assertion that it would be trespassing. And the NA is certainly utilized to report caches that would involve trespassing. Refer to the above explanation as to why it was preferable to not otherwise contact the CO.

Fact: The CO then sent me an email threatening me with a lawsuit for libel, claiming that I had stated that the CO had committed a "criminal act." The NA log said no such thing. Again, this supports my concern that the CO would act in this way, and why I wasn't going to send an email to the CO (a NA is a nice official record, an email isn't).

Fact: Based on the CO's email (threat) I then re-looked at the NA log, and didn't understand her reaction to that, nor why she considered that to be libel. I decided that I would reword the NA log to ensure that it was absolutely clear to anyone reading it by directly stating that I was NOT saying that the CO had damaged the sign, just that the cache wasn't allowed under that code. And BTW, as I understand it and was told that code was the correct code as it was the code about doing things to signs. (Yes, being vague for a reason - and for the record, again state that I'm not claiming that the CO committed a criminal act or such.)

Fact: The CO responded to me by email restating that I had committed libel, and had somehow accused the CO of a criminal act and that unless I deleted the log that the CO intended to take legal action against me. I also told the CO that it was the Virginia State Police that had said that the code I cited to was applicable, and the CO's response was to then say that what the "officer told you (me) was totally irrelevant." The CO then deleted the NA log.

Fact: When I'd received that email and saw the new log entry the next morning, I immediately apologized to the CO for her belief that I had accused her of a criminal act, that I didn't intend to do that and didn't believe that I had, but was apologizing if that's the way that it was somehow taken. I also restated that it was my belief that the cache was not authorized to be located where it was. The CO replied, accepting my apology, and then chastised me for not having contacted her first. It was clear however that the CO had no intention of removing or moving the cache, and she had already deleted the NA log.

Fact: The CO had begun posting in a caching forum, and it was clear from the specific things said that not only was the CO not going to remove the cache (such as claiming that this was about a hole, that this was because I was an inexperienced cacher, or that by the twisted logic that there were caches like that all over Virginia and that this somehow made it right), but that others thought that it was okay to have caches in highway signs, etc. The CO also posted derogatory things, and things that I believe were clearly not factual.

Fact: As it was apparent that the CO would not remove the cache and did not have permission to place that cache, I then contacted a reviewer and passed along the information that VDOT had provided to me. The reviewer stated agreement about the cache being prohibited. THE REVIEWER asked if I had any information on the the particular rule that VDOT was citing to. I said that VDOT hadn't provided that information but volunteered to the reviewer to ask VDOT for that and was encouraged by the reviewer to recontact VDOT.

Fact: I then recontacted the VDOT help line and they indicated that they would have a VDOT representative contact me. I was then contacted by VDOT and I spoke at length with that individual. The person that I spoke with knew exactly what geocaching was through friends who are cachers. The VDOT representative indicated that VDOT does not and would not give permission to place caches on or in VDOT signs. They asked about the location of the cache so that they could confirm that this was a sign owned or controlled by VDOT, and as that was public information readily available I provided that to them. I told the VDOT representative that our local reviewer had asked for any documentation of the rule and VDOT indicated that they would issue a letter and asked if I could pass that along to our reviewers and such. I agreed to pass along their information and said that I'd also forward the letter to the reviewer.

Fact: I then provided the detailed information received verbally from VDOT to a local reviewer and also provided the VDOT contact information so that the reviewer could directly contact VDOT. I also told the reviewer that VDOT indicated that they intended to remove the cache as soon as possible as they were concerned for safety reasons with that cache being located where it was. It appears that the reviewer didn't further contact the CO, of if there was contact I am not aware of it.

Fact: VDOT removed the cache. Another cacher noticed the cache missing and logged a NM on the cache. The CO responded to the NM log and indicated that the cache would be replaced. I asked a reviewer about it and was told that the reviewer needed specific information from VDOT to "convince" the cache owner. My understanding of that discussion is that the CO having been told that VDOT requested the cache be removed was demanding proof or such.

Fact: Over the next two weeks or so I continued asking VDOT for their letter and on 4/11/11, they provided that letter which I then immediately forwarded to our local reviewers, to Groundspeak and also provided to a local geocaching forum. As the letter indicated much more than I had asked about (which was limited to highway signs), I recontacted VDOT and asked them to clarify about what was VDOT property and their reply was that their rule included anything on roadways in Virginia ("sign, guardrail, bridge, light post, etc."). I was also told that VDOT as a state agency had authority over all other local jurisdictions (based on preeminence over local governments as Virginia is a "Dillon Rule" state), and was told that VDOT could have directed Smithfield to remove the cache but chose to remove it themselves as they wanted it done immediately. It is my understanding that they also began looking for other similar caches, both physically and through searching geocaching listings.

Fact: As I had been previously told that guardrail caches were okay, and had even been told by a very experienced cacher that you didn't need permission, I had a few (4) of my own. Upon receipt of the VDOT letter and learning otherwise, I archived my own four guardrail caches. And I have also recently archived one on a historical sign, as from what I can now see it appears that VDOT has control over those as well even though they are owned by another agency.

Fact: Groundspeak then archived the cache ("Archiving at the request of the Virginia DOT."). The CO then asked for permission to replace and relocate the cache (and from the CO's post further above in this thread that sounds like it was done through an Appeal). I then recontacted VDOT to ask whether in this particular case relocating the cache to the area adjacent to the sign was still considered placing the cache on VDOT property, and I was told that this would also be prohibited as the right of way was also VDOT property. VDOT expressed frustration that even with having issued a letter that the cache was still on VDOT property, and they also knew that this same cacher still had another cache of the same kind, also in a highway sign, and also located in the vicinity. I then passed that information to a reviewer.

Fact: Despite the VDOT letter prohibiting caches on property owned or controlled by VDOT, and despite everyone involved being aware of that, seven days after VDOT had issued the letter prohibiting the caches, a local reviewer unarchived the cache so that the cache could be relocated to the VDOT property located adjacent to the sign. And at the same time a discussion took place in at least one forum, with participants arguing against VDOT and outright attacking me. And various things were said, by multiple parties, misstating the facts, including assertions that the letter wasn't legitimate or that it didn't somehow apply (and even to this day, at least one blogger out there vows to determine from VDOT if their letter was legitimately issued by VDOT, implying - I assume - that I what, faked a VDOT letter???).

Fact: VDOT was already aware of other caches that were in violation of their rule, including one other cache owned by this CO. VDOT was also aware that despite having provided their notification about the caches being prohibited and knowing that this one particular cache had been specifically brought to the attention of Groundspeak and reviewers, that the cache was still active and located on VDOT property, and that no permission had been given to place it in either the first location or the second location. And they knew that no action had been taken regarding the second cache, which was ALSO located in a highway sign. VDOT was now also following the forum discussions and had learned about a heated discussion where CO's indicated that they didn't intend to comply with VDOT's rule and that no caches were being removed. IMHO, the "final straw" was that some CO's actually posted in the forum to encourage cachers to go out and find all of those caches before they were eventually forced to archive them. I was told by VDOT that VDOT senior management had determined to escalate the issue since their previous letter was being ignored. I was directly asked by VDOT to confirm that they had the correct information for sending legal correspondence to Groundspeak. And I presume that as a result of that, the letter from the Virginia Attorney General was then sent to VDOT.

Fact: I did nothing whatsoever to attempt to influence VDOT. I did not discuss these caches other than to ask if we had permission to place them. I mention this because some folks in our local forum threads have actually accused me of somehow turning VDOT against geocaching. Of course those same folks also believe that I somehow am able to get the Attorney General to send a letter to Groundspeak.

So, the factual summary is that:

- VDOT has stated that the CO did not have permission to place the cache in the VDOT sign

- The CO was contacted IAW Groundspeak guidelines through a NA log

- CO threatened to sue me, then deleted the NA log

- CO did not remove the cache and even attempted to replace it after VDOT removed the cache

- VDOT issued letter to say that caches on VDOT property or VDOT controlled property were prohibited

- CO then went ahead and replaced the cache and moved it from the VDOT sign to the VDOT property adjacent to the sign

- CO also did not remove the OTHER cache located in another nearby highway sign

- Because the CO refused to comply with the VDOT request, and seeing that other caches on VDOT property were not being removed, VDOT management then sought legal assistance from the Attorney General

And THAT'S why VDOT did what they did. Cachers never had permission to do what they did, and VDOT apparently simply wasn't aware of those caches (well, actually, apparently at least ONE VDOT employee who is also a local cacher knew and chose to defend the CO and spoke out against the VDOT policy, and I assume that didn't go well for him). But that didn't make it right, and there is no excuse for CO's and cachers to whine away about something that shouldn't have been to begin with.

Now the CO and multiple other cachers are complaining that for whatever reason, they are now being prohibited from having caches where they never had permission to place caches to begin with. And any claims that these CO's would have responded positively to emails seems rather bogus, given that even though they all now know that the caches are prohibited we're not seeing a flurry of archiving taking place despite pleas from reviewers that they do so. Instead, they're posting that they should join together to meet with and educate VDOT about geocaching in hopes that VDOT will then now determine that caches on VDOT owned or controlled property are now not a safety issue. Good luck with that.

But for the most part, these are the same cachers who complained when I submitted NAs on a cache placed at the airport (which Groundspeak ultimately had to retract the listing because a reviewer wouldn't do so), caches on fire hydrants, caches at sewage treatment facilities (posted no trespassing), and so on. And that's not counting the rash of FTF hounds that we've had recently, entering parks after closing time (which is trespassing here locally, and posted as such). And at least some of these complainers are the same ones who when I was asked by a reviewer to organize an event where the local police would meet with cachers to discuss their concern for these same issues, nobody wanted to do that. (Side note, I was asked to do that because I am actively involved in local crime prevention activities where these very kind of issues are discussed - hence the reason why I tend to pay attention to them myself.)

I'm certainly not the only person who takes the time to submit a NA or to contact a reviewer when a cache doesn't seem right. But I am apparently the scapegoat for what happens when cachers lacked any permission to put caches in places that compromise public safety (according to VDOT and the Attorney General of Virginia) and then apparently worked especially hard to really tick the VDOT PTB's off.

My intent in posting (this long reply) isn't to get involved in yet another discussion (frankly I probably won't even further monitor the thread) with those who apparently are seriously lacking in clues, it's just to set the record straight as I'm tired of reading all the misrepresentations and such.

Thanks for listening.

9.3k · June 16, 2011

I rest my case.

Which "case" are you wanting to rest? The one where you hid a cache on property that you do not own, and did not seek adequate permission for despite checking the little box on the cache submission form claiming otherwise? Or is there some other "case" we need to know about?

9.3k · June 16, 2011

...and managed to get caching banned on all VDOT property.

Was caching ever allowed on VDOT property? :unsure:

19k · June 16, 2011

I rest my case.

Which "case" are you wanting to rest? The one where you hid a cache on property that you do not own, and did not seek adequate permission for despite checking the little box on the cache submission form claiming otherwise? Or is there some other "case" we need to know about?

I think that permission (for the one pictured) was as "adequate" as a very high percentage of caches, CR. It was in landscaping immediately adjacent to a public sidewalk. Not exactly the sort of cache that I'd hide (or possibly even like to find) but very similar to a great many across the country.

19k · June 16, 2011

... and the other one?

June 16, 2011

...and managed to get caching banned on all VDOT property.

Was caching ever allowed on VDOT property?

Apparently so. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion about mass archival of caches.

Granted it is apparent that there was never explicit permission given. But I'm guessing adequate permission must have existed or reviewers failed miserably at their job.

If explicit permission is now the standard, then I guess we'll see a mass archival of caches worldwide.

No? Didn't think so.

9.3k · June 16, 2011

I think that permission (for the one pictured) was as "adequate" as a very high percentage of caches, CR.

I agree. Naturally, that doesn't mean it was OK for her to hide one there. To my way of thinking, "adequate" means the controlling agency of a particular location does not care if there are geocaches placed on their properties. Seminole County Parks & Recreation fits this definition nicely. They found out about caching early in the game's lifetime, and decided that it was a benign activity which needed no bureaucracy from them. They didn't even want to know the locations of the caches. Didn't matter to them one way or another.

If I hid a cache in one of their parks, I would consider that I had "adequate" permission to do so.

I used to have a cache hidden in a Wally World parking lot. I didn't assume that the business would approve of my cache being on their property. Instead, I had a talk with their loss control supervisor, who I know from my work. I detailed exactly what I wanted to do, and she said it was no problem, thanking me for letting her know. While it's true that some would say my permission wasn't good enough because I did not get formalized documentation from the corporate headquarters, I certainly felt it was "adequate". Another example is the cache my wife hid in the parking lot of a nearby grocery store. She worked in the meat department, and got a go ahead from the department manager for the hide. Again, no letter from corporate, but I certainly felt our permission was "adequate".

If I had treated my hide like the aforementioned cache owner, assuming I could stick stuff where ever I wanted because "it had been done before", I would say that my permission was "inadequate".

...and managed to get caching banned on all VDOT property.

Was caching ever allowed on VDOT property?

Apparently so. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion about mass archival of caches.

Who was it that authorized the placement of our game pieces on VDOT property?

I suspect the answer is "No one". I think these caches existed under the Groundspeak "Wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say no more, don't ask-don't tell" policy. Kinda like the caches in Wally World and grocery store parking lots. This unwritten policy became clear when I submitted those two above mentioned caches for publication. I was prepared to provide names and phone numbers of the persons who gave permission for the hides, yet that was never asked of me. Two caches, clearly placed on private property, and neither one was questioned. From talking to cache owners who have hide-a-keys stuck on guardrails around here, it's clear that they are not being asked either.

Yet, if I want to hide a cache on SJRWMD lands, (which I help pay for with my tax dollars), I must demonstrate that I have explicit permission to do so. While I have no problem doing this, as I have a good working relationship with one of the persons involved in the permit process, it does seem a bit backward to me. For many public lands, (those with an established geocaching permit process), I must seek explicit permission. Yet for caches on private property, I don't have to, even though the guidelines specifically require this:

"Obtain the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property. By submitting a geocache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. If you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of the reviewer and those seeking the cache."

Edited June 16, 2011 by Clan Riffster

5.7k · June 16, 2011

...and managed to get caching banned on all VDOT property.

Was caching ever allowed on VDOT property?

Yes. We have cachers that are employed or are retired from VDOT in my area. Most archived their listings because of all this BS. I just moved mine a few feet, and off of VDOT property. I remember when all that was needed was a GPS and internet connection. Now we need a "Mouth Piece" that don't know poopie about geocaching and a Po-Po man to enforce Laws that they make up as they go along? :blink:

19k · June 16, 2011

...and managed to get caching banned on all VDOT property.

Was caching ever allowed on VDOT property?

Yes. We have cachers that are employed or are retired from VDOT in my area. Most archived their listings because of all this BS. I just moved mine a few feet, and off of VDOT property. I remember when all that was needed was a GPS and internet connection. Now we need a "Mouth Piece" that don't know poopie about geocaching and a Po-Po man to enforce Laws that they make up as they go along?

While I agree that there is a very high level of BS going on here, you didn't really answer CR's question, IMHO. He asked, was caching ever allowed on VDOT property? I assume he meant, by explicit permission. Having cachers that are employed or are retired from VDOT obviously does not imply permission of any sort.

9.3k · June 16, 2011

Now we need a "Mouth Piece" that don't know poopie about geocaching and a Po-Po man to enforce Laws that they make up as they go along?

Not sure I follow you. In my vernacular, the term "mouth piece" is a derogatory term for lawyer. Unless I missed the post, I'm not aware of anyone obtaining legal council in this matter, though there was one cache owner threatening a libel suit. Is she the one you were referring to as needing a "mouth piece"?

As for "Po-Po", again, I have to fall back on the slang I know, which may differ from the slang in your geographic region. Around here, "Po-Po" is a derogatory, ghetto term for a law enforcement officer. As law enforcement officers are the ones most often called upon to enforce laws, can I assume that this is what you meant by the term? If so, can you direct me to which laws the law enforcement officers "made up"? I see where some folks have cited existing statutes, but I haven't seen any "made up" laws. As a law enforcement officer, I'm not even sure that "making up" laws as I went along would accomplish anything, as there are tons of checks and balances in our field. I can only imagine the look on a first appearance Judge if I brought someone in front of them, arrested on a law I "made up" that day. At the very least I would be immediately fired and arrested. Almost certainly sued. But in this case, the law would not be "made up" by the Judge. It would be an existing statute.

Can you clarify those two points for me? :unsure:

9.3k · June 16, 2011

We have catchers that are employed or are retired from VDOT in my area.

Cool! It's great to have contacts in the field. Are these cachers high enough up the VDOT food chain that they would be authorized to grant permission for game pieces to be placed on their company's property? I have a non-caching friend who works for Florida's DOT. He drives a tractor. If he told me I could hide a cache on a highway sign, I'm not sure I would consider his opinion to equal "adequate" permission. I think I'd stick to someone in management, at the very least.

9.3k · June 16, 2011

I remember when all that was needed was a GPS and internet connection.

Back in the good old days, eh? :lol:

Seriously though, this is gonna come off as sounding like I'm picking on your joined date.

I hope you don't take it that way, as that is not how it is intended.

I'm simply making an observation.

Back to my response:

You started caching four years after I did. Back in 2004 you needed much more than "a GPS and internet connection" to hide caches. You needed permission. Whether the degree of permission required was "adequate" or "explicit" was determined largely by the location of the hide. That's still the case today. I'm not sure how you could "remember" things differently. Now, if we're talking about finding caches, as opposed to hiding them, then I would argue that nothing has changed since your "good old days". A GPSr and an Internet connection will get you a whole heap of finds.

June 16, 2011

...and managed to get caching banned on all VDOT property.

Was caching ever allowed on VDOT property?

Apparently so. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion about mass archival of caches.

Granted it is apparent that there was never explicit permission given. But I'm guessing adequate permission must have existed or reviewers failed miserably at their job.

If explicit permission is now the standard, then I guess we'll see a mass archival of caches worldwide.

No? Didn't think so.

Who was it that authorized the placement of our game pieces on VDOT property?

I suspect the answer is "No one".

Thus the reason I said the bolded part.

I think these caches existed under the Groundspeak "Wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say no more, don't ask-don't tell" policy. Kinda like the caches in Wally World and grocery store parking lots. This unwritten policy became clear when I submitted those two above mentioned caches for publication. I was prepared to provide names and phone numbers of the persons who gave permission for the hides, yet that was never asked of me. Two caches, clearly placed on private property, and neither one was questioned. From talking to cache owners who have hide-a-keys stuck on guardrails around here, it's clear that they are not being asked either.

VDOT property is not exactly your everyday, run of the mill private property. It may legally be off limits, but I guarantee you that geocachers are not the only people who view sidewalks and such to be public property. I'm not about to go asking someone if I can walk down a sidewalk. Therefore I find it reasonable that someone would not think explicit permission was needed.

Regardless of actual tresspassing or permission issues, it is clear from drdan01's post that the real reason for going to the authorities had to do with neither. He was ticked off with the CO and showed her what for. Congratulations!

Of course technically you are right. If everyone took the time to get explicit permission then they would pretty much be immune to such childish behavior. Glad to see you do get explicit permission for your caches. It would look very bad for a man of the law to have his cache archived for tresspassing.

19k · June 16, 2011

...and managed to get caching banned on all VDOT property.

Was caching ever allowed on VDOT property?

Apparently so. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion about mass archival of caches.

Granted it is apparent that there was never explicit permission given. But I'm guessing adequate permission must have existed or reviewers failed miserably at their job.

If explicit permission is now the standard, then I guess we'll see a mass archival of caches worldwide.

No? Didn't think so.

Who was it that authorized the placement of our game pieces on VDOT property?

I suspect the answer is "No one".

Thus the reason I said the bolded part.

I think these caches existed under the Groundspeak "Wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say no more, don't ask-don't tell" policy. Kinda like the caches in Wally World and grocery store parking lots. This unwritten policy became clear when I submitted those two above mentioned caches for publication. I was prepared to provide names and phone numbers of the persons who gave permission for the hides, yet that was never asked of me. Two caches, clearly placed on private property, and neither one was questioned. From talking to cache owners who have hide-a-keys stuck on guardrails around here, it's clear that they are not being asked either.

VDOT property is not exactly your everyday, run of the mill private property. It may legally be off limits, but I guarantee you that geocachers are not the only people who view sidewalks and such to be public property. I'm not about to go asking someone if I can walk down a sidewalk. Therefore I find it reasonable that someone would not think explicit permission was needed.

Regardless of actual tresspassing or permission issues, it is clear from drdan01's post that the real reason for going to the authorities had to do with neither. He was ticked off with the CO and showed her what for. Congratulations!

Of course technically you are right. If everyone took the time to get explicit permission then they would pretty much be immune to such childish behavior. Glad to see you do get explicit permission for your caches. It would look very bad for a man of the law to have his cache archived for tresspassing.

Mostly +1!

However, the examples that CR posted as "explicit permission" really were not that. Those people had no authority to give permission for a geocache. And in this case, permission to hide a geocache on the site shown in those photographs should have been the same as permission required to walk in that mulched garden. None. This is an absolutely ridiculous mess and I am so sorry to see geocaching.com and the reviewer have to be involved in it just because one cacher decided that he had to wake the sleeping giant. Good grief!!

9.3k · June 16, 2011

VDOT property is not exactly your everyday, run of the mill private property.

I would call it public property, since it is owned by the Government, but that's a matter for semantics. Tomato, Tomatoe. The reason I would expect explicit permission is probably work related. I know how sensitive local Government roads departments, and to a much greater degree, the Department of Transportation, can be toward their signs and guardrails. Because of this background, I would never consider slapping a decal on the back of a street sign, even knowing that it does not take away from the effectiveness of the sign one bit. A few seconds with a plastic scraper and there would be no trace of the sticker. But you'll never catch me slapping one on them. I kinda see geocaches in the same light. A bison tube hung between a stop sign and its post causes no problem whatsoever with the sign, yet I would never think of placing one there. For me, they are simply off limits.

Since most people don't have my background, I don't get bent out of shape when I find that someone else doesn't feel the same way, and hides a cache in a street sign. To me, it's just another uninspired cache, and I just shake my head and bring up the next cache in my Garmin.

Was the cache in question really causing a problem? Probably not. While I don't care for sprinkler head caches, and I absolutely abhor caches hidden in delicate landscaping, as I feel both have the potential to lead to unintended damage by careless cachers, I have no evidence that this particular cache was problematic. I still feel the cache owner bears a significant amount of responsibility in this. Had this been along some rarely used side street, I could accept her claim that she didn't think permission was needed. But according to her coords, and Google Earth imagery, (which I know is not perfect), her cache was 4 feet from a 5 lane highway. Can anyone really pretend they didn't know that the right of way extends more than 4 feet? This is clearly an area under VDOT control, and she should have been aware of that. I think a lot of cachers have a cavalier attitude when it comes to permission, and I don't see this as a good thing.

And yes, I agree. This occurred because of a cacher with a score to settle.

That doesn't let the cache owner off the hook though.

If someone went on a vendetta against my hides, the end result would be that all of mine would pass muster. I would not willingly put my Reviewers in a position where they have to archive my hides simply because I couldn't be bothered with getting permission.

Had the owners of the VDOT caches felt the same, we would not be having this discussion.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Clan Riffster

9.3k · June 16, 2011

However, the examples that CR posted as "explicit permission" really were not that.

Just to clarify: I did not believe that the permission I received for those two hides was "explicit". I do, however, feel that the permissions were "adequate". Considering the potential liability any corporation assumes when they specifically allow a particular activity on their properties, I think the only entity capable of giving "explicit" permission would be someone high up at the corporate level. But for "adequate", I think someone in management, at the store in question, is sufficient.

Yes, these are just my thoughts on the matter. I am not a lawyer, not have I played one on TV.

June 16, 2011

Some points to clarify:

1) I didn't wait two weeks to tell anyone about this. I contacted a reviewer the very day I logged the cache to ask about it. That reviewer responded by saying that the reviewer believed the cache was not allowed and would contact TPTB. That reviewer then had a family emergency, and when I heard back from the reviewer and that the reviewer said that no response had been received from TPTB, I started asking questions. And after getting the answers about two weeks later I then had to follow up with another reviewer.

2) The pictures that the CO provided are not pictures of THE cache. But it was a real cute thing to provide pictures of what was not the actual issue.

Here below are pictures of THE cache and the sign that it was placed inside of. The CO instead provided pictures of the replacement cache, which was real cute in that it left you thinking that darn this was just a little old sprinkler head cache tucked away in some bushes, but not really the issue at all - and NOT the issue that I raised.

I raised the issue, the sanity, of having a cache located within what VDOT says is breakaway hole (or used to assist in removing the sign) near the base of a sign that was probably less than two feet from the curb (note the car going by in the top picture and a good sense of the proximity of the curb in the bottom picture). That sprinkler cache that the CO provided pictures of here would be the one when after having been told to not have a cache on VDOT property, was placed as a replacement cache that was ALSO on VDOT property. (Oh yeah, you probably might want to read below para. 6 which discusses this further.)

I wonder what VDOT's reaction was to their request to not place a cache on their property only to learn that first the CO was going to put a replacement container back in the sign...causing them to send their first letter...but then after they issued their first letter saying stop, that instead someone approved her putting another cache at the same location?

Oh, I remember what their reaction was- they had to have their lawyer (Attorney General) send a demand letter (the second letter) that spelled out the exact consequences of continuing to put caches on their property or property they control.

3) And let's not forget that the CO ALSO had another cache nearby like the one in the below pictures (I've been told it was like this one, I didn't see it but apparently VDOT did and said it was in the sign), and the CO also didn't remove it when requested by the first letter.

4) Much seems to be made about walking down a sidewalk. This wasn't about that and I don't believe that VDOT has said a single thing about sidewalks. My own understanding of this seems to be a pretty easy one. It doesn't matter if you're walking down a sidewalk, but when you reach onto VDOT property (or anyone's property you've been told to stay out of) that's what would probably be trespassing. To claim otherwise is like saying you didn't steal from a store when you reached through a broken window and took something from the store.

5) And no, according to VDOT there NEVER has been permission to "play" (their term for this) with or on their property. The issue is probably a lot more about cachers just doing it without even considering whether it would or could or should be okay. It's like a cache in this area that had recently been placed AT THE AIRPORT. Or the one at the base of a municipal watertower. Or on the fire hydrant. Who would do that? In this day? Yet they happened as well. Who would think that they had permission for those? Common sense should have prevailed, but it apparently doesn't.

6) To be fair, I don't believe that the reviewers knew that the cache was located in the highway sign. Not when it was placed and approved. But they certainly knew about it when they were told about this situation.

(BTW: The same reviewer who unarchived the VDOT sign cache is also the one who was told that the cache at the airport was absolutely on airport property, but instead ignored that after some cachers said that they were sure it was okay - yeah, they just said it, sure it's fine putting a cache nearby the sign that warns you that you're on airport property - and some of those are the same ones NOW complaining about VDOT. But it actually took the airport authority having a meeting to discuss the cache, and police were notified, and then after that TPTB were notified that the cache must be removed, that the cache was then rescinded by TPTB. Yes, this really happened.)

In this VDOT sign situation, both a reviewer AND TPTB knew about the VDOT property issue when the CO was told by TPTB that it was okay to go ahead and put in the sprinkler cache adjacent to the base of the sign. I know that because I told them myself - that that area was also, according to VDOT, on their property. In fact I sent to TPTB pictures of the cache, of the bushes and showed them to be next to the sign, and told them that this was also VDOT property. And I also told them that the CO apparently had another nearby similar cache. All sent in an email to Appeals.

Clearly reviewers don't know everything, always. But in this case people knew. And as far as I know, and according to VDOT, nobody contacted them to ask a question or to clarify or whatever. So what then was the decision that granted the appeal based upon? What permission was believed to exist at that point? Or was this about someone trying to tell TPTB that this was someone picking on them?

June 16, 2011

And yes, I agree. This occurred because of a cacher with a score to settle.

You make some great points, especially about the proximity and that nobody could or should have believed that it was okay. But this is not about a score to settle.

Every single time a cache in our area is published, I then look at the listing. Why? I've seen quite a few caches that are not allowed to be where they were approved to be at. I've cited just a few of those examples in my above two posts. I turned each and every one of those in. I have said and will say it again, I am involved in local crime prevention activities in an official capacity. I have listened to police and other agencies express concern over caches here in our area. IMHO, it is only a matter of time before we have a "situation" that is going to end up in the news. And so when I see a cache that is to my understanding in a place that it isn't allowed to be, I'm going to notify someone. And I did nothing less with this cache, regardless of who the CO is. I only explained why I believed that this CO in particular would be less than receptive, and in fact I appear to have been right. In fact, it is my experience that in general it seems more CO's are likely to tell you to mind your own business if you try to discuss it with them first. Maybe your mileage varies, but that's been my experience. And apparently at least one reviewer agrees as that reviewer has said time and time again to send things like this directly to the reviewer or in the alternate (if that reviewer is unavailable), to log a NA. Which is exactly what I did.

So please don't suggest that this was a score to settle. I did nothing more and nothing less than I have in EVERY similar situation.

10.2k · June 16, 2011

Clearly wrong, per Dr. D's pictures. Heck, even putting it in a "landscaping" is "wrong", although I'm sure there's nothing in the guidelines about that.

June 16, 2011

But according to her coords, and Google Earth imagery, (which I know is not perfect), her cache was 4 feet from a 5 lane highway. Can anyone really pretend they didn't know that the right of way extends more than 4 feet? This is clearly an area under VDOT control, and she should have been aware of that. I think a lot of cachers have a cavalier attitude when it comes to permission, and I don't see this as a good thing.

Just to clarify, the actual distance is much less than that and you can't quite understand that from the Google picture alone. You're measuring the distance from the black portion of the roadway. In your picture, the correct distance to measure from would be the curb/gutter, which is the white thing to the right of the blacktop, as that's actually still in the roadway. The picture sort of makes it look like a line or such. That's why I was saying that the sign and that area are just about two feet from the road.

I agree completely though about the cavalier attitude and I think that this is exactly what causes so many problems, and is possibly the issue here. Instead of the CO admitting that this just isn't really a safe place for a cache, the fight begins. This is a whole lot about someone believing (apparently) that they are not to be questioned. And that's been the case with the other caches I mentioned. I'll say it again, a cache AT THE AIRPORT! And I've been made the scapegoat simply because apparently at least some cachers with that attitude don't truly care about permission and the don't like being challenged. Heck, her first public response to this whole issue was to -- as you suggested -- with a cavalier attitude dismiss all this by my being a cacher with little experience. Apparently I have enough experience to understand not putting a cache inside of a highway sign. And I'd bet a box of doughnuts that the CO didn't happen to mention to the original reviewer who first approved the cache that it was located in a highway sign two feet from the road.

June 16, 2011

... and the other one?

How about a better question -- did the CO have permission to dig the hole that the fake sprinkler head is sitting inside of? Aside from any VDOT issues, I thought that the guidelines precluded digging any holes for the placement of caches?

June 16, 2011

I have listened to police and other agencies express concern over caches here in our area.

Really? And there concern was that people were leaving the sidewalk to stand by street signs? The officers that I have seen while caching don't seem to have the same concerns. They seem to view caching as a harmless, if eccentric, activity. I can see them being worried about a container under a bridge or on airport property, but a street sign?

This whole fiasco brings to mind the image of a law abiding citizen walking in to the AG's office to request written permission to sit on a park bench. When they are told no such permit exists, they start calling the police because people are sitting on park benches :rolleyes:

June 16, 2011

I have listened to police and other agencies express concern over caches here in our area.

Really? And there concern was that people were leaving the sidewalk to stand by street signs? The officers that I have seen while caching don't seem to have the same concerns. They seem to view caching as a harmless, if eccentric, activity. I can see them being worried about a container under a bridge or on airport property, but a street sign?

This whole fiasco brings to mind the image of a law abiding citizen walking in to the AG's office to request written permission to sit on a park bench. When they are told no such permit exists, they start calling the police because people are sitting on park benches

Aw come on now, you know that I didn't say that. You seem to be trying to make an issue out of standing next to a sign while disregarding the entire situation. A LEO notices someone crouching next to a highway sign and turns their vehicle around to investigate. Upon further investigation the LEO notices what appears to be a small metal section of pipe with caps at both ends inserted into the sign. What do you think is going to happen next? I predict it would possibly become a story on the news about a bomb squad destroying something that looked like a pipe bomb.

The issue has to do with both the activity and the location. As was posted way above regarding the other cache discussion that jumped on this one - no driver is expecting to see someone rooting around in the area around the base of a highway sign located two feet from the roadway. It's not like there is a big sign saying, "geocache located here" and so someone is going to be searching around the area. Are you seriously suggesting that this wouldn't look suspicious?

Regarding LEOs not having concerns -- I bet that if they knew what was going on, they probably don't. But I've spent about 40 hours riding with LEOs and not a one of them knew what a geocache was until we talked about it. They instead discussed that they were going by an area because they'd had reports of suspicious activity. And then I explained that there was a geocache there. But more than one LEO has described a situation where they were much more concerned by finding someone doing something where they weren't expected to be, late at night and even in areas known by LEOs to be drug trafficing areas. That's just plain stupid, IMHO.

Edited June 16, 2011 by drdan01

VDOT and guardrails

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment