Jump to content

VDOT and guardrails


va griz

Recommended Posts

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. :ph34r:

 

What I meant by using the word, "explicit" was that it was more than "implicit", or assumed permission, so we are in agreement there.

Link to comment

74d1f69e-8725-4230-bf1d-c249a7a1044f.jpg

21997f4e-58e4-4d7c-b623-460d5c0bf28f.jpg

2089336b-025f-4478-89f2-4482495f10c4.jpg

 

... 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?

 

I am stunned about how you can be so right, and yet so wrong at the same time.

Link to comment

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:

 

My dog pees on street signs (and... gasp! fire-fighting equipment, too!). I sure hope I can't be arrested or fined for allowing that to happen!

Link to comment

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.

 

I could understand if this whole thing was due to you thinking that the CO had drilled a hole in the sign. If that were the case I would back you up because everyone should know not to deface anyone's property to hide a cache. But you already admitted that it was in a breakaway hole.

 

You know what? The more you post the more I am so happy I don't live near you.

 

So instead of this being a score to settle, it's really because you make a point of policing every hide you come across!

 

I just hope that all cachers near you know by now that it is in their best interest to go above and beyond the guidelines. They had better be dotting all their I's and crossing all their T's because when they post that cache you will be right there scrutinizing every aspect. And if it doesn't hold muster, then you will go right past them and straight to the person that gets you the most bang for your buck.

 

If you really wanted to be helpful you could accomplish the same thing with an NA. I'm sorry, but this still smells of vindictiveness. Maybe not towards one single cacher, but worse, to the entire game.

Link to comment

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.

 

I could understand if this whole thing was due to you thinking that the CO had drilled a hole in the sign. If that were the case I would back you up because everyone should know not to deface anyone's property to hide a cache. But you already admitted that it was in a breakaway hole.

 

You know what? The more you post the more I am so happy I don't live near you.

 

So instead of this being a score to settle, it's really because you make a point of policing every hide you come across!

 

I just hope that all cachers near you know by now that it is in their best interest to go above and beyond the guidelines. They had better be dotting all their I's and crossing all their T's because when they post that cache you will be right there scrutinizing every aspect. And if it doesn't hold muster, then you will go right past them and straight to the person that gets you the most bang for your buck.

 

If you really wanted to be helpful you could accomplish the same thing with an NA. I'm sorry, but this still smells of vindictiveness. Maybe not towards one single cacher, but worse, to the entire game.

 

So this is now moving in the direction of ad hominem posts?

 

I do hope that you will actually go back at some point and read posts because what you post seems to indicate that you don't.

- I didn't know that was what the hole was. That's what VDOT told me.

- You say that I'd be helpful by using an NA - and that's EXACTLY what I did do, I submitted an NA. It was only after the CO deleted it, threatened to sue me. and clearly wasn't going to move the cache that I went forward.

 

And thanks for the unnecessary hyperbole about scrutinizing every aspect of a cache listing, as I never said that. I indicated that at least around here it's become necessary to actually look at cache placements to see if they are obviously located in places that they shouldn't be -- because that seems to happen a lot.

Link to comment

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:

 

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.

 

You mentioned police concerns in an explanation of why you investigated this cache. You didn't mean caches that looked like pipe bombs because this cache didn't look like that. Yes, cachers looks suspicious when they are poking around, but they look that way for ALL caches, not just the ones without enough permission. In these forums many have told of the police being called when a cacher was seen at a cache with proper permission. So unless your point is geocaching looks too suspicious to be done in public, I am missing your point. I know it couldn't have been the safety of that cache because you didn't find it dangerous enough to stop looking for it.

Link to comment

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.

 

I could understand if this whole thing was due to you thinking that the CO had drilled a hole in the sign. If that were the case I would back you up because everyone should know not to deface anyone's property to hide a cache. But you already admitted that it was in a breakaway hole.

 

You know what? The more you post the more I am so happy I don't live near you.

 

So instead of this being a score to settle, it's really because you make a point of policing every hide you come across!

 

I just hope that all cachers near you know by now that it is in their best interest to go above and beyond the guidelines. They had better be dotting all their I's and crossing all their T's because when they post that cache you will be right there scrutinizing every aspect. And if it doesn't hold muster, then you will go right past them and straight to the person that gets you the most bang for your buck.

 

If you really wanted to be helpful you could accomplish the same thing with an NA. I'm sorry, but this still smells of vindictiveness. Maybe not towards one single cacher, but worse, to the entire game.

 

So this is now moving in the direction of ad hominem posts?

 

I do hope that you will actually go back at some point and read posts because what you post seems to indicate that you don't.

- I didn't know that was what the hole was. That's what VDOT told me.

- You say that I'd be helpful by using an NA - and that's EXACTLY what I did do, I submitted an NA. It was only after the CO deleted it, threatened to sue me. and clearly wasn't going to move the cache that I went forward.

 

And thanks for the unnecessary hyperbole about scrutinizing every aspect of a cache listing, as I never said that. I indicated that at least around here it's become necessary to actually look at cache placements to see if they are obviously located in places that they shouldn't be -- because that seems to happen a lot.

 

It didn't matter one bit that the cache owner deleted the NA log. The reviewer was notified the moment you posted it. That was the point where you should have dropped this and left it in the capable hands of the reviewer.

 

I sure didn't think that mresoteric was too far off the mark regarding his perception of you policing caches... that's pretty much the way I saw it, as well, and he and I don't generally seem to see things eye-to-eye.

Link to comment

 

You mentioned police concerns in an explanation of why you investigated this cache. You didn't mean caches that looked like pipe bombs because this cache didn't look like that. Yes, cachers looks suspicious when they are poking around, but they look that way for ALL caches, not just the ones without enough permission. In these forums many have told of the police being called when a cacher was seen at a cache with proper permission. So unless your point is geocaching looks too suspicious to be done in public, I am missing your point. I know it couldn't have been the safety of that cache because you didn't find it dangerous enough to stop looking for it.

 

No I didn't. You're changing your argument as you're going along. I did not say that I investigated this cache because of police concerns.

 

And yes, you apparently are missing the point -- especially when you suggest that this cache didn't look like a pipe bomb. Let's see, a 4" x 1.75" (approximate) piece of pipe with threaded ends, sticking in a sign post. What would your definition be of "that looks like a pipe bomb?"

Link to comment

 

It didn't matter one bit that the cache owner deleted the NA log. The reviewer was notified the moment you posted it. That was the point where you should have dropped this and left it in the capable hands of the reviewer.

 

I sure didn't think that mresoteric was too far off the mark regarding his perception of you policing caches... that's pretty much the way I saw it, as well, and he and I don't generally seem to see things eye-to-eye.

 

Thanks for buzzing in, but wrong answer!

 

As I laid out above, the reviewer did not follow-up. One reviewer that first looked at it was away. The second reviewer then unarchived the cache even though it was still on what VDOT said was their property and even though the reviewer and TPTB had been informed of that. Is it your suggestion then that despite them doing what VDOT expressly said not to do and what was not allowed, that I "should have dropped this"??? If so, that's an pretty myopic view of what to do in situations where you know that something is absolutely wrong. And in fact, that is ultimately most likely why VDOT did what they did -- because left in the hands of the reviewer, it was then improperly dropped (not my opinion, but that is what VDOT's opinion was).

 

Just to make certain that this doesn't become yet another whole issue -- I'm not slamming the many great reviewers out there who put in tons of thankless hours of volunteer work.

Link to comment

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.

 

I could understand if this whole thing was due to you thinking that the CO had drilled a hole in the sign. If that were the case I would back you up because everyone should know not to deface anyone's property to hide a cache. But you already admitted that it was in a breakaway hole.

 

You know what? The more you post the more I am so happy I don't live near you.

 

So instead of this being a score to settle, it's really because you make a point of policing every hide you come across!

 

I just hope that all cachers near you know by now that it is in their best interest to go above and beyond the guidelines. They had better be dotting all their I's and crossing all their T's because when they post that cache you will be right there scrutinizing every aspect. And if it doesn't hold muster, then you will go right past them and straight to the person that gets you the most bang for your buck.

 

If you really wanted to be helpful you could accomplish the same thing with an NA. I'm sorry, but this still smells of vindictiveness. Maybe not towards one single cacher, but worse, to the entire game.

 

So this is now moving in the direction of ad hominem posts?

 

I do hope that you will actually go back at some point and read posts because what you post seems to indicate that you don't.

- I didn't know that was what the hole was. That's what VDOT told me.

- You say that I'd be helpful by using an NA - and that's EXACTLY what I did do, I submitted an NA. It was only after the CO deleted it, threatened to sue me. and clearly wasn't going to move the cache that I went forward.

 

And thanks for the unnecessary hyperbole about scrutinizing every aspect of a cache listing, as I never said that. I indicated that at least around here it's become necessary to actually look at cache placements to see if they are obviously located in places that they shouldn't be -- because that seems to happen a lot.

 

I read every word you wrote, including the part where you said you look at each and every listing because you've seen a lot of caches that were not allowed to be where they were approved to be and that you turn those in too.

 

I also read "VDOT says is breakaway hole" but did not see any mention that your concern was that he CO drilled a hole.

 

I saw you write that you posted an NA. I also saw that you didn't let the system do its job. An owner can delete all the NA's they want. If the REVIEWER decides that it is improperly placed the owner can belly ache and refuse to remove a cache all day long. The reviewer will still archive it.

 

Frankly, before you posted, I was under the impression that this was just a little tiff between two cachers. But it is abundantly clear to me that this is about one person that has taken it upon himself to police everyone's caches and if they don't hold up to scrutinity, then watch out.

 

Just don't come looking for caches in New Jersey. While Virginia is probably very thankful for your helpfulness, we Jerseyites are fine working with each other and the reviewers.

Link to comment

 

And yes, you apparently are missing the point -- especially when you suggest that this cache didn't look like a pipe bomb. Let's see, a 4" x 1.75" (approximate) piece of pipe with threaded ends, sticking in a sign post. What would your definition be of "that looks like a pipe bomb?"

 

Does this look like a bomb?

 

sign3.jpg

 

NO!

Link to comment

It didn't matter one bit that the cache owner deleted the NA log. The reviewer was notified the moment you posted it. That was the point where you should have dropped this and left it in the capable hands of the reviewer.

 

I sure didn't think that mresoteric was too far off the mark regarding his perception of you policing caches... that's pretty much the way I saw it, as well, and he and I don't generally seem to see things eye-to-eye.

 

Thanks for buzzing in, but wrong answer!

 

As I laid out above, the reviewer did not follow-up. One reviewer that first looked at it was away. The second reviewer then unarchived the cache even though it was still on what VDOT said was their property and even though the reviewer and TPTB had been informed of that. Is it your suggestion then that despite them doing what VDOT expressly said not to do and what was not allowed, that I "should have dropped this"??? If so, that's an pretty myopic view of what to do in situations where you know that something is absolutely wrong. And in fact, that is ultimately most likely why VDOT did what they did -- because left in the hands of the reviewer, it was then improperly dropped (not my opinion, but that is what VDOT's opinion was).

 

Just to make certain that this doesn't become yet another whole issue -- I'm not slamming the many great reviewers out there who put in tons of thankless hours of volunteer work.

No... you are wrong. The reviewer was notified by the NA log. At that point, it was no longer any of your business. You did your part, you should have just walked away.

Link to comment

I've found that cache, and as your own photo shows, it is not metal pipe.

 

OK, we agree I am missing your point. So let's clear it up, why did you call VDOT?

 

So you can see that it is or is not a metal pipe? Oh, but there is the point that I never said it was a metal pipe, did I? No. I said it looked like a pipe. It clearly is a piece of pipe, with threaded ends and end caps on it underneath the wooden plugs.

 

I called VDOT because the original reviewer said that the cache shouldn't be there, and then was away on family problems. Absent that reviewer I then asked who I believed owned the sign - which would be VDOT. The second reviewer then asked me to get additional information from VDOT.

Link to comment

 

And yes, you apparently are missing the point -- especially when you suggest that this cache didn't look like a pipe bomb. Let's see, a 4" x 1.75" (approximate) piece of pipe with threaded ends, sticking in a sign post. What would your definition be of "that looks like a pipe bomb?"

 

Does this look like a bomb?

 

sign3.jpg

 

NO!

 

To Mr. E., no. I won't go all "you only joined 4 months ago on you", but many a film canister has been blown up all over North America by bomb squads. No need to post a picture of one. :D

Link to comment

It didn't matter one bit that the cache owner deleted the NA log. The reviewer was notified the moment you posted it. That was the point where you should have dropped this and left it in the capable hands of the reviewer.

 

I sure didn't think that mresoteric was too far off the mark regarding his perception of you policing caches... that's pretty much the way I saw it, as well, and he and I don't generally seem to see things eye-to-eye.

 

Thanks for buzzing in, but wrong answer!

 

As I laid out above, the reviewer did not follow-up. One reviewer that first looked at it was away. The second reviewer then unarchived the cache even though it was still on what VDOT said was their property and even though the reviewer and TPTB had been informed of that. Is it your suggestion then that despite them doing what VDOT expressly said not to do and what was not allowed, that I "should have dropped this"??? If so, that's an pretty myopic view of what to do in situations where you know that something is absolutely wrong. And in fact, that is ultimately most likely why VDOT did what they did -- because left in the hands of the reviewer, it was then improperly dropped (not my opinion, but that is what VDOT's opinion was).

 

Just to make certain that this doesn't become yet another whole issue -- I'm not slamming the many great reviewers out there who put in tons of thankless hours of volunteer work.

 

No... you are wrong. The reviewer was notified by the NA log. At that point, it was no longer any of your business. You did your part, you should have just walked away.

 

No, you are wrong. Where does it say that it is none of anyone's business simply because a NA was submitted. That isn't a "drill" or exercise that you go through, just so say, "whew, there I did my part and so now I can safely ignore anything else." If that were done, we'd still have a CACHE AT THE AIRPPORT. The point is that a NA is submitted because there is a problem with the cache. Just because a reviewer and others chose to ignore VDOT's request doesn't mean that "it's now all A-okay! Back to life!" VDOT said no cache there. There was a cache there. Period.

 

This is exactly why I had initially said I wasn't even going to monitor this thread. Unfortunately a friend who happens to be a reviewer pointed out some of the replies, and so I jumped in to address the misstatements. Clearly this is a waste of time. So as they say, "roger, out."

Link to comment

 

And yes, you apparently are missing the point -- especially when you suggest that this cache didn't look like a pipe bomb. Let's see, a 4" x 1.75" (approximate) piece of pipe with threaded ends, sticking in a sign post. What would your definition be of "that looks like a pipe bomb?"

 

Does this look like a bomb?

 

sign3.jpg

 

NO!

 

To Mr. E., no. I won't go all "you only joined 4 months ago on you", but many a film canister has been blown up all over North America by bomb squads. No need to post a picture of one. :D

 

+1

Link to comment

 

I called VDOT because the original reviewer said that the cache shouldn't be there, and then was away on family problems. Absent that reviewer I then asked who I believed owned the sign - which would be VDOT. The second reviewer then asked me to get additional information from VDOT.

 

So this matter was SO pressing that you didn't have time to let that reviewer deal with it when he returned from family problems.

 

And even if that reviewer told you to go fly a kite there is appeals@geocaching.com which would work with you.

 

Now if you appealed to Groundspeak and THEY told you to go fly a kite, then by all means VDOT would have been appropriate.

Link to comment

 

And yes, you apparently are missing the point -- especially when you suggest that this cache didn't look like a pipe bomb. Let's see, a 4" x 1.75" (approximate) piece of pipe with threaded ends, sticking in a sign post. What would your definition be of "that looks like a pipe bomb?"

 

Does this look like a bomb?

 

sign3.jpg

 

NO!

 

To Mr. E., no. I won't go all "you only joined 4 months ago on you", but many a film canister has been blown up all over North America by bomb squads. No need to post a picture of one. :D

 

Yes, I've read about quite a few ignorant bomb squad incidents. You don't have to be around more than 4 months for that.

 

I also have eyes and can see clearly that the container is made of pvc and there is a geocaching sticker on that container and logic tells me that terrorists have no interest in blowing up street signs.

Link to comment

 

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.

 

Fixed it for you.

 

No need to fix my sentence. I wrote what I meant to write. If you have an opposing opinion then you are free to express it yourself.

Link to comment

 

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.

 

Fixed it for you.

 

No need to fix my sentence. I wrote what I meant to write. If you have an opposing opinion then you are free to express it yourself.

 

If you really wanted to fix it you should have added "or were not allowed sufficient time to follow up on a complaint by another geocacher".

Link to comment
...I then had to follow up with another reviewer.

Here's where it becomes clear that you are on some kind of mission. As cachers, I feel we all have an obligation to report caches that we feel are going to cause problems. In the excitement of placing a cache, sometimes our brains take a vacation, and it's good to have our peers approach with their common sense still intact. If I had found a cache hidden in the breakaway hole of a DOT owned sign, about a foot from a busy, 5 lane highway, I would have been concerned as well. I might have gone so far as to send a private email to the Reviewer who published it, to let them know my concerns.

 

You did that.

 

In my opinion, at that point, your job is done. You have satisfied any moral compunction that cachers might have to police themselves. But that obviously was not enough for you. You didn't get the satisfaction you needed, so you took it to the next level. You even felt that you couldn't continue your discussion with the Reviewer who you originally notified, and felt compelled to go behind their back, reporting the issue to another Reviewer.

 

That smells of Jihad.

 

While I don't concur with the majority of the folks from Virginia who are bashing you, claiming you were targeting the owner of that specific cache, (just paranoid nonsense), I do feel that you felt slighted when the situation was not resolved to your satisfaction the first time you brought it up, and you decided to go postal on all the VDOT caches.

 

I should repeat that this is just my opinion, which I formed based upon what you wrote.

 

It is in no way meant to insult or antagonize, though I understand and apologize if you take it that way.

Link to comment

I also have eyes and can see clearly that the container is made of pvc and there is a geocaching sticker on that container and logic tells me that terrorists have no interest in blowing up street signs.

 

Of course logic did not stop California transportation workers from calling in the bomb squad when they found a film can in or around a highway sign in a very rural area . . .

 

But with that noted, it would have been nice if everyone involved could have taken a deep breath early into the process. A classic illustration of how things can escalate.

Link to comment

I also have eyes and can see clearly that the container is made of pvc and there is a geocaching sticker on that container and logic tells me that terrorists have no interest in blowing up street signs.

 

Of course logic did not stop California transportation workers from calling in the bomb squad when they found a film can in or around a highway sign in a very rural area . . .

 

But with that noted, it would have been nice if everyone involved could have taken a deep breath early into the process. A classic illustration of how things can escalate.

 

I've read of non-bomb looking caches placed with explicit permission being blown up.

 

And if one were to concede that this was a very suspicious looking cache that looked like a pipe bomb, it still doesn't explain drdan's actions.

 

Once he reported the cache he received the response he wanted from the reviewer. But because the reviewer could not act immediately due to some family issues, drdan went straight to VDOT when appeals@geocaching.com would have been sufficient.

 

What really bothers me about this thread is that I feel like we're feeding the guy. It seems to me he's enjoying the extra attention and I'm appalled that he's getting any at all for what he's done.

Link to comment

I think the cache in the sign is pretty cool.

 

However, it IS in an inappropriate location and not a very good idea.

 

It also takes a real man to stand up and do what they feel is right in the face of animosity, and openly admit it. There ia no backbone in anyone that goes along with the crowd and perpetuates an idea that eventually will cause problems simply because "it's always been done like that".

Link to comment

And if one were to concede that this was a very suspicious looking cache that looked like a pipe bomb, it still doesn't explain drdan's actions.

 

Once he reported the cache he received the response he wanted from the reviewer. But because the reviewer could not act immediately due to some family issues, drdan went straight to VDOT when appeals@geocaching.com would have been sufficient.

 

What really bothers me about this thread is that I feel like we're feeding the guy. It seems to me he's enjoying the extra attention and I'm appalled that he's getting any at all for what he's done.

 

No, not even close. It seems that you take random words and make your own sentences out of them. But that doesn't mean that's what I said or what I did.

 

What's bothering me is that I'm going to have to ignore emails telling me what some [insert your own witty comment] has posted.

 

For those apparently yet unable to read (such as this poster) -- I didn't run to VDOT. I reported it to the first reviewer. When the first reviewer was unable to have the time to deal with any geocaching issues, that reviewer suggested that I could send it to Appeals and/or post the NA and/or take it to the other reviewer for our area. So to recap for those that leap without reading - the first reviewer asked me to contact the second reviewer. The second reviewer asked me to get additional information from VDOT. And I then SENT all of that to Appeals as one of the reviewers suggested. And when the cache didn't get archived, it was VDOT who took action. I didn't. VDOT saw that the cache wasn't archived (you understand the concept of the internet and public available content, yes?), and VDOT took action.

 

So, one more time as some obviously don't read:

- I contacted the first reviewer

- First reviewer was going to take it to TPTB

- First reviewer then had family emergency

- First reviewer suggested follow-up with Appeals or with second reviewer or submit NA (my choice, just her suggestions)

- I then submitted the NA

- I then contacted the second reviewer as the first was still unavailable (with nobody knowing when she would return) as that second reviewer was handling the NA

- I then provided the VDOT provided information to the second reviewer

- Second reviewer then asked me to assist by recontacting VDOT

- I recontacted VDOT and then provided the requested information to both the second reviewer and to Appeals. In fact I even also sent it to the first reviewer who I believe replied saying she was still busy with the emergency and that I'd sent it to the right people.

- And when I found out that the cache was simply being relocated from the sign to the other VDOT right-of-way, I then sent an email to Appeals and pointed that out.

 

And that's the end of it. VDOT saw that the cache wasn't archived. VDOT saw that the other identical cache was still active. So again (as some can't or won't or don't apparently read), I didn't ask for VDOT to do anything. VDOT took their own action.

Link to comment

I just discovered a cache that borders people's backyards and is also by a parking lot of a business. At first I thought it might be well hidden but in a log it says that someone noticed the suspicious activity. Clearly this needs to be archived. GC2B5WB (note its premium only). :mellow:

 

Gee, thanks for bringing another cache not related to the discussion into the mix. But no, it doesn't say anything about someone noticing suspicious activity - if you actually READ the log you can see that was said as a joke from one cacher to another who was arriving.

 

But thanks much for arm-chair caching from Ontario to "discover(ed)" the cache!

Link to comment

The real question here is, "Are you happy with what you have accomplished?"

 

Im guessing he will ignore your post like he did mine.

 

I thought that the way that it worked is that you ignore things that aren't relevant. That clearly wasn't the "real" question of this discussion and it isn't relevant in any way. I think that it was a stupid question. A question asked by someone uninformed. A question asked by someone who's sky is clearly not colored the same blue as mine. But not a real question.

Link to comment

I just discovered a cache that borders people's backyards and is also by a parking lot of a business. At first I thought it might be well hidden but in a log it says that someone noticed the suspicious activity. Clearly this needs to be archived. GC2B5WB (note its premium only). :mellow:

 

Gee, thanks for bringing another cache not related to the discussion into the mix. But no, it doesn't say anything about someone noticing suspicious activity - if you actually READ the log you can see that was said as a joke from one cacher to another who was arriving.

 

But thanks much for arm-chair caching from Ontario to "discover(ed)" the cache!

 

Your right, clearly I should investigate further and contact local authorities. Surely there is some sort of privacy ordinance that could be getting broken here.

Link to comment

The real question here is, "Are you happy with what you have accomplished?"

 

Im guessing he will ignore your post like he did mine.

 

I thought that the way that it worked is that you ignore things that aren't relevant. That clearly wasn't the "real" question of this discussion and it isn't relevant in any way. I think that it was a stupid question. A question asked by someone uninformed. A question asked by someone who's sky is clearly not colored the same blue as mine. But not a real question.

 

Ignoring people that are not relevant isn't a good thing to do. Then that person might just go to extremes to make sure they are relevant. So relevant, in fact, that every cacher in a state sits up and takes notice at what they've done.

 

Thank God my sky is not colored the same blue as yours. I like to think I see all the shades of blue.

Link to comment

The real question here is, "Are you happy with what you have accomplished?"

 

Im guessing he will ignore your post like he did mine.

 

I thought that the way that it worked is that you ignore things that aren't relevant. That clearly wasn't the "real" question of this discussion and it isn't relevant in any way. I think that it was a stupid question. A question asked by someone uninformed. A question asked by someone who's sky is clearly not colored the same blue as mine. But not a real question.

 

I thought the things worked is not to be rude to other geocachers on the forums. How you came to the conclusion that I am uniformed when I simply asked a question is beyond anybody but you. Exactly what part am I uniformed about, other than knowing if you are proud or not?

 

Its a simple question, are you proud of yourself for doing this or not? Im sure you can type a few letters for us.

 

Yes or no.

Link to comment

I called VDOT because the original reviewer said that the cache shouldn't be there, and then was away on family problems. Absent that reviewer I then asked who I believed owned the sign - which would be VDOT. The second reviewer then asked me to get additional information from VDOT.

If the reviewer belieed that the cache was improperly placed, why did you contact VDOT? At that point, you could have simply forwarded the reviewer's prior email to a fill-in reviewer or TPTB. Another alternative would be to wait until the reviewer's personal issues were resolved.

 

Frankly, I can understand how someone like you would contact VDOT if the reviewer had told you that the cache was fine, but not given that he told you that the cache was not kosher.

Link to comment

In my previous unanswered question I asked why you contacted VDOT. But I just re-read your first post and see that you contacted the state police first. Am I correct that the reason was for that was you were worried about the placement giving geocaching a black eye because of the lack of permission?

Link to comment

- First reviewer suggested follow-up with Appeals or with second reviewer or submit NA

- Second reviewer then asked me to assist by recontacting VDOT

No problems up to that point. You saw a concern and acted on it, notifying TPTB.

After that, you were simply doing what the Reviewers, and VDOT asked of you.

- And when I found out that the cache was simply being relocated from the sign to the other VDOT right-of-way, I then sent an email to Appeals and pointed that out.

Here's the point where many feel you turned this into your own private war. You had already made TPTB aware that VDOT didn't want geocaches on their signs, or anywhere else in their right of ways. Your job was done. You could have walked away with your head held high, secure in the knowledge that TPTB would handle the issue as they saw fit. But when the cache reappeared, in a slightly different spot, you were incensed because everything you had reported had been ignored. You just had to keep pushing. (At least that's how the haters see things)

 

Is continuing to push the issue a bad thing? I'm not sure it is. If I provided a Reviewer with detailed information from a property owner, explicitly stating that they did not want geocaches on their property, and that Reviewer decided to ignore what I provided, that would put me in a pickle. On one hand, I could play the "Wink-wink, Nudge-nudge, Say no more" card, ignoring the fact that a property owner's rights were deliberately being ignored, or I could follow my conscience, maintaining the principle that property owners, like land managers, should have their wishes followed, for the overall betterment of the game.

 

It's a tough spot to find yourself in.

 

Being bashed from all sides for doing what you felt was right is an even tougher spot.

 

Hopefully the vitriol being dumped on you by those who feel property owners rights should be ignored where P&Gs are concerned, won't cause other potentially conscientious cachers from doing the right thing when they see a cache somewhere that it doesn't belong.

Link to comment

[

Is continuing to push the issue a bad thing? I'm not sure it is.

 

It seems to me that both sides here were doing a bit of pushing. If I had been the CO I would not have deleted the NA log and threatened libel (assuming that is what happened) - or became so attached to a particular location by the side of the road that I would place a sprinkler head hide a few feet away after the first cache was archived. If I had been drdan01, I would have shook my head, mumbled something to myself about these kind of hides, and let it go. But once the VDOT got involved in the process, the results were predictable.

 

There are probably many caches placed in similar situations,where permission has not been tested. And perhaps geocaching would have come to the attention of VDOT officials in any event, just as it has in other areas. As the game becomes increasingly mainstream, it was likely to happen, and I am not sure that the agency's response would have been any different had the matter been presented in other ways.

 

Still, a person could make a full time career out of policing questionable hides. I sometimes ask my clients if this particular spot is where they want to try to draw a line. Again, as a personal matter, I would have satisfied myself with mumbling and left the issue for another day.

Link to comment
Again, as a personal matter, I would have satisfied myself with mumbling and left the issue for another day.

Yeah, me too. One of the mental steps I take before launching any particular agenda is asking myself, "Is it worth it?". In this case, I would be comparing the amount of harm likely to come from such a hide with the potential unintended consequences of alerting some agency outside of Groundspeak. It would require that I suspend my bias against the average P&G and look at the big picture.

 

1 ) Should a cache be at that location?

I don't think so. The property owner doesn't think so.

 

2 ) Is the cache causing any real harm?

I don't think so. Having worked with bureaucracies for several decades, I would be willing to wager that the only reason they said "No" is because they didn't want to assume any possible liability from saying "Yes". If asked, off the record, I'm certain that the vast majority of VDOT upper management would agree that a fake sprinkler head, shoved in a bit of landscaping, isn't harming a soul. Unfortunately, in today's lawsuit happy times, they don't have that option.

 

Weighing the pro against the con, I would have just walked away and let Groundspeak worry about it.

Link to comment

I can tell you for sure that what this user has done has caused alot of grief in my area. One cacher archived their listing that were on sidewalks, and they know VDOT rules. Not just you average geocacher here, but a retired VDOT inspector. One other VDOT employee that had nice caches for kids to seek around the VDOT HQ's in the area, they are archived now too. When I went to relocate some of my guardrail hides, they were MIA already. IMO this was a personial war that many users like myself were the losers in. :mad:

Link to comment
IMO this was a personial war that many users like myself were the losers in.

In my opinion, the only ones who lost were those cachers who were so petulant that they would archive their caches, (which they, at the time of archival knew were placed somewhere they were unwelcome), rather than move them the twenty or so feet required to get them off of the right of way. I have little compassion for folks who embrace the attitude of, "I'll take my ball and go home". I'm glad to see you didn't subscribe to such childish behavior.

 

Why folks feel the need to be angry over this utterly escapes me.

 

If I heard news that a land manager did not want caches on their property, I would simply remove them from their property. Whether it was a Wherigo that took 2 weeks to write, and several days to hide, or if it was a simple P&G along a roadway would never factor into it. To me, knowing its presence was unwelcome would suffice.

 

If we're going to expend a lot of energy bashing the guy who started this, let's not forget to reserve at least a little bashing for the aforementioned cache owner who deliberately thumbed her nose at the property owner's wishes, moving her cache from one location on VDOT property to another location on VDOT property. That was spiteful, plain and simple.

Link to comment
If we're going to expend a lot of energy bashing the guy who started this, let's not forget to reserve at least a little bashing for the aforementioned cache owner who deliberately thumbed her nose at the property owner's wishes, moving her cache from one location on VDOT property to another location on VDOT property. That was spiteful, plain and simple.

While DrDan no doubt agrees with you, I'm not sure that you are being accurate. Given that the previous word from reviewers is that guardrail caches would not be allowed, it is certainly possible (perhaps even likely) that the cache owner was told that moving her cache off the sign would be fine. I'm not sure that we can leap to the assumption that she was told that no caches on VDOT managed property were allowable.
Link to comment
IMO this was a personial war that many users like myself were the losers in.

In my opinion, the only ones who lost were those cachers who were so petulant that they would archive their caches, (which they, at the time of archival knew were placed somewhere they were unwelcome), rather than move them the twenty or so feet required to get them off of the right of way. I have little compassion for folks who embrace the attitude of, "I'll take my ball and go home". I'm glad to see you didn't subscribe to such childish behavior.

 

Why folks feel the need to be angry over this utterly escapes me.

 

If I heard news that a land manager did not want caches on their property, I would simply remove them from their property. Whether it was a Wherigo that took 2 weeks to write, and several days to hide, or if it was a simple P&G along a roadway would never factor into it. To me, knowing its presence was unwelcome would suffice.

 

If we're going to expend a lot of energy bashing the guy who started this, let's not forget to reserve at least a little bashing for the aforementioned cache owner who deliberately thumbed her nose at the property owner's wishes, moving her cache from one location on VDOT property to another location on VDOT property. That was spiteful, plain and simple.

I only had a few guardrail hides at some pull-over spots that are highlights along the Daniel Boone Wilderness Trail. Really I'm not fond of guardrail hides. If the Waymarking site was used more, I would not even need the ones that I listed. Geocachers get upset over strange things. Take the ET highway power trail for example. :blink:

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...