Cemetery caches

[+mtn-man]

Some reviewers, see fit to actually allow caches to be placed on actual headstones.

Ironically, when I pass on, I've been one of many cachers to consider a compartment in my headstone for a cache. If I give my permission and the cemetery knows it is there by my wishes, then the reviewer should publish it. Perhaps you should consider that permission might be given.

[Pup Patrol]

This has been, and continues to be a hot topic in geocaching, apparently...my personal experience has been that geocaching, and cemetery visits have led to respectful and memorable visits to historical and thought-provoking encounters; the opportunity to reflect upon the life of pioneers in our country is exactly the kind of remembrance our forefathers would appreciate.

 

My problem with cemetery caches is the extreme capriciousness and inconsistency with which they are administered by the reviewers.....

 

I think most if us agree that a well-placed cemetery cache that brings you respectfully to a cemetery...where you are seeking in and around a tree or shrub or fence...where you also have time to appreciate the serenity and beauty and tradition of the place...that is probable what cache hiding and seeking is all about.

 

Some reviewers, see fit to actually allow caches to be placed on actual headstones. I will specifically call-out the moderating Keystone in this regard. That is absolutely out-of-bounds and unallowable in my opinion. The problem is...even though a geocaching family or individual may actually enjoy allowing their funereal accoutrements to be involved in this pursuit...myself included perhaps...the fact that headstones and personal memorials become "in-bounds" means that uninvolved and potentially disapproving families and family members may be subject to disturbment. The fact that Keystone approves these type of caches at the expense of caches that diligently try to avoid this type of exposure is even more egregious.

 

Although I suspect that no one who caches in his reviewing area would be surprised by this...inconsistency...

 

Just my 2 cents...

 

Gotta give ya credit for not holding back or being coy.

 

Did you ever consider contacting Keystone and discussing your concerns with him?

Edited July 11, 2011 by Pup Patrol

[+coleminers]

Some reviewers, see fit to actually allow caches to be placed on actual headstones.

Ironically, when I pass on, I've been one of many cachers to consider a compartment in my headstone for a cache. If I give my permission and the cemetery knows it is there by my wishes, then the reviewer should publish it. Perhaps you should consider that permission might be given.

 

I actually personally do not disagree with this...and...In fact, I would like my life...and my gravesite to be celebrated...however...if headstones become likely hiding places, we all know that GPS will, unfortunately, likely bring us to your next-door plot mate...or, if the cache hider is even less precise in his coordinates...to a gravesite 40 feet away. And a very respectful and well-meaning cache seeker is meanwhile tearing apart the cemetery vase to find a film canister that is not there at the headstone of someone who has no interest or acceptance of being involved in our well-meaning pursuit. And, this hide, at a headstone in Marion, Ohio, has been approved...while another very carefully, and respectfully placed historical cache in a tree-hole, away from a grave has been denied. It is this inconsistency that will end up barring caches from all cemeteries, as has been the case in some states already.

[Keystone]

This has been, and continues to be a hot topic in geocaching, apparently...my personal experience has been that geocaching, and cemetery visits have led to respectful and memorable visits to historical and thought-provoking encounters; the opportunity to reflect upon the life of pioneers in our country is exactly the kind of remembrance our forefathers would appreciate.

 

My problem with cemetery caches is the extreme capriciousness and inconsistency with which they are administered by the reviewers.....

 

I think most if us agree that a well-placed cemetery cache that brings you respectfully to a cemetery...where you are seeking in and around a tree or shrub or fence...where you also have time to appreciate the serenity and beauty and tradition of the place...that is probable what cache hiding and seeking is all about.

 

Some reviewers, see fit to actually allow caches to be placed on actual headstones. I will specifically call-out the moderating Keystone in this regard. That is absolutely out-of-bounds and unallowable in my opinion. The problem is...even though a geocaching family or individual may actually enjoy allowing their funereal accoutrements to be involved in this pursuit...myself included perhaps...the fact that headstones and personal memorials become "in-bounds" means that uninvolved and potentially disapproving families and family members may be subject to disturbment. The fact that Keystone approves these type of caches at the expense of caches that diligently try to avoid this type of exposure is even more egregious.

 

Although I suspect that no one who caches in his reviewing area would be surprised by this...inconsistency...

 

 

 

Just my 2 cents...

1. Here's a news flash: reviewers do not visit every cache prior to publication. I would not knowingly allow a cache on a headstone without asking for verification of permission.

 

2. Here's a news flash: sometimes geocachers don't tell the truth to their reviewer.

 

So why is Coleminers so strident in his criticism? In July 2009, one of his submissions in a cemetery received the exact same form letter that every other geocacher receives in my review territory when they hide a cache in a cemetery. I think I pasted that same form letter to a half dozen cache pages today alone. The review of Coleminers' cache did not go very well... but dude, two years is an awfully long time to hold a grudge. Let it go. Hide some more caches and you will continue to receive the same treatment given to everyone else. I like to publish caches, including caches in cemeteries. First, however, I need some information from the owner regarding proximity to graves, permission, etc., so I can be comfortable that the cemetery cache meets the listing guidelines.

[Keystone]

Some reviewers, see fit to actually allow caches to be placed on actual headstones.

Ironically, when I pass on, I've been one of many cachers to consider a compartment in my headstone for a cache. If I give my permission and the cemetery knows it is there by my wishes, then the reviewer should publish it. Perhaps you should consider that permission might be given.

This is becoming more and more popular - an unfortunate byproduct of our sport being 11 years old and, sadly, geocachers navigating to a different datum. In fact, in coleminers' neck of the woods, a much-loved geocacher not only has a geocache next to her grave, she also has her favorite Geocoin's tracking number engraved on her headstone so that visitors can discover it! I will never forget riding in her funeral procession. The half mile trip from the church to the cemetery took the better part of an hour because we made a big loop around town past all her favorite cache hides.

[+harbhippo]

My wife and I LOVE cemetery caches. As we drive through an area on a trip, I will scroll down the caches stored in my Garmin and look for Spirit Quest caches or anything with the word "cemetery." I do agree that we should never be encouraged to tamper with anything near or on a headstone, but I see no problem in hiding a cache in a nearby tree. Many times the CO has asked us to stop by and say Hi to a relative buried near the GZ. I always do so.

[GOF and Bacall]

This has been, and continues to be a hot topic in geocaching, apparently...my personal experience has been that geocaching, and cemetery visits have led to respectful and memorable visits to historical and thought-provoking encounters; the opportunity to reflect upon the life of pioneers in our country is exactly the kind of remembrance our forefathers would appreciate.

 

My problem with cemetery caches is the extreme capriciousness and inconsistency with which they are administered by the reviewers.....

 

I think most if us agree that a well-placed cemetery cache that brings you respectfully to a cemetery...where you are seeking in and around a tree or shrub or fence...where you also have time to appreciate the serenity and beauty and tradition of the place...that is probable what cache hiding and seeking is all about.

 

Some reviewers, see fit to actually allow caches to be placed on actual headstones. I will specifically call-out the moderating Keystone in this regard. That is absolutely out-of-bounds and unallowable in my opinion. The problem is...even though a geocaching family or individual may actually enjoy allowing their funereal accoutrements to be involved in this pursuit...myself included perhaps...the fact that headstones and personal memorials become "in-bounds" means that uninvolved and potentially disapproving families and family members may be subject to disturbment. The fact that Keystone approves these type of caches at the expense of caches that diligently try to avoid this type of exposure is even more egregious.

 

Although I suspect that no one who caches in his reviewing area would be surprised by this...inconsistency...

 

 

 

Just my 2 cents...

1. Here's a news flash: reviewers do not visit every cache prior to publication. I would not knowingly allow a cache on a headstone without asking for verification of permission.

 

2. Here's a news flash: sometimes geocachers don't tell the truth to their reviewer.

So why is Coleminers so strident in his criticism? In July 2009, one of his submissions in a cemetery received the exact same form letter that every other geocacher receives in my review territory when they hide a cache in a cemetery. I think I pasted that same form letter to a half dozen cache pages today alone. The review of Coleminers' cache did not go very well... but dude, two years is an awfully long time to hold a grudge. Let it go. Hide some more caches and you will continue to receive the same treatment given to everyone else. I like to publish caches, including caches in cemeteries. First, however, I need some information from the owner regarding proximity to graves, permission, etc., so I can be comfortable that the cemetery cache meets the listing guidelines.

 

You don't?! They don't?! Say it ain't so!

[sp1tf1re]

I have found a total of one cemetery geocache and was with some siblings and my 2 year old nephew. We all loved the cache and it was near the older section of the cemetery. It was still active and it was obvious where the new and old was. The best part was that I never knew that cemetery was even there and it was so close to where I grew up as a kid.

 

I sent in a request to GS for a cemetery attribute for those that like them to search and those that don't to exclude from their PQs.

 

There is one in SF that is a multi (I believe) that takes you in to a specific site then out to a cache that is in relation to the Emperor of the United States. I love the quirky history of this guy and that there is a cache that honors him. The next time I am in SF I am going to do this one.

[GOF and Bacall]

I have found a total of one cemetery geocache and was with some siblings and my 2 year old nephew. We all loved the cache and it was near the older section of the cemetery. It was still active and it was obvious where the new and old was. The best part was that I never knew that cemetery was even there and it was so close to where I grew up as a kid.

 

I sent in a request to GS for a cemetery attribute for those that like them to search and those that don't to exclude from their PQs.

 

There is one in SF that is a multi (I believe) that takes you in to a specific site then out to a cache that is in relation to the Emperor of the United States. I love the quirky history of this guy and that there is a cache that honors him. The next time I am in SF I am going to do this one.

 

I would love to have such an attribute. I love cemetery caches. Especially in the older cemeteries. I love to look at the dates on the stones and think about what the world was like while that person was alive.

 

Let me add that there is a request on the feedback site.

Link

Edited July 11, 2011 by GOF and Bacall

[+Trucker Lee]

My two cents, or with the decline of the dollar would that be ".65 cent"

 

I have no problem with cemetery caches, adopted one as my own in fact. Years past, cemeteries were where families gathered to greet each other and remember those gone. Clean-up followed by picnic lunch and fellowship through the afternoon was common. Kids would work and play among the markers, then later walk through the area with adults hearing family history and tales of Uncle Joe's practical jokes. As families separate by distance, our heritage also falls by the wayside. Sad!

 

Still, a bit of decorum is needed. Caches should not be hidden on markers without permission, or unless the marker is specifically made for the purpose (can't find the thread I was hunting). CITO should always be done, and will do much to befriend caretakers and management.

[sp1tf1re]

Thanks GOF for posting the feedback link that i started.

 

There is another event in Hollywood every summer weekend that uses a cemetery. There are movies shown on the side of the mausoleum every Saturday and Sunday night. There is even a mystery cache there too. The organizers do a good job to keep people off the main grounds and strictly enforce walking on the roads during the event. The area of laying out the blankets have no graves under them. It's really cool.

 

The history of the cemetery is also very cool, tons of Hollywood A-listers are buried there and there is a Ramone buried there with a bust gravestone that is lit up.

[+kwcahart]

Look at GC2WA86 This is one of the best cemetery caches I have ever seen. It is full of History about the veterans in this cemetery.

Edited July 14, 2011 by kwhart

[knowschad]

Some reviewers, see fit to actually allow caches to be placed on actual headstones. I will specifically call-out the moderating Keystone in this regard. That is absolutely out-of-bounds and unallowable in my opinion. The problem is...even though a geocaching family or individual may actually enjoy allowing their funereal accoutrements to be involved in this pursuit...myself included perhaps...the fact that headstones and personal memorials become "in-bounds" means that uninvolved and potentially disapproving families and family members may be subject to disturbment. The fact that Keystone approves these type of caches at the expense of caches that diligently try to avoid this type of exposure is even more egregious.

How is any reviewer supposed to know that the cache is placed on the headstone, or even near one? The reviewers obviously can't physically inspect the caches before publishing them. They can ask questions, but that doesn't mean that they get an honest answer. And caches sometimes migrate during their lifetime... sometimes a good distance.

[jd-mitchell]

Some reviewers, see fit to actually allow caches to be placed on actual headstones. I will specifically call-out the moderating Keystone in this regard. That is absolutely out-of-bounds and unallowable in my opinion. The problem is...even though a geocaching family or individual may actually enjoy allowing their funereal accoutrements to be involved in this pursuit...myself included perhaps...the fact that headstones and personal memorials become "in-bounds" means that uninvolved and potentially disapproving families and family members may be subject to disturbment. The fact that Keystone approves these type of caches at the expense of caches that diligently try to avoid this type of exposure is even more egregious.

How is any reviewer supposed to know that the cache is placed on the headstone, or even near one? The reviewers obviously can't physically inspect the caches before publishing them. They can ask questions, but that doesn't mean that they get an honest answer. And caches sometimes migrate during their lifetime... sometimes a good distance.

Usally by people reporting the infraction by someone who A: has issues with the CO or B: knows better

[+niraD]

Holy zombie thread, Batman!

 

But since it's back...

Some reviewers, see fit to actually allow caches to be placed on actual headstones. I will specifically call-out the moderating Keystone in this regard. That is absolutely out-of-bounds and unallowable in my opinion.

I recently found a cache that was placed at a headstone. The cemetery had an explicit policy that allowed families to leave a certain number of memorial items of their choice at the headstone. There were a few limitations, but in general, families were free to leave whatever they wanted: flowers, good luck charms, wind chimes, photos, newspaper clippings, letters, seasonal decorations (subject to removal a certain number of days after the holiday in question), money, small statues,... whatever they wanted. One family chose to honor a deceased matriarch by leaving a geocache container at her headstone.

 

If they want to do that, and if they have permission (in this case, explicit permission) to do that, then why not?

[+briansnat]

Holy zombie thread, Batman!

 

But since it's back...

Some reviewers, see fit to actually allow caches to be placed on actual headstones. I will specifically call-out the moderating Keystone in this regard. That is absolutely out-of-bounds and unallowable in my opinion.

I recently found a cache that was placed at a headstone. The cemetery had an explicit policy that allowed families to leave a certain number of memorial items of their choice at the headstone. There were a few limitations, but in general, families were free to leave whatever they wanted: flowers, good luck charms, wind chimes, photos, newspaper clippings, letters, seasonal decorations (subject to removal a certain number of days after the holiday in question), money, small statues,... whatever they wanted. One family chose to honor a deceased matriarch by leaving a geocache container at her headstone.

 

If they want to do that, and if they have permission (in this case, explicit permission) to do that, then why not?

 

I know one geocacher who had a cache built into his wife's (and his future) headstone.

[+funkymunkyzone]

Holy zombie thread, Batman!

This cracked me up. A zombie thread about cemetaries...

[+niraD]

Holy zombie thread, Batman!

This cracked me up. A zombie thread about cemetaries...

Thank ya... Thank ya very much!

[+jobrerry]

I personally love cemetery caches. I find it is a good way to learn a little about the history of an area...and as a woman who caches sometimes alone, a fairly safe area to geocache for personal safety. Most cemetery caches I have found are in a tree (or bush) in the cemetery or along the edges of the cemetery. We have though found some near headstones and are placed by a family member. I remember one that was in a bird house hanging from a shepherd's hook near the stone and another a dragonfly perched in a tree limb. I like finding zinc headstones and sometimes the adventure to get to an out of the way cemetery adds to the geocache itself - see GC2CR1B German Lutheran Cemetery. I also know that the chances of finding a geocache in a cemetery is very high as they are usually not muggled, so when traveling I specifically look for cemetery hides.

There is one in Cincinnati called Multi-Veterans' Salute GC18RCZ - I was able to do this cache on 11/11/11 (appropriately enough Veterans' Day). There is also a cache near there GC1F81W The Forgotten Cemetery Tour IV which if the cache page is printed is 79 pages long - a lot of history there.

 

Doing cemetery caches lets me remember those who have gone before me. And it is my honor and privilege to do so....

[+hzoi]

I was a little hesitant about cemetery caches when I first started out. Probably because there weren't many in Germany -- not as much need due to the property laws, it's perfectly fine to be on someone else's land as a cacher there, whereas in the states most property owners would not allow public access. Here in Oklahoma, cemetery caches are a cottage industry almost out of necessity. So I've adjusted my thinking. As long as they are respectfully placed, I'm fine with them.

[+beauxeault]

The state of Tennessee has a law against playing games in cemeteries. I believe I found the statute at the end of a link provided by a local reviewer explaining why cemetery caches are not allowed. Despite, of course, the numerous existing local cemetery caches (grandfathered, I presume). Unfortunately I can't find the link right now.

Edited March 20, 2014 by beauxeault

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Cemetery caches are our absolute favorite. We've visited hundreds around the country and my trips get delayed because its hard to leave them....love the history and stories they tell.

This is one of my favorites...I've got probably a hundred pictures of it but I see I didn't post any to the cache page....I'll have to take care of that.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC19HDP_bowling-green-cemetery

[+K'J']

I have to agree that some cemetery caches provide history and interesting stories. Without a local cemetery cache GC29Q0R. I would have never known the interesting but sad story of WW1 and WW2 German POWs buried in Canada German War Graves. More interesting to me was that those graves are only 100 metres from the resting spot of my grandfather who fought in WW2, specifically the Germans. That really brought it home personally and it showed me the extent of the World Wars and just how far reaching they were. These German soldiers buried so far from home and family is justification enough for me to place a cache to bring people there.

Edited March 20, 2014 by K'J'

[+J Grouchy]

I don't know the legal stuff, but you'd never get a physical cache or physical stage of a cache approved in a cemetery in Georgia. All the ones these days are virtuals or stages of multicaches or data collection points for a mystery cache. There are several physical caches at a nearby cemetery that are supposedly "just outside the property boundaries"...but I don't know if that's true or violating the spirit of the local/state guidelines (no pun intended). I think physicals can be placed in cemeteries with full knowledge and permission of the stewards/managers of the cemetery grounds, but I believe the standard of proof is higher on those.

 

To be honest, I'd rather not have a physical cache on cemetery grounds, on or near any headstones or monuments. I don't have a problem with virtuals or stages requiring collection of information from a spot inside a cemetery, but people hunting for an ammo box or bison tube around the crypts just doesn't need to be happening.

[+mrreet]

I'm headed down to southern Wisconsin for the weekend and I'm really looking forward to a tour of all the country cemeteries near where we are staying. I'll probably be caching all day Saturday and all day Sunday if things work out. WOO HOO!!! And yes I'm bringing my camera to take a bunch of photos.

 

I really wish there were a 'cemetery' attribute, so I could click that to ignore in my PQs. Today, I discovered a lt of WSQ that I had to put on my 'ignore list' one by one. Royal pain. We need a 'cemetery' attribute!

 

I agree, but I want to PQ to find them.

 

I have only found one Spirt Quest to be inappropriate. (The cache was at / on a gravestone with loose coords.(could have been about 10 stones))

Most of them have been very respectful (bushes trees fences etc on the property line).

My favorite ones are the multis that you get info from a historic stone.

[+coachstahly]

Caches in cemeteries are allowed on a state by state basis, as evidenced by the differing viewpoints here. Cave Hill National Cemetery in Louisville, KY is one of the most beautiful cemeteries I've been to, but no physical caches inside, only virtual stages.

 

I like them as they're peaceful and many are historic as well.

[+RedhedMary]

One of my caches is called "Meet My Future Neighbors" GC3NGPZ. It is hidden on my future gravesite. Our site is in the row closest to the outer fence, and the cache is at the fence area. The headstone (when it is installed someday) won't be right by the cache.

 

I've always liked visiting cemeteries. There is a lot of interesting history in them. So why not be able to cache there, as long as the placement is respectful (not near graves) and cachers are respectful when visiting.

[+DanOCan]

Many of my favorite caches have been in forgotten pioneer cemeteries. I'm less fond of caches in active cemeteries, however.

 

So far, I think I have only found one cemetery cache that I wasn't comfortable with as it was hidden inside the flower pot on a gravestone. It's not about a respect for the dead thing, it is simply I don't like any caches that involve manipulating common objects (sprinkler heads, electrical boxes, fake cameras) because they encourage people to mess around with those things while searching for caches.

[+QuiltinNana]

Add me to the list of cachers who love to visit cemeteries. I find the sculptures of the older cemeteries fascinating. And some of the artwork that is lasered into the newer stones is just amazing. It's also very interesting to find how customs can vary not only in different states, but in different parts of the same state and in different times.

While caching in at an old abandoned rural church, we found a very old cemetery at the rear. Quite a few headstones had the same last name as my husband. Upon doing some further research, we found these stones were his great-great-grandparents along with a few aunts and uncles and cousins.

Also add me to the list of cachers who want my stone to be used for a data gathering point for a cache. I love the idea of visitors who are enjoying themselves.

[+worstcaster]

I like cemetery caches. The last set I did had some cool stones near by.

 

[+SwineFlew]

Cemeteries are my all time fav places to find caches.

[+funkymunkyzone]

The state of Tennessee has a law against playing games in cemeteries. I believe I found the statute at the end of a link provided by a local reviewer explaining why cemetery caches are not allowed. Despite, of course, the numerous existing local cemetery caches (grandfathered, I presume). Unfortunately I can't find the link right now.

I find 'grandfathering' a little strange in situations like this. So the caches are *illegal* (and would definitely put the game into disrepute if the relevant authorities found out about them) but still allowed to exist because they were listed before someone found out they were illegal?

Edited March 24, 2014 by funkymunkyzone

[+beauxeault]

The state of Tennessee has a law against playing games in cemeteries. I believe I found the statute at the end of a link provided by a local reviewer explaining why cemetery caches are not allowed. Despite, of course, the numerous existing local cemetery caches (grandfathered, I presume). Unfortunately I can't find the link right now.

I find 'grandfathering' a little strange in situations like this. So the caches are *illegal* (and would definitely put the game into disrepute if the relevant authorities found out about them) but still allowed to exist because they were listed before someone found out they were illegal?

 

To be honest, I don't know if the existing cache(s) are grandfathered or if it's just a case of not having come to the reviewer's attention. I also don't know if the statute was in the books or known to the reviewer when the cache(s) was/were published. And I use the singular/plural because I'm only specifically aware of one that is clearly within the boundaries of a cemetery; while there is one that is just outside the cemetery boundary, but still very near to it, and another that is either in or near a historical grave site that may or may not qualify as a cemetery. The one that's near a cemetery but not in it is relevant in this case because the reviewer's posted comments say that caches need to be at least 528 feet from a cemetery boundary, even though the Tennessee law only forbids game-play "in" the cemetery. Could this case be one where grandfathering might be more appropriate?

 

I did find the link, which is here.

Edited March 24, 2014 by beauxeault

[Keystone]

From the linked summary of the rules for cemetery caches in Tennessee:

 

"Any geocaches that you may have found in the past inside or near Tennessee cemeteries were placed before this ban took effect."

 

If a land manager or law enforcement officer objected to/asked questions about any of the caches placed prior to the law being amended, I would expect that the reviewers or Geocaching HQ would archive the cache(s) in question and would leave it to the cache owner if they wanted to fight about ex post facto issues as a matter of State Constitutional Law.

[+T.D.M.22]

The state of Tennessee has a law against playing games in cemeteries. I believe I found the statute at the end of a link provided by a local reviewer explaining why cemetery caches are not allowed. Despite, of course, the numerous existing local cemetery caches (grandfathered, I presume). Unfortunately I can't find the link right now.

I find 'grandfathering' a little strange in situations like this. So the caches are *illegal* (and would definitely put the game into disrepute if the relevant authorities found out about them) but still allowed to exist because they were listed before someone found out they were illegal?

 

All land owners, police departments are welcome to sign up, and Groundspeak will even provide them with a premium membership, and they are allowed to have say on caches placed on their land. If they don't use tools available to them, that's their own fault. It's the same as trespassing-if I never tell you not to go on my property, it's my fault that you continue to do so. Laws are only as effective if they are enforced, otherwise it's just meaningless words in a book.

[4wheelin_fool]

From the linked summary of the rules for cemetery caches in Tennessee:

 

"Any geocaches that you may have found in the past inside or near Tennessee cemeteries were placed before this ban took effect."

 

If a land manager or law enforcement officer objected to/asked questions about any of the caches placed prior to the law being amended, I would expect that the reviewers or Geocaching HQ would archive the cache(s) in question and would leave it to the cache owner if they wanted to fight about ex post facto issues as a matter of State Constitutional Law.

 

I don't think the question is about punishing geocachers who hid caches before the law went into effect, but rather of the finders who continue to locate them after the law was put into place. Just because the geocache was placed at a time when it was legal, does not mean that current visitors would not be in violation.

[+Manville Possum]

From the linked summary of the rules for cemetery caches in Tennessee:

 

"Any geocaches that you may have found in the past inside or near Tennessee cemeteries were placed before this ban took effect."

 

If a land manager or law enforcement officer objected to/asked questions about any of the caches placed prior to the law being amended, I would expect that the reviewers or Geocaching HQ would archive the cache(s) in question and would leave it to the cache owner if they wanted to fight about ex post facto issues as a matter of State Constitutional Law.

 

I don't think the question is about punishing geocachers who hid caches before the law went into effect, but rather of the finders who continue to locate them after the law was put into place. Just because the geocache was placed at a time when it was legal, does not mean that current visitors would not be in violation.

So........ what if this Law was on the books when the geocaches were published? Only no more were published after Groundspeak became aware of it.

[4wheelin_fool]

From the linked summary of the rules for cemetery caches in Tennessee:

 

"Any geocaches that you may have found in the past inside or near Tennessee cemeteries were placed before this ban took effect."

 

If a land manager or law enforcement officer objected to/asked questions about any of the caches placed prior to the law being amended, I would expect that the reviewers or Geocaching HQ would archive the cache(s) in question and would leave it to the cache owner if they wanted to fight about ex post facto issues as a matter of State Constitutional Law.

 

I don't think the question is about punishing geocachers who hid caches before the law went into effect, but rather of the finders who continue to locate them after the law was put into place. Just because the geocache was placed at a time when it was legal, does not mean that current visitors would not be in violation.

So........ what if this Law was on the books when the geocaches were published? Only no more were published after Groundspeak became aware of it.

 

Well then, I hope I don't get into any trouble for this log from inside a TN cemetery about 10 years ago..

 

Is that what happened? Actually that's a little bit better, as then the law wasn't created in response to geocaching, only that someone interpreted it and brought it to their attention afterwards, but it wasn't a knee jerk reaction. If it was in South Carolina where the language of the statute was written specifically targeted towards geocaching, the scenario would be a bit different. I don't think there are any grandfathered geocaches in SC cemeteries, but you never know..

[+funkymunkyzone]

From the linked summary of the rules for cemetery caches in Tennessee:

 

"Any geocaches that you may have found in the past inside or near Tennessee cemeteries were placed before this ban took effect."

 

If a land manager or law enforcement officer objected to/asked questions about any of the caches placed prior to the law being amended, I would expect that the reviewers or Geocaching HQ would archive the cache(s) in question and would leave it to the cache owner if they wanted to fight about ex post facto issues as a matter of State Constitutional Law.

 

I don't think the question is about punishing geocachers who hid caches before the law went into effect, but rather of the finders who continue to locate them after the law was put into place. Just because the geocache was placed at a time when it was legal, does not mean that current visitors would not be in violation.

Precisely why 'grandfathering' does not seem appropriate in this case. Grandfathering should be used when a cache is still legal but otherwise not allowed under geocaching rules/guidelines.

[+funkymunkyzone]

All land owners, police departments are welcome to sign up, and Groundspeak will even provide them with a premium membership, and they are allowed to have say on caches placed on their land. If they don't use tools available to them, that's their own fault. It's the same as trespassing-if I never tell you not to go on my property, it's my fault that you continue to do so. Laws are only as effective if they are enforced, otherwise it's just meaningless words in a book.

Well I don't agree. You're suggesting the onus is on a landowner to inform everyone else in the world that they are not to trespass on the landowner's property. That simply is not the case. It's kind of strange to suggest also that everyone else in the world (landowners, police departments, etc) are supposed to know about geocaching, and sign up, in order to expect laws and property rights to be respected.

Edited March 24, 2014 by funkymunkyzone

[+funkymunkyzone]

BTW, I'm not suggesting nuke them - after all, as geocachers, whether we admit it or not, we walk a fine line between the letter of the law and common sense with all our abandoned property/litter hidden all over the world...

[+Manville Possum]

BTW, I'm not suggesting nuke them - after all, as geocachers, whether we admit it or not, we walk a fine line between the letter of the law and common sense with all our abandoned property/litter hidden all over the world...

Exactly. I see the term "Grandfathered' as now that we know, no more will be published. I own some "Grandfathered" listings that would require a permit now that were published after the Law was on the books but little known until geocaching became more popular. As for cemetery hides in Tennessee, I still find a few around headstones that are not placed in good taste, IMO. Also one of the most interesting historical Tennessee cemetery listings that I have logged is placed in another family's plot. I listed a few Waymarks in the same area, but those are not illegal.

[+hzoi]

I hope I don't get into any trouble for this log from inside a TN cemetery about 10 years ago..

 

 

HANDS IN THE AIR, RIGHT NOW!!!

[4wheelin_fool]

I hope I don't get into any trouble for this log from inside a TN cemetery about 10 years ago..

 

HANDS IN THE AIR, RIGHT NOW!!!

 

[4wheelin_fool]

From the linked summary of the rules for cemetery caches in Tennessee:

 

"Any geocaches that you may have found in the past inside or near Tennessee cemeteries were placed before this ban took effect."

 

If a land manager or law enforcement officer objected to/asked questions about any of the caches placed prior to the law being amended, I would expect that the reviewers or Geocaching HQ would archive the cache(s) in question and would leave it to the cache owner if they wanted to fight about ex post facto issues as a matter of State Constitutional Law.

 

I don't think the question is about punishing geocachers who hid caches before the law went into effect, but rather of the finders who continue to locate them after the law was put into place. Just because the geocache was placed at a time when it was legal, does not mean that current visitors would not be in violation.

Precisely why 'grandfathering' does not seem appropriate in this case. Grandfathering should be used when a cache is still legal but otherwise not allowed under geocaching rules/guidelines.

 

Only if the statute was specifically targeted towards geocaching, and not just one person's opinion or gripe. The definition of "playing a game" is suspect. Most people "playing games" are in groups and tossing some object around and possibly using some other instrument to whack it around. This "gameplay" would certainly be considered disrespectful to the dead, as well as noisy and disruptive, even if it was just frisbee. Having someone wander in with a handheld device to locate a small object is not what most would imagine under "gameplay", and not much different if two people were playing a game of chess on a bench somewhere on the grounds. I don't think chess would cause anyone to get upset enough to charge someone with the statue. Once the activity has been labeled as a "game", people who are unaware of it imagine something completely different. I believe someone texting or playing "angry birds" on their phone and not watching where they were going would be more annoying.

Edited March 25, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+niraD]

Only if the statute was specifically targeted towards geocaching, and not just one person's opinion or gripe. The definition of "playing a game" is suspect.

Yeah, the whole "playing a game" thing seems odd to me too. Surely it doesn't prevent historians or genealogists from making a gravestone rubbing. Would it prevent someone on a scavenger hunt from making a gravestone rubbing? How would anyone know the difference? But IANAL...

[+Manville Possum]

I knew there was a Law against geocaching in cemeterys in Tennessee, but after reading the content of this link I will not be seeking any cemetery caches in Tennessee.

https://wiki.Groundspeak.com/display/GEO/Tennessee

 

Edit to add the word "cemetery".

Edited March 30, 2014 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+TX Stephens]

Albiet, we are new to GC'ing, we have enjoyed doing a few cemetery caches. The first one we did gave us plenty of history about our small town that we didn't know about. I have to agree with other people that older cemeteries are more interesting to cache in.

Today we actually went to a modern cemetery to cache in, and an active funeral was taking place near a cache. There were 4 caches in the cemetery, so we avoided that one. I think it is all about showing respect.

I know this has been said over and over, but I just wanted to give my two cents.

 

TXSTXT

[+MI_CO]

I personally enjoy cemetery and Spirit Quest caches. I have learned so much local history and lore through the stories in the descriptions that I would never had known otherwise.

 

I lived in Michigan for years and the cemetery caches I have done, and I have done a lot of them all over the state, have included fascinating background stories, whether about a pioneer in the area, a tribute to a veteran or military unit, or just a nice memorial write up of a favorite relative or good friend. Over 90% of the actual cache placements are along the edges of the property, or off the property altogether. None are ever placed on a grave, or in an area where graves will be trampled or disturbed. Where I lived, and still have a home, about 30 miles northwest of Detroit, there are several very large cemeteries. Although parks abound in the area, many people jog in these cemeteries, quietly ride their bike, or walk on the winding and meandering roads. They are always very respectful, just like the cachers, and I like to think those laid to rest there like the company and activity.

 

I now live in Colorado, and the old pioneer cemeteries in the mountains are beautiful and fascinating, and the description write ups range from funny, to thought provoking, to educational, and always fascinating. The grave placements can be haphazard to accommodate trees, boulders, slope, etc., and the stones are great, everything from a simply carved marker, to elaborate works of art.

 

Just like some cachers will not do puzzles, or high terrain caches, if you are apprehensive about cemetery caches, just ignore them and move on. There are plenty of other caches to do!

[+Manville Possum]

I personally enjoy cemetery and Spirit Quest caches.

 

Just like some cachers will not do puzzles, or high terrain caches, if you are apprehensive about cemetery caches, just ignore them and move on. There are plenty of other caches to do!

I enjoy cemetery caches too in States where they are legal, but I won't risk being charged with a Class E Felony in Tennesse and attempt to explain to a Judge that Groundspeak "Grandfathered" these illegal geocaches.