Reporting a Bad Cache

[+tozainamboku]

I wouldn't be so hard on the OP. We've had similar situations here because the land in the Santa Monica Mountains is a hodgepodge of National Park Service, State Park, State owned conservation lands, county/municipal parks, and private land. Quite often we've had caches placed where someone believes that the the cache is outside NPS lands only to have the NPS rangers ask that the cache be removed. In addition we have had Need Archives posted by on caches in what was thought to be NPS land. In a recent case, the hider had a cache that was only about 60 feet from one that was removed when the NPS asked that a nearby series of cache be removed because they were on NPS lands. The owner of the new cache went to the the NPS rangers and got a detailed map showing that his cache was in fact on state land. The local rangers have the best maps and know where the boundaries are. Sometimes geocachers and reviewers aren't sure where the boundary is. Going to the ranger to confirm whether or not a cache is on the land they manage does not give geocaching a black eye. Instead it lets the manager know there are geocachers who are interested enough in making sure caches have adequate permission. It also lets them know there is a mechanism in place to have improperly placed caches removed. Ultimately, this can lead to a better image of geocaching and sometimes even allow to the placement of caches in areas where there were once banned.

[knowschad]

I wouldn't be so hard on the OP. We've had similar situations here because the land in the Santa Monica Mountains is a hodgepodge of National Park Service, State Park, State owned conservation lands, county/municipal parks, and private land. Quite often we've had caches placed where someone believes that the the cache is outside NPS lands only to have the NPS rangers ask that the cache be removed. In addition we have had Need Archives posted by on caches in what was thought to be NPS land. In a recent case, the hider had a cache that was only about 60 feet from one that was removed when the NPS asked that a nearby series of cache be removed because they were on NPS lands. The owner of the new cache went to the the NPS rangers and got a detailed map showing that his cache was in fact on state land. The local rangers have the best maps and know where the boundaries are. Sometimes geocachers and reviewers aren't sure where the boundary is. Going to the ranger to confirm whether or not a cache is on the land they manage does not give geocaching a black eye. Instead it lets the manager know there are geocachers who are interested enough in making sure caches have adequate permission. It also lets them know there is a mechanism in place to have improperly placed caches removed. Ultimately, this can lead to a better image of geocaching and sometimes even allow to the placement of caches in areas where there were once banned.

 

I agree that those are steps that the cache owner should have taken. Or, perhaps he did and circumstances have changed. It could be that six years ago, the NPS actually did only have authority over the parking area. It could have been the cache owner received explicit permission six years ago. We don't know the circumstances. An NA or private email should at least have been the first step to take, if not the first and last.

Edited July 29, 2011 by knowschad

[+John in Valley Forge]

I think the whole logging the find and apparently speaking to the rangers right then and there (unless he went back later or phoned them), and then later coming here and asking advice on what to do is what gets me.

[+Great Scott!]

For GCPBV5, see these logs (note: huggy_d1 was the local reviewer at that time)

 

Write note September 12, 2005 by The_Fonz (74 found)

 

The parking area is maintained by the National Park Service. However, the cache is clearly located beyond the U.S. boundary markers. I did my home work and checked with the local office before placing the cache.

 

View Log

Needs Archived September 11, 2005 by huggy_d1 (7131 found)

 

This site is maintained by the National Park Service and is designated a National Historic Battlefield Site per the posted signage. This cache needs to be archived unless the area ranger over by Five Forks has given their OK.

 

huggy_d1

 

View Log

Found it September 9, 2005 by huggy_d1 (7131 found)

 

Found cache in good shape while en route to VA Beach for the weekend (to go caching!). All in good shape. I regret to inform folks that this cache is on National Park Service land and as such is not allowed. I'll be posting a "should be archived" note to reflect this situation.

 

huggy_d1

Lynchburg, VA

[knowschad]

For GCPBV5, see these logs (note: huggy_d1 was the local reviewer at that time)

 

Write note September 12, 2005 by The_Fonz (74 found)

 

The parking area is maintained by the National Park Service. However, the cache is clearly located beyond the U.S. boundary markers. I did my home work and checked with the local office before placing the cache.

 

View Log

Needs Archived September 11, 2005 by huggy_d1 (7131 found)

 

This site is maintained by the National Park Service and is designated a National Historic Battlefield Site per the posted signage. This cache needs to be archived unless the area ranger over by Five Forks has given their OK.

 

huggy_d1

 

View Log

Found it September 9, 2005 by huggy_d1 (7131 found)

 

Found cache in good shape while en route to VA Beach for the weekend (to go caching!). All in good shape. I regret to inform folks that this cache is on National Park Service land and as such is not allowed. I'll be posting a "should be archived" note to reflect this situation.

 

huggy_d1

Lynchburg, VA

 

Noted back in Post #13, but only as links. Thanks for quoting them here.

 

I think this is very pertainent: I did my home work and checked with the local office before placing the cache.

As I posted earlier, just because the current folks that the OP talked to were not aware of any permission being given does not mean that it was not given.

[+GeoBain]

 

I think this is very pertainent: I did my home work and checked with the local office before placing the cache.

As I posted earlier, just because the current folks that the OP talked to were not aware of any permission being given does not mean that it was not given.

 

That's something that would have been easy to find if the OP had bothered scrolling down the listing or contacting the owner or contacting the reviewer prior to bringing it to the park's attention first.

 

The fact that the cache has been listed since 2005 tells me 2 things.

 

1. It very likely was legal when placed.

2. The current park officials may very well know nothing about the CO speaking to someone 6 years ago.

 

That is why it would have been better to start a dialogue with the CO or reviewer first.

[Clan Riffster]

It was determined that the cache is on park land and will be removed.

How noble of you.

[+tozainamboku]

 

I think this is very pertainent: I did my home work and checked with the local office before placing the cache.

As I posted earlier, just because the current folks that the OP talked to were not aware of any permission being given does not mean that it was not given.

 

That's something that would have been easy to find if the OP had bothered scrolling down the listing or contacting the owner or contacting the reviewer prior to bringing it to the park's attention first.

 

The fact that the cache has been listed since 2005 tells me 2 things.

 

1. It very likely was legal when placed.

2. The current park officials may very well know nothing about the CO speaking to someone 6 years ago.

 

That is why it would have been better to start a dialogue with the CO or reviewer first.

Could be. Or

1. The cache was not legal when placed. Based on the knowledge the cache owner had they may have felt the cache was outside the park territory so it didn't need explicit permission. They may have even asked where the boundary was and based on the answer felt their cache was OK. They didn't have much difficulty convincing a reviewer would would likely differ to a cache who says they know where the boundary is.

 

or

 

2. The cache was legal when place but the boundary has change over the years. I know where I live there are occasions where new land is acquired and added to the park or even where land is swap between the NPS and the state for one reason or another. The cache owner may not have known of the change in the situation or may have thought that since their cache was already published it should be grandfathered.

 

In either case the OP saw a cache that they believe was on NPS property without adequate permission. While they should have first contacted the cache owner to resolve the issue, they might still have ended up talking to the NPS personnel regarding the cache (if the owner refused to do anything or to confirm the boundary in order to make their argument stronger). The assumption that just because as cache has been around means that it is withing the guidelines (or has been grandfathered) is not valid.

[+GeoBain]

I think this is very pertainent: I did my home work and checked with the local office before placing the cache.

As I posted earlier, just because the current folks that the OP talked to were not aware of any permission being given does not mean that it was not given.

 

That's something that would have been easy to find if the OP had bothered scrolling down the listing or contacting the owner or contacting the reviewer prior to bringing it to the park's attention first.

 

The fact that the cache has been listed since 2005 tells me 2 things.

 

1. It very likely was legal when placed.

2. The current park officials may very well know nothing about the CO speaking to someone 6 years ago.

 

That is why it would have been better to start a dialogue with the CO or reviewer first.

Could be. Or

1. The cache was not legal when placed. Based on the knowledge the cache owner had they may have felt the cache was outside the park territory so it didn't need explicit permission. They may have even asked where the boundary was and based on the answer felt their cache was OK. They didn't have much difficulty convincing a reviewer would would likely differ to a cache who says they know where the boundary is.

 

or

 

2. The cache was legal when place but the boundary has change over the years. I know where I live there are occasions where new land is acquired and added to the park or even where land is swap between the NPS and the state for one reason or another. The cache owner may not have known of the change in the situation or may have thought that since their cache was already published it should be grandfathered.

 

In either case the OP saw a cache that they believe was on NPS property without adequate permission. While they should have first contacted the cache owner to resolve the issue, they might still have ended up talking to the NPS personnel regarding the cache (if the owner refused to do anything or to confirm the boundary in order to make their argument stronger). The assumption that just because as cache has been around means that it is withing the guidelines (or has been grandfathered) is not valid.

 

I didn't say that just because it has been around a long time meant that it is within the guidelines or not actually on NPS property. I said given the fact that it has been around since 2005 it would have been better to start a dialogue with the CO or reviewer rather than going straight to park officials.

[+BStheTech]

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the big deal of placing a cache in a National Park?

Isn't the idea of caching to get people out and enjoying the outdoors? Caching would bring people

into the park who may have never visited. Nobody is harming anything. I haven't seen any environmental

disasters caused by a cache (yet). Please enlighten me.

 

B.

[+GeoBain]

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the big deal of placing a cache in a National Park?

Isn't the idea of caching to get people out and enjoying the outdoors? Caching would bring people

into the park who may have never visited. Nobody is harming anything. I haven't seen any environmental

disasters caused by a cache (yet). Please enlighten me.

 

B.

 

Someone damaged some NPS property years ago to hide a cache. NPS went ballistic and banned caching on all NPS land.

 

Fast forward a few years and with a lot of work NPS was convinced to alter their ban somewhat. I believe that the new policy is that some caches can be placed with permits and if particular parks decide to allow it. (Not really sure about this part)

 

Anyway, there is good reason to question geocaches on NPS land. The question is how you should go about it.

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

If it has been quietly active for 6 years, causing no harm, alarm or anger, I would have logged it and left it.

[4wheelin_fool]

I wouldn't be so hard on the OP. We've had similar situations here because the land in the Santa Monica Mountains is a hodgepodge of National Park Service, State Park, State owned conservation lands, county/municipal parks, and private land. Quite often we've had caches placed where someone believes that the the cache is outside NPS lands only to have the NPS rangers ask that the cache be removed. In addition we have had Need Archives posted by on caches in what was thought to be NPS land. In a recent case, the hider had a cache that was only about 60 feet from one that was removed when the NPS asked that a nearby series of cache be removed because they were on NPS lands. The owner of the new cache went to the the NPS rangers and got a detailed map showing that his cache was in fact on state land. The local rangers have the best maps and know where the boundaries are. Sometimes geocachers and reviewers aren't sure where the boundary is. Going to the ranger to confirm whether or not a cache is on the land they manage does not give geocaching a black eye. Instead it lets the manager know there are geocachers who are interested enough in making sure caches have adequate permission. It also lets them know there is a mechanism in place to have improperly placed caches removed. Ultimately, this can lead to a better image of geocaching and sometimes even allow to the placement of caches in areas where there were once banned.

 

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

Technically, aren't all guardrail and lamp post hides on private properly without permission? We let that go.

[+BStheTech]

Here's a novel idea. Rather than eschew a knee-jerk reaction affecting 100's-1000's of

geo-cachers the powers that be should have held the offending cache placer accountable and fine or

charge him/her accordingly. Geocaching.com can follow-up by deleting his/her account and banning

his/her IP. This would allow the rest of us with common sense to continue enjoying the parks.

 

Just a thought....

 

B.

[+TomToad]

Technically, aren't all guardrail and lamp post hides on private properly without permission? We let that go.

Not necessarily. Even though most are probably placed without permission, we don't know that for certain and until we find out otherwise, tend to give the Co the benefit of the doubt. There are some places, such as certain parks, that have a blanket ban on them and so we know for certain do not have permission.

 

Also, if a manager or land owner at Walmart discovers the illegally placed cache, it gets removed from that Walmart. If a parks manager finds an illegally placed cache, then they may end up having us remove all caches from all park properties.

[+hukilaulau]

How should I go about reporting a cache that I found on National Park land? Such caches are illegal and I've already reported it to the park authorities. Is there a way to report a cache for review/deletion? Sorry if this is an obvious question. I'm a little new to this.

I applaud you for having the character to not take a smiley for a cache you knew was "illegal."

 

Oh, wait... nevermind.

[+sword fern]

How should I go about reporting a cache that I found on National Park land? Such caches are illegal and I've already reported it to the park authorities. Is there a way to report a cache for review/deletion? Sorry if this is an obvious question. I'm a little new to this.

I applaud you for having the character to not take a smiley for a cache you knew was "illegal."

 

Oh, wait... nevermind.

What are you trying to say?

[+GeoBain]

Technically, aren't all guardrail and lamp post hides on private properly without permission? We let that go.

 

Except in Virginia where the VDOT has banned caches on VDOT property.

[+Frank Broughton]

How should I go about reporting a cache that I found on National Park land? Such caches are illegal and I've already reported it to the park authorities. Is there a way to report a cache for review/deletion? Sorry if this is an obvious question. I'm a little new to this.

 

Report it, what are you cache cop? Ignore it is the best policy!

[+tozainamboku]

Technically, aren't all guardrail and lamp post hides on private properly without permission? We let that go.

Ask the people in Virginia about that. Caches can no longer be hidden in guardrails and signage along state highways in Virginia because the Virginia DOT announce that these are VDOT property and that they don't allow caches there. Most guardrail and lamppost hides are in locations where it is possible for someone to get adequate permission (whether they did or not is another question). NPS land and guardrails on Virginia state highways are another matter. The land manager has let Geocaching.com know that they don't allow caches here or that they require explicit permission be given. The reviewers know this; most players know this. It may be appropriate to report such caches; just as it is appropriate to report a cache, if while looking in the lamppost the owner of the business comes out and tells you to get off his private property.

[+Don_J]

If it has been quietly active for 6 years, causing no harm, alarm or anger, I would have logged it and left it.

 

If anything, the cache is a poster child about how physical caches can exists on certain NPS lands, without causing widespread environmental damage.

[Clan Riffster]

Technically, aren't all guardrail and lamp post hides on private properly without permission?

The short answer is "No", they are government owned properties, not privately owned properties.

The long answer? After the big stink in West Virginia, I decided to do my own research, to see how other states might react to similar situations. Laws from different states can get convoluted, making ownership rather unclear. So far, the only states I've checked, and came up with a satisfactory answer are those closest to me; Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Kentucky. Of these, all claim ownership or control of guardrails at a state level, regardless of the roadway ownership. I'm not sure I concur with that, as, for instance, I don't think Florida DOT can claim authority for a guardrail installed on a local road by a municipality. But then, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I do know that, in those states, guardrails installed by municipalities and/or county agencies, must comply with the state's standards, so the state may be telling the truth when they claim authority over them.

 

Of the inquiries I've sent, making vague references about the permissibility of leaving semi-permanent game pieces on and/or within their guardrails, which would not affect the safety of the guardrail in question, (I didn't mention Geocaching specifically), only Florida, Georgia and Texas have replied so far. Florida and Texas both responded with a bunch of bureaucracy that eventually translated into "No". Georgia responded with scathing threats that also translated into "No".

 

Most guardrail... hides are in locations where it is possible for someone to get adequate permission...

That hasn't been my experience so far. If you have a source, I could sure use it to rebut the answers I've gotten from state agencies.

[+TomToad]

What about guardrails at businesses? Like those between the parking lot and loading docks, or those in front of some convenient stores to keep people from accidentally driving into the door? Or how about guard rails along private roads and drives? Would they be owned by the state as well?

[+Chokecherry]

What about guardrails at businesses? Like those between the parking lot and loading docks, or those in front of some convenient stores to keep people from accidentally driving into the door? Or how about guard rails along private roads and drives? Would they be owned by the state as well?

 

Why would someone feel the need to hide a geocache at such places?

[+TomToad]

What about guardrails at businesses? Like those between the parking lot and loading docks, or those in front of some convenient stores to keep people from accidentally driving into the door? Or how about guard rails along private roads and drives? Would they be owned by the state as well?

 

Why would someone feel the need to hide a geocache at such places?

Because all the lamp post skirts are bolted down?

[knowschad]

Here's a novel idea. Rather than eschew a knee-jerk reaction affecting 100's-1000's of

geo-cachers the powers that be should have held the offending cache placer accountable and fine or

charge him/her accordingly. Geocaching.com can follow-up by deleting his/her account and banning

his/her IP. This would allow the rest of us with common sense to continue enjoying the parks.

 

Just a thought....

 

B.

 

Thank you. Thank you very much.

 

 

Seriously... it would help if you took the time to understand the NPS situation better before you offer suggestions like that. There are a lot of factors here.

[knowschad]

Technically, aren't all guardrail and lamp post hides on private properly without permission? We let that go.

Ask the people in Virginia about that. Caches can no longer be hidden in guardrails and signage along state highways in Virginia because the Virginia DOT announce that these are VDOT property and that they don't allow caches there. Most guardrail and lamppost hides are in locations where it is possible for someone to get adequate permission (whether they did or not is another question). NPS land and guardrails on Virginia state highways are another matter. The land manager has let Geocaching.com know that they don't allow caches here or that they require explicit permission be given. The reviewers know this; most players know this. It may be appropriate to report such caches; just as it is appropriate to report a cache, if while looking in the lamppost the owner of the business comes out and tells you to get off his private property.

 

I find it interesting that the VDOT situation was very similar to this one. Everything was just fine, up until such a time that one cacher decided that it was their job to sound the siren. Authority often reacts this way when something is shoved in its face that it would just as soon pretend doesn't exist. Once they are forced to be aware of a situation, that is when they feel the need to legislate against it.

[Clan Riffster]

What about guardrails at businesses?

Good question. As a local to my area, are you familiar with the Home Depot in Oviedo, at the corner of Mitchell Hammock & 426? It has a long access road coming into the south end of the plaza, with a guardrail along the west shoulder. (Kleetus used to have a cache hidden there) The access road is private property, owned by Oviedo Crossings, (the same folks who own the parking lot), according to the property appraiser. The guardrail had FDOT markings, indicating it is their property. Now assume, for argument's sake, that it was not installed by FDOT. Assume instead that it was purchased and installed by Oviedo Crossings when they built the plaza. It would still be a traffic control device, by statute, and still under the authority of FDOT.

 

Somewhere in there, I suspect, is your answer. My thoughts? If a guardrail is a traffic control device, regardless of who purchased it or where it is installed, (parking lot, private road, etc), FDOT can regulate it. If it is not a traffic control device, I suspect FDOT would have no authority over it. Again, this is just how I interpret the applicable statutes. A lawyer might give you a different answer.