Jump to content

Legality or common sense?


user13371

Recommended Posts

I would guess less than 50% would be placed where permission

Indeed, we're both guessing. But my guess differs from yours is that far fewer than 50% of caches are placed within those areas. That could be my city-slicker bias. I originally wrote that opening post specifically about urban caches, but then the 99% figure seemed too LOW.

 

I'd still infer from the GC.com guidelines that any cache placed outside of public land should have explicit, individual permission -- and anything WITHIN public land would need the same kind of permission UNLESS there was a published policy on geocaching for that area.

 

So you think my 99% guess is two high and I think your <50% is too low. How would we research that without mining on GC.com's database against property maps?

 

The guidelines use the term adequate permission. Even when doing urban caches, most seem to rise to that level.

 

Around here, I have seen urban caches that tell you the business owner is aware of the cache. I know of cache owners who have talked with the business, and just don't mention it on the cache page.

 

It always amazes me when someone figures just because they don't check permission no one else does.

 

As for how would we research that, well it seems no one but you cares, so have at it. Your the one that came in here and insulted 99% (your estimate) of the cachers. It seems it is up to you to prove the insult.

Link to comment
Please explain your basis for 99%.

Good challenge!

 

Admittedly from a US-centric position, where so much land is owned and/or managed, or claimed by SOMEONE, I think in principal 100% of cache placements should require permission from property owners, land managers, etc. The 99% figure is my wild uneducated guess about what percentage DON'T have any permission.

 

Might be a job for a GSAK guru to see how good my guess is. Anyone out there have a significant large cache database (several thousand) on hand, and able to query how many listings include the word "permission" or "approved" or "approval"?

Your approach wouldn't yield accurate results. In Southcentral Alaska, the Municipality's Parks and Recreation department has provided carte blanche for caches due to the local organization's CITO and classroom efforts. The two biggest State Park jurisdictions work on a blanket permit system. Those three land management groups have a significant number of the placed caches covered.

 

I think it was Fizzy Magic who said 97% of all statistics are made up. (Apologies in advance if it wasn't Fizzy.)

Link to comment

technically except those caches that have permission, every single one out there is on somebody's property and should acquire permission

 

Actually every cache (permission or not) is on someone's property.

 

In RI, the state DEM & PArks & REc are aware of geocaching, and are accepting of it. There is no formal policy for or against. There is implied permission.

Link to comment
... bad form...

How would you have handled it? These are often a matter of degree, from "no problem" to "is this right?" to "nah, this CIN'T be right!" and qut e few shades In between.

 

Take the two you're gripping about here: The first one apparently inside the property line in a residential area; the other hidden inside a tall exclusion fence in an industrial park. No mention of permission on the cache page, though that latter one explicitly warms people not to try it during business hours.

 

Your call, what do you do on these?

 

I don't go for them. On a few I have shot the local reviewer an email, complete with photos of No Trespassing signs (if there were any).

 

It would be hypocracy if I called the CO out and made the find anyway.

Link to comment

For caches that require you to traverse private property to log, I wouldn't sign but report. For caches that are accessible, yet on private property, I don't see why one wouldn't log it and make the note of property concern, except on 'principle'. If I don't have to do anything illegal to sign a log, I won't stop myself from signing it; but if the cache's existence itself is questionably illegal, then I'll also make that note in the log so the CO and/or reviewer can deal with it (and future finders will know what they're in for).

 

2ndly, I think it would be good to have a property for cache listings that one can check (or that the reviewer can check) that states permission was explicitly granted - not that having it unchecked means no permission is given, but it's more of a visual confirmation, a quick reference for concerned cachers who think the placement may be of issue; to see basically "don't worry, the cache is permitted" may assuage the concern and make the extra effort to report the cache unneeded (but ideally, a CO who has to get permission would generally say that permission was given within the cache description, right?)

 

*shrug*

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

In the town that I come from, there was a great caching series, it was called (and I loosely translate) "Dare You" Series.

I contained about 60 old industrial halls, cellars, old train maintenance buildings, hospitals, corn silos and such, and all of them where about 7-15 stages. (You can find a lot of these old buildings here in Germany, especially in the east.)

Of course, I dont need to mention that none of those were planted with permission, since the owners made you crawl into tunnels full of fiber glass and asbestos or wade through a complete floor in the 5th basement that was half full of 60 year old water :P

It was a pretty rough and dangerous, but thats what made it so special.

Any idiot can find a cache taped to a bench, but this took balls, stamina and good knowledge of architecture.

The city became so famous for these special caches all over the country, that it became a real caching tourist magnet, with people swarming into the city every weekend from cities like Amsterdam, Paris, Munich, Prague....

This went on for about 3 years (mind that the reviewers knew about this)

And then, 3 months ago, some drunk bastards were caught by the police, and geocaching.com decided that NOW its time to disable all these caches, archive them and make sure noone could log them anymore.

I know, it may sound a bit extreme, but as you may notice, these caches were not designed for kids (in fact, no kid ever went near one of those, they were creepy) and the adults that went for them clearly knew what they were getting themselves into.

 

There is no further point to my story, I just wanted to tell what happened in my city, where for 3 years reviewers had no problem with publishing these caches, yes even the city turned a blind eye for all the money the tourists brought, and wich now has become a geocaching ghost town.

I moved away from there now cuz of my job, but I will never forget the evenings planning the entry and exit of such a location, checkin all the equipment (wich sometimes included gas masks...you know, the ones used for painting, not those from WWII) and getting really exited, then goin out in the dead of night, always carefull not to be seen, sneaking in there, the heart pounding because we used to try to use as little light as possible in a pitch black room, making no noises.....aaah the thrill.

All this was taken from me, and I must admit that geocaching has gotten a little boring to me since then :(

 

I also know that for some this might not be what geocaching is really about, but that's what it was for me....

Link to comment

Okay, let me put this back to a "what would you do in this situation?" realm. I'm gonna post a related message in the appropriate regional forum shortly but throw it out here for general consideration:

 

I emailed the local Parks Department (Portland, Oregon) and asked if there was a set policy on geocasches in parks, and if I wanted to place one who would I ask for permission. Paraphrasing the reply: "No policy in place, a group is working on a policy but it won't be ready for a few months, they know a lot of caches have been placed but few if any hiders sought permission, they haven't decided what to do about those, prefer that anyone who wants to place a new cache should wait until there IS a published policy."

 

So ... it seems pretty clear to me that any cache in a park around here is not complying with GC.com guidelines. So, do you call a Needs Archive on every one already in place? Ask reviewers to temporarily disable them until the Parks Dept. comes up with a formal policy?

Link to comment

Okay, let me put this back to a "what would you do in this situation?" realm. I'm gonna post a related message in the appropriate regional forum shortly but throw it out here for general consideration:

 

I emailed the local Parks Department (Portland, Oregon) and asked if there was a set policy on geocasches in parks, and if I wanted to place one who would I ask for permission. Paraphrasing the reply: "No policy in place, a group is working on a policy but it won't be ready for a few months, they know a lot of caches have been placed but few if any hiders sought permission, they haven't decided what to do about those, prefer that anyone who wants to place a new cache should wait until there IS a published policy."

 

So ... it seems pretty clear to me that any cache in a park around here is not complying with GC.com guidelines. So, do you call a Needs Archive on every one already in place? Ask reviewers to temporarily disable them until the Parks Dept. comes up with a formal policy?

 

""No policy in place" is a policy. Apparently that policy is about to change. "prefer that anyone who wants to place a new cache should wait" is a preference, not a policy.

Link to comment
Not based upon a posting in a Forum, but directly from a Land Manager? Certainly.
Well, as knowschad observed, the Parks guy's reply is a little software than "don't do it" - it was more "we'd prefer you didn't, for now" and they haven't decided what to do with any already in place.

 

Over in the Northwest/Orgeon part of the forum, I posted the more direct regional concern. As of yet there is only one reply, basically a snarky "no one cares." Which may be true enough to be a problem in itself.

Edited by Portland Cyclist
Link to comment
Not based upon a posting in a Forum, but directly from a Land Manager? Certainly.
Well, as knowschad observed, the Parks guy's reply is a little software than "don't do it" - it was more "we'd prefer you didn't, for now" and they haven't decided what to do with any already in place.

 

After reading his response I don't think it was even that harsh. I read it more like, if you must, be gentle, and don't be suprised if our new policy requires you to remove it in the future

 

Over in the Northwest/Orgeon part of the forum, I posted the more direct regional concern. As of yet there is only one reply, basically a snarky "no one cares." Which may be true enough to be a problem in itself.

 

I read this differently too. B+L wasn't saying, no one cares, on the contrary, I think his tone was that as wrong as it is, poeple are going to place caches in parks no matter what the policy. I think he cares very much, and he is not alone. He was saying that most people don't bother or care enough to ask for permission, thye just place caches anywhere they please, be it in a park or otherwise.

 

I don't know about in Oregon but in Washington State The WSGA has a Parks Liason program. They have been instrumental in getting caches reinstated in Dsicovery Park and working with Land Managers to keep other parks open for caching. does Oregon have a local Geocaching Association? If so I would recomend consulting with them about your concerns...

Link to comment

Over in the Northwest/Orgeon part of the forum, I posted the more direct regional concern. As of yet there is only one reply, basically a snarky "no one cares." Which may be true enough to be a problem in itself.

I read this differently too. B+L wasn't saying, no one cares, on the contrary, I think his tone was that as wrong as it is, poeple are going to place caches in parks no matter what the policy. I think he cares very much, and he is not alone. He was saying that most people don't bother or care enough to ask for permission, thye just place caches anywhere they please, be it in a park or otherwise.

 

I don't know about in Oregon but in Washington State The WSGA has a Parks Liason program. They have been instrumental in getting caches reinstated in Dsicovery Park and working with Land Managers to keep other parks open for caching. does Oregon have a local Geocaching Association? If so I would recomend consulting with them about your concerns...

If I was being snarky, it was not directed at you. FobesMan is correct that I actually do care and he has also touched on some of the reasons for my snarkiness. The fact that some people seem to think you have personally insulted them just by wondering aloud about adequate permission is interesting, but not surprising.

 

I already could see that this was true, but I was once told by a reviewer that unless a land manger specifically asks for caches to be removed, they will assume that there is adequate permission.

 

FobesMan has give you some very good advice. It will be much more productive to get involved and help the Parks Departments craft some reasonable guidelines than it will be to question the legitimacy of caches that will continue to have adequate permission until they do not.

Link to comment

Okay, let me put this back to a "what would you do in this situation?" realm. I'm gonna post a related message in the appropriate regional forum shortly but throw it out here for general consideration:

 

I emailed the local Parks Department (Portland, Oregon) and asked if there was a set policy on geocaches in parks, and if I wanted to place one who would I ask for permission. Paraphrasing the reply: "No policy in place, a group is working on a policy but it won't be ready for a few months, they know a lot of caches have been placed but few if any hiders sought permission, they haven't decided what to do about those, prefer that anyone who wants to place a new cache should wait until there IS a published policy."

 

So ... it seems pretty clear to me that any cache in a park around here is not complying with GC.com guidelines. So, do you call a Needs Archive on every one already in place? Ask reviewers to temporarily disable them until the Parks Dept. comes up with a formal policy?

I can tell you what I did in a very similar situation:

The Senior Forester of The Little Big Econ State Forest was clueless about geocaching. He was introduced to the activity in a less than favorable way, stumbling upon a container that wasn't really adequate for a natural environment. The contents were predictably soggy.

 

Since this Forest is in my patrol area, he called me to report it. As he was waiting, he poked around the Internet, learning a bit about the hobby. At one stage in his conversation, he mentioned "This ain't the only one out here. There's three or four more, according to the website, and ain't none of 'em asked for permission". I had an open mouth-insert foot moment, by telling him, "Actually, there's about 30 of them"...

 

By this time, he knew that I had contact information for "someone in charge of this (stuff)", and demanded that every single one of them be removed, immediately. We spoke for almost two hours, and I convinced him to retract his demands for removal, opting instead for a moratorium on further cache placements pending a policy governing the activity. I notified my Reviewers, and they let the general caching public know that they could not publish any more caches in this Forest until a policy was created.

 

This went on for what felt like centuries, though I'm sure it couldn't have been much more than a couple years. Once a policy was in place, I gave the Forestry folks my Reviewer's contact information, asking that they explain the policy to them. This mostly worked, for a while, though it did get bogged down a bit, as other duties called them away from bureaucracy. Part of the permission process on the Forestry end involved evaluating each proposed placement for environmental concerns. The person who eventually got tasked with that was getting frustrated, so I became an official Forestry volunteer, and now I am tasked with that job. When folks inquire about hiding caches in that Forest, the staff directs them to me. I check out their proposed ground zero, and either give it permission or deny it, based on what I find. Then I assign it a permit number and send both the cache owner and my Reviewer a .pdf file of the signed permit.

 

The moral of all that blabbering was this:

 

Work with the land manager.

 

In your specific case, I would ask them.

 

"Hey guys & gals, how do you feel about these caches which don't have permission?"

 

That shows the staff that cachers can be conscientious of the needs of land managers, which could pay huge dividends later on down the road. If they stick with their thoughts of, "Let 'em ride for now", then leave your contact information with them, let them know they can contact you for any cache related concerns and bid them adieu. If they say they want them all gone, and you can't dissuade them from such a course, put them in contact with your Reviewer so they can take decisive action.

Link to comment
...In your specific case, I would ask them...

Um, how do you think I got that email from the parks department to being with? I asked them what their policy was. What I posted was the relevant part of their answer.

Yeah, I kinda figured that was the case. You took a proper course, no doubt about it. The only thing I would have done differently is to pose any such questions in person. I've found, when dealing with bureaucracies, the easiest option for them is to say "No". I've also found that it is much easier for a bureaucrat to say "No" in an email, where no true conversation takes place, than in a face to face discussion. But again, to clarify, you did the right thing. B)

Link to comment

Op, you have no caches hidden in Portland metro, you don't belong to GEOregon, and you have never attended a local event since you have been caching here. So as to your attitude about geocaching in Portland, all I can do is make a facepalm.

 

What gives you the right to decide what caches I can or cannot find, or where or where not I can hide them? You are interpreting gs guidelines in a pretty restrictive and controlling fashion imo.

 

Do you you even live in the city of Portland btw?

 

Do you know how many different entities manage the local parks here? Only one that I know of within the City of Portland has a written geocaching policy. Can you tell me which one that is? You contacted Portland Parks and Rec? Big deal. Well, I suppose it will be a big deal if you go slapping NA's on every cache YOU decide are in violation of gs guidelines, or might or might not be in violation of particular park rules, if and when such rules are ever written.

 

And the cache you are bragging that you slapped a NA on after you logged it as a found, that was at the Portland Transition Projects building across the street from Blanchett House, and next to the Greyhound bus station. Translation for those who don't live here: Transient population center of Portland. To get the cache you had to stand in the pay for parking lot of the Transition Projects building. Yes there is a No Trespassing sign there, just like there is one in every public parking lot in this city. But op, YOU decided that it was "unsafe" or whatever your NA excuse verbiage was. Scared to walk around in that part of town, are you? I don't see you slapping NA's on caches at other parking lots that have the same kind of signs. Or are you going there next?

 

I don't particularly care about parking lot caches, but I do care about your attitude. You don't seem particularly interested in either being part of or giving back to the local geocaching community. So, just what are your motives?

 

Maybe to clarify your intent, and voice your concerns to us locals, you could attend one of the next events. There are two coming up on 11/11. Hope to see you there.

Link to comment

I've had an instance where I mistakenly placed a cache on private property without owner permission. It was next to Corps of Engineer land and I just placed it too far inland from the water. I looked up the local CAD website and saw my mistake. Now, the cache is archived.

 

I also have a cache in my front yard...I never asked my wife if it was okay...oops.

Edited by TerraViators
Link to comment

BlueMoth, I do live in Portland and I think my concerns are reasonable -- to avoid getting called out for trespassing myself or seeing Geocaching as a hobby getting a bad rap and facing more restrictions than it already does.

 

I will continue to call a Needs Archived on a cache that seems to violate the guidelines, whether I realize that before or after finding them (like this one). If the mods disagree with me they can always ignore me or tell me I'm wrong.

 

And thank you for the invite to upcoming caching events next week. Always interested in meeting friendly folks.

Link to comment

BlueMoth, I do live in Portland and I think my concerns are reasonable -- to avoid getting called out for trespassing myself or seeing Geocaching as a hobby getting a bad rap and facing more restrictions than it already does.

 

I will continue to call a Needs Archived on a cache that seems to violate the guidelines, whether I realize that before or after finding them (like this one). If the mods disagree with me they can always ignore me or tell me I'm wrong.

 

And thank you for the invite to upcoming caching events next week. Always interested in meeting friendly folks.

 

Actually, that was a sincere and friendly invitation on my part. Maybe didn't seem like it after my rant, but it is. I really do hope you will come to an event. I will look forward to meeting up with you.

 

I am sorry that you feel like you need to be the cache police in our town. Maybe in the future you should either walk away from the cache if you feel uncomfortable, and/or voice your concerns to the cache owner, first. Why make enemies when you can make friends? Give people a chance to make things right. Look, there are caches around here that I hold my nose to when I find them, there are some that I have felt very uncomfortable about getting, there are some that I pass by for the reasons you seem to think you need to post a NA on. But I don't arbitrarily decide which ones should go and which ones should stay. Getting to know your local cachers before acting rashly is a good thing. It is something to think about anyway.

Link to comment

Actually the reviewers decide which ones should go and which ones should stay, not the geocacher that reports it - they just bring them to their attention. If a cache seems to break the guidelines, it's perfectly reasonable to bring the cache to the reviewers' attention (and try to see NA not as "Needs Archived", but as "Needs Reviewer Attention" - I believe GS may be altering that particular aspect of the NA feature).

 

Rather than presuming someone is being antagonistic or trying to make enemies by posting NA logs, the flipside is not to automatically make them an enemy because they do so. Again, the NA can be ignored or corrected if the cache is indeed not in violation of any guidelines.

 

Cyclist is right - if it's on private property, or it breaks other guidelines, it's better to report it and have the listing clarified than to open later geocachers or geocaching itself to scrutiny and unnecessary troubles (especially legal ones).

If you're uncomfortable with a cache, that's different. Anyone can pass caches they don't want to do or feel they can't do. But if it's a broken rule, especially a legal one, it should be reported. Hopefully the affected COs don't see that as 'making enemies' :blink:

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

BlueMoth and TheBruce replies look real good next to each other - great example of divergent opinions politely expressed.

 

I don't think of myself as the local cache police; like TheBruce I think that's the reviewer's job. I'm sure I do seem like a snitch sometimes though -- Mr. Cache Reviewer, would you look at this for me? -- but it can't be helped. The alternative would be to walk away from and ignore a bunch of stuff I think (or know) isn't right.

 

I do approach every cache assuming it's gonna be within guidelines -- and back off if I get too uncomfortable with the spot. Sometimes it's an edge thing, I might be getting uncomfortable but made the find before backing out. And on reflection find myself saying "Nah, this ain't right." Those are the only ones where I'll post both "Found it" & "Needs Attention." But I've never posted a NA just because I "didn't like" a cache. And yeah, and there are some real stinkers in the world of urban caching around here.

 

As it turns out, the majority of the ones where I have raised a concern were placed by one person/team. They might think I'm picking on them, but it's not so. It might be just be that they've hidden hundreds of caches within a few miles of my home, and some seem iffy to me. Gotta bless 'em for the sheer effort and numbers though! I really don't know if the Geospaz percentage of "iffy" ones are any higher than for urban caches overall. If I picked any other four or five hundred hides by other folks, I might find a dozen or so that also raised a red flag. I don't know how anyone could do any data mining on that.

Edited by Portland Cyclist
Link to comment

I am sorry that you feel like you need to be the cache police in our town. Maybe in the future you should either walk away from the cache if you feel uncomfortable, and/or voice your concerns to the cache owner, first. Why make enemies when you can make friends? Give people a chance to make things right. y.

 

meh you're damned if you do and damned if you don't...contacting the CO can very well make you a friend or an enemy

 

IMO best course of action is to contact the reviewer directly with your concerns

Link to comment

First you say "If you take Geocaching Guidelines as law and also take local/state/federal ordinances into account, 99% or more of all caches should be archived." Then you say "I do approach every cache assuming it's gonna be within guidelines".

 

Which is it? You sound like cache police to me.

Link to comment

I am sorry that you feel like you need to be the cache police in our town. Maybe in the future you should either walk away from the cache if you feel uncomfortable, and/or voice your concerns to the cache owner, first. Why make enemies when you can make friends? Give people a chance to make things right. y.

 

meh you're damned if you do and damned if you don't...contacting the CO can very well make you a friend or an enemy

 

IMO best course of action is to contact the reviewer directly with your concerns

 

This is why I suggest that Portland Cyclist come to some geo-events and get to know his local caching community. A friendly approach with particular concerns, face to face is not going to make him enemies here. However, a NA, however reasonable he might THINK is is, from an unknown, is not going to make him any friends.

Link to comment
First you say "If you take Geocaching Guidelines as law and also take local/state/federal ordinances into account, 99% or more of all caches should be archived." ...
Uxuroius, did you read the entire post from which you quoted the first line? Tongue in cheek, hyperbole, meant to spark discussion. Edited by Portland Cyclist
Link to comment
.... a NA, however reasonable he might THINK is is, from an unknownis not going to make him any friends.
An unimportant detail up front: Unknown? I'm pretty accessible and open. Been on the forums for over ten years, though not always actively geocaching. Actively caching in Portland area for the past few years. For most of that time I've used my real name here; only switched to a "screen name" recently. My avatar is a real picture of me, not a cartoon character. Have introduced myself , giving away both real name and screen name, to other cachers I've met in the field. Would going to a CITO or other event a few times a year somehow make me more of a regular Joe?

 

But back to the important "a NA, however reasonable he might THINK is, is not going to make him any friends."

 

Probably not, and I'm not sure that can be helped. In any context, from a stranger or your best bud, saying "Hmm, there might be a problem with this one" is not going make anyone happy. And people's sensitivities vary. Some might take a problem report or even a raised eyebrow as a reason to check it out, others might act like you insulted them or their children personally.

 

I don't know if that variety of human nature can or should be changed. Some folks are gonna be unhappy - whether the problems or questions are presented to the CO, the reviewer, or any other way -- no matter how many CITO's and picnics someone goes to.

Edited by Portland Cyclist
Link to comment
Cyclist is right - if it's on private property, or it breaks other guidelines, it's better to report it and have the listing clarified than to open later geocachers or geocaching itself to scrutiny and unnecessary troubles (especially legal ones).

Please cite the guideline that forbids geocaches on private property.

Link to comment

SBell, there is no guideline "that forbids geocaches on private property." The relevant guideline (and common sense) suggest the hider should seek permission for such placements and indicate permission was given in the cache description. Fundamental guidelines, item 1.2:

 

You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property.
Edited by Portland Cyclist
Link to comment

As PC said, and it's a matter of clarity. If it's on private property, but nothing is mentioned in the cache description about having permission, don't be surprised when someone brings it up to whatever degree (from a posted note to a NA log) ;)

 

If you have permission, it's better to indicate that to whatever degree within the cache listing so you don't have someone come along and alert the reviewers to a private property cache.

Link to comment
First you say "If you take Geocaching Guidelines as law and also take local/state/federal ordinances into account, 99% or more of all caches should be archived." ...
Uxuroius, did you read the entire post from which you quoted the first line? Tongue in cheek, hyperbole, meant to spark discussion.

 

I find 99% of all bicyclists are dangerous, rude and egotistical. Saying this is OK, even though I don't believe it, because I want to spark discussion.

 

If you start with an inflammatory statement, one that insults the entire reading crowd you are trying to reach, do not be surprised when they react with the anger you deserve for such hyperbole.

 

Edited to add that you reinforced your estimate of 99% on several other posts. Seem that takes it out of "tongue in cheek, hyperbole".

Edited by uxorious
Link to comment

BlueMoth, I do live in Portland and I think my concerns are reasonable -- to avoid getting called out for trespassing myself or seeing Geocaching as a hobby getting a bad rap and facing more restrictions than it already does.

 

I will continue to call a Needs Archived on a cache that seems to violate the guidelines, whether I realize that before or after finding them (like this one). If the mods disagree with me they can always ignore me or tell me I'm wrong.

 

And thank you for the invite to upcoming caching events next week. Always interested in meeting friendly folks.

 

You post that cache as a good example of one that seems to violate guidelines? Even you admitted that it was on the other side of the fence. Google maps are not accurate enough to say exactly where a cache is. Just because it appeared to be inside the fence on the maps, you admitted that it was not. The cache is on Portland Park properties, according to McKeeFamily's research. I'd think that you could have done the same research.

 

It sounds, from their posts that you are gaining some notoriety in your neck of the woods as a cache cop. We do need to police caches ourselves, true... but I'm wondering if you aren't perhaps overstepping your bounds some.

Link to comment

As PC said, and it's a matter of clarity. If it's on private property, but nothing is mentioned in the cache description about having permission, don't be surprised when someone brings it up to whatever degree (from a posted note to a NA log) ;)

 

If you have permission, it's better to indicate that to whatever degree within the cache listing so you don't have someone come along and alert the reviewers to a private property cache.

There is no need for a cache owner to indicate that on the cache page as he has already attested to having adequate permission when he listed the cache.

Link to comment

There is no need for a cache owner to indicate that on the cache page as he has already attested to having adequate permission when he listed the cache.

Sure, but not necessarily. For one, you can't guarantee that no one will be suspicious if your cache is located on private property and no permission was granted - so it's in your better interest as a CO to indicate that for the geocacher. Second, there's no indication that on finding a cache you believe is on private property that the CO was actually granted adequate permission and that the reviewer even knows, unless it's indicated on the cache page.

 

So, while the CO has no obligation to indicate permission was granted, it's certainly better for the smoothness of the geocaching experience both for the seeker and the owner. ;)

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
Rockin 98th is on Portland Park properties, according to McKeeFamily's research.
You must have only read one of McKee's logs -- he followed up by saying himself that it looked to be on Trimet proeprty and he was going to check more closely. And that's not from Google Maps strictly, but PortlandMaps.com, fed from the city's GIS site (I linked that info in my own log). The nearest Portland Parks property is quite some distance away, not just a matter of being on one side of the fence or the other.

 

This is where local site knowledge comes in better than remote viewing. But visualize yourself in a similar situation: Residential property on one side of the street, a bus company site on the other that cover several square blocks. Tall perimeter fence of various types surrounds the site, some sections posted with "no trespassing" signs, some not -- but all topped with barbed wire. Your GPS tells you to go into the bushes between the road and the fence. Go too far into the bushes and hang around for very long, you think you may draw some unwelcome curiosity from the residents or police. Go home and check the city's website, and it looks like those coordinates are on private property...

 

Your call: Go back tomorrow? Give it up? Report it or not?

Edited by Portland Cyclist
Link to comment

There is no need for a cache owner to indicate that on the cache page as he has already attested to having adequate permission when he listed the cache.

Sure, but not necessarily. For one, you can't guarantee that no one will be suspicious if your cache is located on private property and no permission was granted - so it's in your better interest as a CO to indicate that for the geocacher. Second, there's no indication that on finding a cache you believe is on private property that the CO was actually granted adequate permission and that the reviewer even knows, unless it's indicated on the cache page.

 

So, while the CO has no obligation to indicate permission was granted, it's certainly better for the smoothness of the geocaching experience both for the seeker and the owner. ;)

Do I understand correctly that your position is that a cache owner who would lie about having adequate permission when he checked the box would tell the truth about it in a statement on the cache page?

 

I'm doubtful.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Rockin 98th is on Portland Park properties, according to McKeeFamily's research.
You must have only read one of McKee's logs -- he followed up by saying himself that it looked to be on Trimet proeprty and he was going to check more closely. And that's not from Google Maps strictly, but PortlandMaps.com, fed from the city's GIS site (I linked that info in my own log). The nearest Portland Parks property is some distance away, not just a matter of being on one side fo the fence or the other.

 

This is where local site knowledge comes in better than remote viewing. But visualize yourself in a similar situation: Residential property on one side of the street, a bus company site on the other that cover several square blocks. Tall perimeter fence of various types surrounds the site, some sections posted with "no trespassing" signs, some not -- but all topped with barbed wire. Your GPS tells you to go into the bushes between the road and the fence. Ifyou go too far into the bushes and hang around for very long, you may draw some unwelcome curiosity from the residents or police. Go home and check the city's website, and it looks like those coordinates are on private property...

 

Your call: Go back tomorrow? Give it up? Report it or not?

If teh cache is on my side of the fence, I'm not seeing your issue.

Link to comment
It sounds, from their posts that you are gaining some notoriety in your neck of the woods as a cache cop. We do need to police caches ourselves, true... but I'm wondering if you aren't perhaps overstepping your bounds some.

Nah, I'm just annoying one or two folks by raising some concern about placements. And no matter how you do that -- PM to the cache owner or reviewer, NA log, note ont he cache page -- someone's gonna be unhappy about it.

 

Tell me which of those reporting mechanisms you think aren't "overstepping" - a way to voice a concern that's guaranteed not to upset anybody.

Link to comment
If the cache is on my side of the fence, I'm not seeing your issue.

Which side is that? Everything from the edge of the street to the fenceline?

 

I grew up on a street where there were lawns, sidewalks, and a strip of grass (and sometimes trees) between the sidewalk and the street. I treated that bit of grass between pretty much the same as people's lawns - not "mine." I did consider the sidewalk a "right of way" even though I didn't know that term then.

 

If the city's GIS website shows the property line goes to the curb (along with the more obvious tall fence, barbed wire, no trespassing signs, and lack of sidewalk), I don't second guess where the line REALLY is and which is "my side" of the fence.

Edited by Portland Cyclist
Link to comment
If the cache is on my side of the fence, I'm not seeing your issue.

Which side is that? Everything from the edge of the street to the fenceline?

 

I grew up on a street where there were lawns, sidewalks, and a strip of grass (and sometimes trees) between the sidewalk and the street. I treated that bit of grass between pretty much the same as people's lawns - not "mine." I did consider the sidewalk a "right of way" even though I didn't know that term then.

 

If the city's GIS website shows the property line goes to the curb (along with the more obvious tall fence, barbed wire, no trespassing signs, and lack of sidewalk), I don't second guess where the line REALLY is and which is "my side" of the fence.

A fence with a no trespassing sign on it means, to me, that one is not supposed to go within the fenced area. This is in line with the general rule of thumb that states that you are not to pass a no trespassing sign without permission. Going up to the sign is not a problem; nor would finding a cache outside a posted fence.

Link to comment
Going up to the sign is not a problem; nor would finding a cache outside a posted fence.
I actually agree with you, up to a point. The disagreements on these things always come to an edge or marginal case. That's the case with the specific cache (Rockin 98) we're talking about at the moment.

 

For an urban cache like this one, you'd have to stand on the spot and ask yourself not only "Am I on the right-of-way here?" but also how it would look to the folks who live across the street or the police driving by. It's gonna be a case-by-case thing; the layout of fences, bushes, lines of sight, character of the neighborhood, property type, etc...

Link to comment
...You should go caching in Forest Park or Tyron Creek or Marquam Hill, or the Gorge more often. Your blood pressure will go down a notch or two. I know mine does. :)

My blood pressure's fine -- hope I didn't come across as angry. These kinds of debates/arguments/quibbles seem really low-key to me personally, even though I know a lot of people get pretty heated up.

 

I tend to do mostly urban caching and close to home because I don't own a car. But I do sometimes get out on the trails and buttes around here.

Edited by Portland Cyclist
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...