Jump to content

Legality or common sense?


user13371
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

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
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...

I think that you are over thinking it, or over policing it, one or the other.

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?

 

My call... I would stay and search on the outside of the fence, but I would not go in to the bus company's property. I would either find it that way, or take a DNF, because I do not know if it is on the bus company's property, but my common sense would tell me that it would not be hidden over there.

 

I don't care who's map you used... a map is not going to be accurate enough to make a decision like this one.

Link to comment

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.

I'm saying if a cache owner is willing to lie that they have adequate permission when publishing (regardless of the cache description), then they've deceived the reviewer and are intentionally deceiving geocachers, putting them in the midst of greater problems than that of geocache "policers" simply reporting on legitimate concerns (whether previously resolved or not).

Link to comment

My call... I would stay and search on the outside of the fence, but I would not go in to the bus company's property. I would either find it that way, or take a DNF, because I do not know if it is on the bus company's property, but my common sense would tell me that it would not be hidden over there.

 

I don't care who's map you used... a map is not going to be accurate enough to make a decision like this one.

Personally, I'd do the same - if I can't find it, I'd log a DNF.

 

Then, if I was concerned over its location, I'd contact the CO about whether it's on posted private property or publicly accessible outside the fence.

 

If the latter, I'd return again to try to find and log it, but I might include a note on my find log that the location could be problematic (if the legal property extends to the curb, possible legitimate cause for concern from the property owner, even though the cache is publicly accessible between the curb and fence). But I wouldn't log a NA.

 

If the CO told me it was over the private fence, then I'd most definitely log a NA.

 

If I saw the cache through the private fence (confirmed on private property), on the other side, I'd log a NA (for followup cachers) and contact the owner, who could then deal with it, potentially before reviewers step in.

 

If the property line didn't extend to include the cache location, and it was not over the private fence, then I'd log it found and move along. (tho if I was very self-conscious, say, of being so close to a backyard or someone's home windows, then I'd only say that in my find log and move along)

 

ETA: in other words, I wouldn't log a NA unless I knew by confirmation that the cache broke a strict guideline (such as being on private property). If I thought it might be by just map location, though I hadn't found the cache myself, I'd contact the owner or a previous finder first.

Edited by thebruce0
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.

 

But wouldn't a statement like "Permission has been received for this cache placement" help alleviate any issues or concerns other cachers may have up front?

Link to comment

But wouldn't a statement like "Permission has been received for this cache placement" help alleviate any issues or concerns other cachers may have up front?

Only up to the point where "Fred", who works on the property, stops you for being there because "Joe", the person granting permission, didn't tell Fred.

 

My question is.... with all the public areas available..... why do some feel the need to put a cache on posted/private property?

Link to comment
I think that you are over thinking it, or over policing it, one or the other.
Nah, just applying what I think is my best judgement at the time. Can be different for different caches, and you can't know or "overthink" anything until you're there. If I seemed to be over DESCRIBING it though (very likely), it's because I was hoping to give you/anyone else who hadn't been on that location a feel for the spot. Edited by Portland Cyclist
Link to comment
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.
I don't need to. You already know the answer to that. You're simply ignoring that answer in favor of what you want to do.

No, really -- I meant that seriously. Let me try it again: You have a concern about a given placement. You have the options of ignoring it, sending a PM (or email) to the cache owner, or to the reviewer, or posting a NA, or writing a cache note that raises the question. I've seen folks use, and suggest, all of those options at different time.

 

Which do you (you personally) choose?

Edited by Portland Cyclist
Link to comment
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.
I don't need to. You already know the answer to that. You're simply ignoring that answer in favor of what you want to do.

No, really -- I meant that seriously. Let me try it again: You have a concern about a given placement. You have the options of ignoring it, sending a PM (or email) to the cache owner, or to the reviewer, or posting a NA, or writing a cache note that raises the question. I've seen folks use, and suggest, all of those options at different time.

 

Which do you (you personally) choose?

 

I may be totally wrong about you, but on this end of the internet wire, what you are doing does not flatter you. You are not coming across as the concerned, responsible cacher that you are portraying yourself as, and I the overwhelming majority of responses to you in this thread seem to agree with my assessment. Sure, there are a few questionable caches out there, but you seem to be seeing problems where nobody else is seeing them.

 

I see, from your profile, that you have not been to any events. I find that very odd for somebody that has been caching for ten years! Have you met any of your fellow cachers? Do you cache with them, or do you always cache alone? The only reason I ask is that I suspect that you don't know many of them... they are just nameless, faceless cache owners to you, and that if you had names and faces to put with those owners that you might go about this a lot differently.

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...

 

Here is another example of exactly what SBell111 is talking about. Fortunately, you only took a DNF on this and didn't post an NA on it:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=fb492046-5000-4f35-9b78-b3f404410bb7&IID=73b147eb-7ec0-4ee7-ab60-649a50931a02

 

73b147eb-7ec0-4ee7-ab60-649a50931a02.jpg

 

Once you finally found it, you posted the fact that it was a "game of inches". Apparently you did not need to trespass after all, huh?

Link to comment
...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.

This had me wondering if a company, in a place like Seattle, could willingly create something with an acronym of NRA... Sorry about the OT drift. That just struck me as humorous. :unsure:

OK, back on topic. :ph34r:

 

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.

Actually, it's worded a bit stronger that suggestion:

 

Obtain the landowner's permission before you hide any geocache on private property. If you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of the reviewer and those seeking the cache.

(Abridged edition)

 

I'm not seeing a lot of wiggle room in that guideline.

But sadly, I'd guess it's the guideline most often ignored by the Reviewers. :unsure:

 

So, while the CO has no obligation to indicate permission was granted,...

See above. That certainly seems like an obligation. ;)

Link to comment
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.

Obtain the landowner's permission before you hide any geocache on private property. If you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of the reviewer and those seeking the cache.

(Abridged edition)

 

Interesting differences. The first one says simply "You assure us that you have...permission", but goes on to include public land as well as private. I take "You assure us" to mean an implicit reassurance of adequate permission.

 

The second one only addresses private property, but it does seem to require not only explicit permission, but that it be stated on the cache page (which, in my experience, it usually is).

Link to comment
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.

Obtain the landowner's permission before you hide any geocache on private property. If you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of the reviewer and those seeking the cache.

(Abridged edition)

 

Interesting differences.

The full text:

 

All local laws apply. This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it. Geocachers must not be required to cross any land with "No Trespassing" or similar signs.

 

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

In the case of public property, contact the agency or association that manages the land to obtain permission. The U.S. National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, among others, prohibit geocaching on lands they manage. Even if you are certain that geocaching is permitted on a particular public property, ensure that the management agency is aware of your intended placement and secure their permission before placing the cache.

 

The Smurfy colored text is what I extracted. B)

Link to comment
My question is.... with all the public areas available..... why do some feel the need to put a cache on posted/private property?
In my case, there is something about the private property that I want to share, and I have explicit permission to place my caches on that private property.

 

Actually, getting explicit permission to place a cache on private property can be easier than getting explicit permission to place a cache on public property controlled by a bureaucracy.

Link to comment
73b147eb-7ec0-4ee7-ab60-649a50931a02.jpg

Once you finally found it, you posted the fact that it was a "game of inches". Apparently you did not need to trespass after all, huh?

I've said it before in this thread and this is another good example. It's always the ones on the edges that raise questions.

 

I had visited that site a few times, with different GPS units, and every device put the coords closer to that No Trespassing sign than where the cache really was. I did not post a NA log, just mentioned the signage in my DNF -- and had written it off in my own mind. But a while later another cacher emailed me a rather pointer clue -- and I went back for it. Now this one really was a game of inches -- it probably COULD be called trespassing but it was NOT in a place where someone looking for it would draw unwelcome attention.

 

That's the edge thing I keep seeing.

Link to comment

...and my thought is 'Why place a cache in such a questionable location in the first place?'

 

Just to see if I can continue outside my 'comfort zone'?

 

Are we really so starved for potential hide locations that this should even be an issue?

 

It seems the urban caching scene is becoming increasingly more and more about this.

 

'Can you find the nano at the Starbucks drive-through?'

Yeah, I can find it...and I don't give a !*$$!*%^ if it goes missing after I make the find. :anibad:

Link to comment
I may be totally wrong about you...

You could be. Some people have the strange idea that I look like Gary Sinise with a beard -- but I assure you I look more like my avatar picture than you look like yours :)

 

But for the most part I've tried to keep my comments in this thread abut caches and practices rather than about people and personalities. If you really want to know something about me as a person, and you can't glean it from my profile or other posts, feel free to PM me and ask.

Link to comment
I may be totally wrong about you...

You could be. Some people have the strange idea that I look like Gary Sinise with a beard -- but I assure you I look more like my avatar picture than you look like yours :)

 

But for the most part I've tried to keep my comments in this thread abut caches and practices rather than about people and personalities. If you really want to know something about me as a person, and you can't glean it from my profile or other posts, feel free to PM me and ask.

 

I'd much rather go caching with you, and spend a little one-on-one time.

I'll let you know the next time I'm in the Portland area (Mom lives in Beaverton).

Link to comment

I got explicit permission to hide caches on public lands in two communities. Didn't kill me and took all of 5 minutes of my life to do. Go figure. We also use the procedures for other public lands here as well as cache owners. If a cache is on private property especially with posted signs I don't do it unless its noted that permission was had. I'm all tatted up and guess who is the first person to get questioned when the cops come.

 

In publishing my cache on public property I let the reviewer know about the explicit permission and where the private property was near there. As well barriers between the very close train tracks and the cache. My cache was published in about a day. I saved myself a lot of grief in all likelihood taking proactive steps instead of hoping the reviewer didn't notice things.

Link to comment
73b147eb-7ec0-4ee7-ab60-649a50931a02.jpg

Once you finally found it, you posted the fact that it was a "game of inches". Apparently you did not need to trespass after all, huh?

I've said it before in this thread and this is another good example. It's always the ones on the edges that raise questions.

 

I had visited that site a few times, with different GPS units, and every device put the coords closer to that No Trespassing sign than where the cache really was. I did not post a NA log, just mentioned the signage in my DNF -- and had written it off in my own mind. But a while later another cacher emailed me a rather pointer clue -- and I went back for it. Now this one really was a game of inches -- it probably COULD be called trespassing but it was NOT in a place where someone looking for it would draw unwelcome attention.

 

That's the edge thing I keep seeing.

 

It would not have raised questions for most of us. Most of us would say, "well, it must be on this side of that sign, because it can't be on that side of the sign". But you seem to see a problem with it. That, my friend, is one of the main points that I have been trying to make with you. One other person logged something about the sign, but they didn't make as big a deal of it as you did.

Link to comment
I may be totally wrong about you...

You could be. Some people have the strange idea that I look like Gary Sinise with a beard -- but I assure you I look more like my avatar picture than you look like yours :)

 

But for the most part I've tried to keep my comments in this thread abut caches and practices rather than about people and personalities. If you really want to know something about me as a person, and you can't glean it from my profile or other posts, feel free to PM me and ask.

 

... as did phlatlander. :lol:

 

I did ask you something about you in the very post that you quoted here. You didn't answer.

Link to comment
I did ask you something about you in the very post that you quoted here. You didn't answer.

PM coming your way.

 

PM received and basically ignored. I guess I should have mentioned that I am not interested in the answers... they were purely rhetorical. The point I was trying to make is that you would probably be dealing with these caches quite differently if those were your friends or acquaintances hiding them. With that said, I'm out of here. I have nothing more to add.

Link to comment

I answered privately because I was more interested in discussing caching practice in the forum rather than personalitiesof myself or other caches. But as a matter of forum and PM practice, I guess I'll ask openly -- why ask a question, AND repeat it, but then say "I'm ignoring your reply, I wasn't really interested?"

 

The two explicit questions Knowschad asked were: 1) Do I know any other cachers? (Yes). 2) Do I cache alone or with others? (Mostly alone, sometimes with a couple of friends). I also saw a rhetorical raised eyebrow from Knowscahd and others about having been a member for >10 years but not going to any caching events. I signed up on GC.com in 2001, but have been interested in GPS and mapping technology for longer than that. Even so, I've only been actively caching for the past couple of yers -- over 99% of my finds in the past two years and more than half of them THIS year. Haven't been to any events because I work during the week and usually hve other things to do on weekends. Haven't sought out many events though there have been a couple I wanted to attend - but couldn't work them into my schedule.

 

And that was the gist of what I sent Knowschad in PM. Anyone want to dissect it, to see if it speaks to the question of what to do when you cone across a questionable cache hide?

Link to comment
Most of us would say, "well, it must be on this side of that sign, because it can't be on that side of the sign".
+1

 

I recently found a cache that was placed along the border between an open space preserve and a wildlife refuge. The open space district allows geocaching, has an established geocaching policy, and even owns a series of caches in 22 of its open space preserves. No one is allowed to enter the wildlife refuge, and its perimeter is posted.

 

It never occurred to me that the cache would be on the wildlife refuge's side of the border.

Link to comment

73b147eb-7ec0-4ee7-ab60-649a50931a02.jpg

Most of us would say, "well, it must be on this side of that sign, because it can't be on that side of the sign".
Sure, that would help narrow it down in some similar placements. But to clarify THAT exact location: What you don't see from that picture is that the "No trespassing" sign is not marking a border. The sign isn't posted along the edge of a property, but in a wide grassy area -- so it may as well read "Keep of the grass." Yet that's where the coords pointed. The cache was actually at the edge of the grass, some considerable distance away.

 

That's the difference between being there versus just armchair caching. On examples I've given, I've tried to describe as best I -- but you CAN'T always tell from a map or carefully worded descriptions the reality of the site.

Link to comment
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.

 

Before I read the rest of your post you're going to have to convince me, and I think most geocachers, that this statement has merit. Go for it.

Sounds like an example of the 1% keeping the other 99% down.
Link to comment

I ask permission for cache placement when needed. I also indicate that I have done so on the cache page...in a reviewer note. Before the cache is ever submitted for publication.

 

Where is the faith in the CO?

 

I know that not every CO is a good CO. But not every CO is a bad CO, either.

I have a cache specifically placed so that the cachers must have faith in the CO (me). I made fake geotrails through the tall grass that doesn't lead you to the cache, but rather to the other side of the field. You have to have faith in me as the CO that the coords are good. You have to have faith that it is where I say it is. You have to have faith that when I said "I wouldn't follow my trail if I were you, I tend to wander" on the cache page, I MEANT it.

 

It's funny. Only three people have found that cache since I put it out, and the coords are excellent and it's placed with permission. Yet there's several DNFs that say it's muggled (only to be found later), that the coords are off (they're not, as indicated in a "found" log by someone else, later), or that they fear that it's on private property. (it is. as I stated, there's permission) There isn't much faith in the CO anymore, is there? That seems to be the REAL issue..

Link to comment
There isn't much faith in the CO anymore, is there? That seems to be the REAL issue..

 

Unfortunately, I'd have to agree.

Reviewers don't know that any cache placed is on public property. Reviewers also have to trust cache placers that they have adequate permission (and didn't lie or unknowingly check the box when publishing). If the CO hints it's on private property before being published, the reviewer can certainly deny publish until permission is granted and indicated. But if not, not even the reviewer knows if it's on private property.

So, yep, if a cache that doesn't indicate private property is found to be located on private property, there's no way to know that 1) the reviewer knew it's on private property or 2) permission was granted for the cache. That's why, unfortunately, it is just better in the long run for COs to indicate knowledge of private property on the cache page, and better, to indicate permission was granted.

 

Personally, I wouldn't be concerned about a cache on private property if the CO recognizes that in the description, even if they don't indicate explicitly that permission was granted. At least I can trust the reviewer would (most likely) have had to approve it (of course unless the indication was added after publishing).

 

...it's really really easy to overthink all this...

but ultimately, for the safety and peace of mind for all who partake in geocaching, is it not just simpler for the CO to be transparent about the cache being located on private property? No unnecessary concern on geocachers' parts, no potential harm to geocachers who may incorrectly "trust" a badly placed geocache, no hassle in dealing with potential reviewer actions, no stress about cachers making a bad name for themselves by reporting every concern to reviewers, etc etc...

 

"Cache is on private property, permission has been granted."

As per the thread title, 'common sense'. Not a lot to ask ;)

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

TheBruce0, I couldn't agree with you more.

 

One of the caches I mentioned, the one on Trimet property that has been over described and argued to death here, is a good example.

 

I posted an NA without a find, because I was pretty sure it was on private property. CO insisted first it wasn't on Trimet property, so he didn't need permission. Then he admitted it LOOKED like it MIGHT be on Trimet property, but he had permission, but that also he was gonna check again. Cache page didn't mention permission originally at all.

 

Based on all that, I revisited site this morning - and found it. It isn't behind the fence, but you don't need a map to see where the property line is -- and it might be a matter of a few feet but it IS on Trimet's side of the line. Like putting a cache on someone's front yard but not behind their fence. AND YET... if the CO does get permission, that's not even a problem.

 

See how much typing could be avoided and trust established if that quote had been in description originally?

 

"Cache is on private property, permission has been granted."

 

Thats all it takes!

Link to comment

Reviewers don't know that any cache placed is on public property.

Without delving into even moderately advanced mapping programs, it takes me little more than a glance to determine that the vast majority of caches local to me are hidden on private property. It seems that big box store parking lots attract film cans the way mobile home parks attract Elvis sightings, tornados and UFOs. I know my Reviewers are a whole lot brighter than I am, so I have to assume they are seeing similar trends. Add to that the ability for anyone with an Internet connection to access the local county property appraiser websites, and discerning if a piece of property belongs to Momma & Pappa Gus, (private), Walmart Corporation, (private), or Seminole County Parks & Recreation, (public), becomes a breeze.

 

I would say, in many, if not most cases, a Reviewer will know if a cache is on public or private property.

Link to comment

Reviewers don't know that any cache placed is on public property.

Without delving into even moderately advanced mapping programs, it takes me little more than a glance to determine that the vast majority of caches local to me are hidden on private property. It seems that big box store parking lots attract film cans the way mobile home parks attract Elvis sightings, tornados and UFOs. I know my Reviewers are a whole lot brighter than I am, so I have to assume they are seeing similar trends. Add to that the ability for anyone with an Internet connection to access the local county property appraiser websites, and discerning if a piece of property belongs to Momma & Pappa Gus, (private), Walmart Corporation, (private), or Seminole County Parks & Recreation, (public), becomes a breeze.

 

I would say, in many, if not most cases, a Reviewer will know if a cache is on public or private property.

 

But, the sad truth is that the reviewer may not be so dedicated or diligent. Did they really check the local tax assessors site for property ownership of the cache location?

Did the owner really post a reviewer note giving the contact information of the person giving permission for the placement?

In many areas the reviewers are overworked...and they are most certainly all underpaid.

The existence of the 'Publish All' button is a testament to that fact.

Link to comment

My whole point is that it's not your job to get permission for my caches.

It's my job. It's my job to make sure the reviewer knows all the details I can possibly provide him/her with about my cache, including whether or not permission was granted.

It's not your job to make sure I'm doing my job.

That's the reviewer job. One that I assure you, he will do well.

 

I'm not going to put a cache out there that can get you into trouble.

 

...guess you just have to trust that. Or do a whole lot of that uneccessary typing you were speaking of.

 

I stand by my point. You are not a reviewer. So, you either have to have faith in some COs.. or not, and not enjoy the game as much as you really could.

Link to comment

I stand by my point. You are not a reviewer. So, you either have to have faith in some COs.. or not, and not enjoy the game as much as you really could.

Right, but there's a reason Groundspeak has provided the 'Needs Archived / Needs Reviewer Attention' log type. To protect against situations involving people who aren't like you ;) (of course, there's no way every geocacher out there will know on arriving at a cache whether the cacher is trust-worthy or competent, like you)

Link to comment

Rhino - you, I trust :)

And even though that implies I *don't* trust some other folks, it's nothing personal. I get to a site and make the judgment each time -- sometimes good, sometimes not.

You trust me because I explained my point of view on it, showed an example of how I do things, and you now know I wouldn't put you in danger, physically or legally .. so the events in your area will be great for you. By talking to people about how they do things in your region, you'll see that the ones you meet are more than likely trustworthy as well. You'll be alright. You won't be a "cache police " like others are afraid you'll become.

Link to comment

I would say, in many, if not most cases, a Reviewer will know if a cache is on public or private property.

Most definitely not in the case of parking garages and parkades, for one.

Why not? Going over in my head the parking garages in my area, establishing ownership is pretty dern simple. What makes this such a complex task where you live? Do you guys not have tax assessors / property appraisers or their equivalent? Can you determine from data provided by them who pays the taxes on the property? That should give you some clue. If the taxes are paid by Bubba Smith, it's private. If the taxes are paid by Target Corp, it's private. If the taxes are paid by City of Sanford, it's public.

 

Not sure what a parkade is, so I can't speak for those.

Link to comment
You trust me because I explained my point of view ...
Sure, but only to a point :D

 

Whether you've explained your view or not, if I come across a cache and it looks fishy, I'd probably mention it. *HOW* I mention it, that's where personalities (online and real life) come into it.

 

From recent experience, I've come to generalize my best course this way: Usually it'll be a PM to the cache owner. But if the CO is someone I've tried to contact before with no result, or someone who seemed problematic in other ways, it'll be a PM to the reviewer instead I'll save the "NA" logs for the ones where I feel there's a likelihood someone could get hurt, or get hassled by local residents or police.

 

Choices, choices.... but overthinking is better than not thinking :)

Link to comment

I would say, in many, if not most cases, a Reviewer will know if a cache is on public or private property.

Most definitely not in the case of parking garages and parkades, for one.

Why not? Going over in my head the parking garages in my area, establishing ownership is pretty dern simple.

Read again, it's not about getting ownership, it's about trusting that the cache owner has been granted ownership. In the case of parking garages (aka parkades) as just one example, the CO doesn't have to explain where it is. I've come across many that are not described as being within privately owned parking garages. No one thinks twice about it. But a recent drama has led me to believe that parking garages are off limits entirely unless with express permission. I can guarantee you that not 100% of the parking garage caches out there have permission in the slightest, and many are 'obfuscated' to the point that reviewers may not even know they're in one. Reviewers are not obligated (as explained in other comments above) to check property/building ownership for caches, as they generally 'trust' the CO when they check the box for appropriate permission.

 

No, there is no guarantee the reviewer knows a cache is on private property. There is no guarantee a geocacher will not show concern if they believe it to be without having an indicate the cache owner is aware, let alone the reviewer that published it.

 

Once again, "Cache is on private property. Permission has been granted" - a simple comment to add to a description to avoid a lot of potential frustration.

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...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...