Jump to content

Cache thief, stealing caches, leaving nasty comments, forcing reviewer into archiving them and now is going to city council to have geocaching banned.


Coldgears

Recommended Posts

I recall walking up Purgatory road and just after crossing a small bridge, I noticed the arrow of the GPS pointing 80 feet west to a spot just behind a private property sign. I called the number and the lady who answered was not the same name as the person listed, and she didn't know anything about the place. I assumed it was an old sign and went in. However, I'm fairly certain that the NJ land trust property does not extend to that spot anyway.

 

I had a cache recently being reported as being behind private property signs. (GCVC9Y) I was certain it was public property, but I called the recreation department anyway to make sure. They replied that it was still public property and open to hiking, caching, ect. I then called someone I knew in the police department who told me they were sure that local residents had put the signs up illegally to stop hunters from going back there. I suppose they could not find any more "no hunting" signs, as it was already noted on the existing Green Acres sign in small letters. I went back there and found an illegally placed deerstand, as well as empty bottles of deerscent and bulletshells. Even if it had been a legal area to hunt, it was still too close to houses, as they were less than 500' away..

 

I then removed the deerstand, as well as the signs. Cache on! :D

Link to comment

I think it sucks that this individual has logged finds then removed the containers. I would be sending a personal message requesting the return of my property - very politely, of course - within 5 days.

If it were an area they live in, and IF the cache was on private property, why couldn't they send an email asking the CO to remove the cache? They are policing other areas, it seems.

A cache near us was archived as it was on private farmland - no permission. Had permission been sought, it would have been given. It was not removed, and I contacted our reviewer asking if he/she wanted me to do so. As the cache is deemed to be the property of the cache owner, I was asked to leave it and only if the reviewer got back to me was I to remove it. The CO's dealt with it, as is right and proper. Took them awhile, but they got it done. This is what RPace9 should have done....but they've only been caching for 24 hours...........

 

while I agree with you and applaud that you wrote to the reviewer to find out what you should do, you are looking at the situation from the perspective of someone that enjoys geocaching, understands the people that do it and really wants it to continue to be a sport.

 

If as the CO of Grin and Bear It assumes, the maggot really is a grumpy old man that has no use for geocaching, thinks those that do it are fools that trespass on other peoples private property to play an idiotic game, then you might not care what the right thing to do is. You might just go out and take care of the problem yourself. Even if that assumption is incorrect, my belief is that he doesn't really care what we think is right. He's threatening to go to the town council and get Geocaching banned there altogether. i think his intent is pretty clear...

Link to comment

The local caching community needs to go to the town council before this grumpy old man does IMO

 

Oh, I dunno, I think he's bluffing. And I do think he's a grumpy old man. And I doubt someone introduced him to Geocaching (as he says in his profile), and he was "shocked" to see so many on private property. More likely he's a busy body who lives in the neighborhood of the 4 "woods" caches, and initiated his own personal investigation. :P

Link to comment

Again, as a newbie, how does one know a cache is legit? Many that we find are in public parks, but they are still not the property of the person leaving the cache.

 

If I encounter a No Trespassing/Private Property sign on the way to the cache, unless the listing specifically states they have explicit permission, I walk away. I may then drop a private note to the local reviewer informing them of what I found. They usually contact the cache owner to verify permission status. Sometimes there are no issues, but sometimes they get shut down.

 

I looked for two this past week and encountered No Trespassing signs. On one, the listing stated the property was owned by the cache owner so no issues. The other didn't mention anything, so I decided it was better to not go looking for the cache, in case there are issues. A trip to the police station is not my idea of fun.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I think it sucks that this individual has logged finds then removed the containers. I would be sending a personal message requesting the return of my property - very politely, of course - within 5 days.

If it were an area they live in, and IF the cache was on private property, why couldn't they send an email asking the CO to remove the cache? They are policing other areas, it seems.

A cache near us was archived as it was on private farmland - no permission. Had permission been sought, it would have been given. It was not removed, and I contacted our reviewer asking if he/she wanted me to do so. As the cache is deemed to be the property of the cache owner, I was asked to leave it and only if the reviewer got back to me was I to remove it. The CO's dealt with it, as is right and proper. Took them awhile, but they got it done. This is what RPace9 should have done....but they've only been caching for 24 hours...........

 

I think Mr Yuck just answered your questions. The caches were hidden by a kid that wasn't involved in caching long enough to know what he was doing, and hasn't been back for 6 months. The caches were on restricted property and I think it is a safe assumption that RPace9 is a resident of that area, and created the account for just that purpose. There is no reason he should have to return the caches (to whom? the kid that isn't caching anymore?). I haven't checked to see if there were any trackables taken... if so, it would be *nice* if he would get those into somebody else's hands, but really... those were on private property as well, so I certainly wouldn't say that he is in any way obligated to return them.

Link to comment

However, as I pointed out up above, and nobody responded to... the OP by Coldgears mentions a number of other issues that do not seem to be related to these private property issues. There may be more than one issue here.

 

Okay. What other issues? Grin and Bear It. Steve the Bear

 

Well, for one, none of the caches that RPACE9 posted NAs on was a multi, but CG's post included this quote:

 

"Did a maintenance check today, only to find three of the four stages missing. The hollow log hiding the final was also missing - that's not some kid finding the cache, that's someone's deliberate act of removing a cache. I think I know who, but why bother? It's just a game."

 

And there are others.

 

The multi, Puppy Walk, seems to be an entirely different story, unrelated to RPace9.

Link to comment

I think it sucks that this individual has logged finds then removed the containers. I would be sending a personal message requesting the return of my property - very politely, of course - within 5 days.

If it were an area they live in, and IF the cache was on private property, why couldn't they send an email asking the CO to remove the cache? They are policing other areas, it seems.

A cache near us was archived as it was on private farmland - no permission. Had permission been sought, it would have been given. It was not removed, and I contacted our reviewer asking if he/she wanted me to do so. As the cache is deemed to be the property of the cache owner, I was asked to leave it and only if the reviewer got back to me was I to remove it. The CO's dealt with it, as is right and proper. Took them awhile, but they got it done. This is what RPace9 should have done....but they've only been caching for 24 hours...........

 

If you look at RPACE9's profile, though, you will see that you can't email him.

 

Locked Member

E-Mail Address: The "send message" feature is disabled because this user is currently locked.

Link to comment

I think it sucks that this individual has logged finds then removed the containers. I would be sending a personal message requesting the return of my property - very politely, of course - within 5 days.

If it were an area they live in, and IF the cache was on private property, why couldn't they send an email asking the CO to remove the cache? They are policing other areas, it seems.

A cache near us was archived as it was on private farmland - no permission. Had permission been sought, it would have been given. It was not removed, and I contacted our reviewer asking if he/she wanted me to do so. As the cache is deemed to be the property of the cache owner, I was asked to leave it and only if the reviewer got back to me was I to remove it. The CO's dealt with it, as is right and proper. Took them awhile, but they got it done. This is what RPace9 should have done....but they've only been caching for 24 hours...........

 

If you look at RPACE9's profile, though, you will see that you can't email him.

 

Locked Member

E-Mail Address: The "send message" feature is disabled because this user is currently locked.

 

What we used to call a banned member. Interesting. I'm going to go out on a limb though, and say the local reviewer, or even Groundspeak themselves have opened a dialog with this guy. Not your average run of the mill locking of an account without comment. Speaking of which, I'm surprised this thread hasn't generated several pages by now. There's a little bit of drama going on here. :lol:

Link to comment

Not to stir the pot (ok, maybe a little), but I hate homeowners associations.

 

Then they probably hate you back. :lol:

 

Sometimes they go too far. :rolleyes:

 

Fined for having colored Christmas lights

 

DOYLESTOWN STATION, Pa. (CBS) Marie Buonanno has boxes of holiday lights to decorate her house. She already has one tree up in her living room and a nativity scene. But this holiday season, she would not dare decorate outside.

 

It is very disappointing that we cant celebrate the Christmas holiday the way that we religiously choose to, says Buonanno.

 

Her home only has a holiday wreath on the door, since the Doylestown Station Condominium Association told her the bylaws do not allow colored Christmas lights. Last year, she was fined $400, $10 for each day her lights were up. But she says she was the only one slapped with a fine.

 

One of my neighbors that I spoke to a few days ago, who decorates with multicolored lights, says he never got a letter of warning or a fine.

 

Only white, non-blinking lights are allowed outside. And you can only put up a single white, blue, or orange light in your windows. Neighbors collected 62 signatures to ask the Association board to allow colored Christmas lights. In response, the Association sent out a survey.

 

Out of 38 total responses, 19 voted for white lights, 14 voted for colored non-blinking lights, and 5 voted for colored blinking. The board said the vote was 19-14 against colored lights, interpreting the 5 votes as a separate category.

 

As long as its tasteful, says neighbor Marc Udell, let the community do what the community is going to do.

No one answered the door at the Association presidents house. Some neighbors say they like the look of white lights.

 

Some colored lights are pretty and they have their place in neighborhoods, but you never really know how far people are going to go with them, says Jeff Edwards.

 

It will be a holiday of white lights for Buonanno and her neighborhood. She says for now she will miss her colored lights and the holiday cheer they brought to her home.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Not to stir the pot (ok, maybe a little), but I hate homeowners associations.

 

Then they probably hate you back. :lol:

 

Sometimes they go too far. :rolleyes:

 

Fined for having colored Christmas lights

 

DOYLESTOWN STATION, Pa. (CBS) — Marie Buonanno has boxes of holiday lights to decorate her house. She already has one tree up in her living room and a nativity scene. But this holiday season, she would not dare decorate outside.

 

“It is very disappointing that we can’t celebrate the Christmas holiday the way that we religiously choose to,” says Buonanno.

 

Her home only has a holiday wreath on the door, since the Doylestown Station Condominium Association told her the bylaws do not allow colored Christmas lights. Last year, she was fined $400, $10 for each day her lights were up. But she says she was the only one slapped with a fine.

 

“One of my neighbors that I spoke to a few days ago, who decorates with multicolored lights, says he never got a letter of warning or a fine.”

 

Only white, non-blinking lights are allowed outside. And you can only put up a single white, blue, or orange light in your windows. Neighbors collected 62 signatures to ask the Association board to allow colored Christmas lights. In response, the Association sent out a survey.

 

Out of 38 total responses, 19 voted for white lights, 14 voted for colored non-blinking lights, and 5 voted for colored blinking. The board said the vote was 19-14 against colored lights, interpreting the 5 votes as a separate category.

 

“As long as it’s tasteful,” says neighbor Marc Udell, “let the community do what the community is going to do.”

No one answered the door at the Association president’s house. Some neighbors say they like the look of white lights.

 

“Some colored lights are pretty and they have their place in neighborhoods, but you never really know how far people are going to go with them,” says Jeff Edwards.

 

It will be a holiday of white lights for Buonanno and her neighborhood. She says for now she will miss her colored lights and the holiday cheer they brought to her home.

 

Not the least bit surprising. All the more reason a college kid should know better than to invite the general public in to go tromping around their hiking trails.

 

EDIT: It should be obvious, but this is NOT the same homeowners association, nor did I think it was. But it's pretty indicitive of any one in the USA. :lol:

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

Not the least bit surprising. All the more reason a college kid should know better than to invite the general public in to go tromping around their hiking trails.

 

EDIT: It should be obvious, but this is NOT the same homeowners association, nor did I think it was. But it's pretty indicitive of any one in the USA. :lol:

 

It looks like they do whatever they want. Someone collected 62 signatures asking for colored lights. The homeowners association then did a survey, and somehow only 38 people responded. There were 19 votes for colored lights and 19 votes for white lights, but they split the colored lights vote into two categories. The homeowner still has to pay the fines and wonder why their neighbor wasn't fined as well.

 

Sometimes? Last year there was a story about an I Iraq war vet that got their house forclosed by their homeowners association for owing about $800 in back dues. Not the same story, but here's a link to a similar one.

 

And if you don't pay, they take your house away from you.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

I would never buy a house where someone else could tell me what I can or cannot do with it.

 

Oh, wait. There is that zoning ordinance.

 

Well, I would never buy a house where a handful of people I did not vote for can tell me what I can or cannot do with it.

 

Oh wait, most homeowner association board members are voted for.

 

Well, I will never buy a condo or house in a neighborhood controlled by a homeowner's association.

 

Unless of course I get pushed into buying a home in one of those nice retirement village in Central Florida.

 

Oh heck, let's just say it sucks being told you can't put up colored Christmas lights. But it has nothing to do with religious choice. I imagine it has more to do with the neighbors having been influenced by my wife. First rule when we got married was no colored lights on the exterior of the house. What I didn't realize was that also meant no colored lights inside either. But that's another story.

 

Not really, but it always sounds funnier when you say "that's another story".

Link to comment

Just to bring it back on topic. Did it occur to anyone that RPACE9 may not be banned. He may have simply requested that Groundspeak disable the mail feature because of all the threatening and harassing email he was getting? There may in fact be others who are getting banned or suspended.

 

I suppose the threat to take caches he finds on what he perceives as private property without permission could be enough to get the account banned. Simply posting a Needs Archive on these caches would not be enough to get you banned. The reviewers generally cannot tell on Google maps if a park or street is in a private development with restrictions on visitors or not. They rely on cachers posting NA (or otherwise contacting reviewers with concerns).

Link to comment

Just to bring it back on topic. Did it occur to anyone that RPACE9 may not be banned. He may have simply requested that Groundspeak disable the mail feature because of all the threatening and harassing email he was getting? There may in fact be others who are getting banned or suspended.

 

I suppose the threat to take caches he finds on what he perceives as private property without permission could be enough to get the account banned. Simply posting a Needs Archive on these caches would not be enough to get you banned. The reviewers generally cannot tell on Google maps if a park or street is in a private development with restrictions on visitors or not. They rely on cachers posting NA (or otherwise contacting reviewers with concerns).

 

That is a very good possibility. No, it hadn't occurred to me. But I have never assumed that he was anybody but a resident that was upset by real or percieved trespassing, and doing what he felt was right.

Link to comment

As a relatively new cacher who goes with her two young children, I'm a bit hesitant to chime in here, but since I live near Medford and 2 of the archived cache's were on my watch list, I thought I'd add my nickel's worth.

 

I've heard that Medford police are a bit hesitant about cachers. I suspect it is the secrecy that is involved. In trying to avoid muggles, we can also look like suspicious, potential thieves or vandals. That said, we've never had a problem.

 

There have also been a couple of caches that we've attempted to find and I've felt that we were getting uncomfortable close to private property, so I've called the heathens (children who believe the best path to a cache is a straight line, even if it does involve running through poison ivy) and we've gone on to another location. What can I say, I'm a wimp.

 

Grin and Bear it was noted that it was close to, but not one private property. Didn't want to attempt it during the summer with the humidity and mosquitos and certainly would NEVER attempt it during hunting season (as a runner, I wear very bright colours and frequently call out "I'm not a deer!" when trail running or even on the dirt road near my home).

 

Again, as a newbie, how does one know a cache is legit? Many that we find are in public parks, but they are still not the property of the person leaving the cache.

 

If you're a newbie, I guess that makes me an oldbee. Infortunately, caches are not always hidden in appropriate places. If I saw one that was clearly on private property I would 1. not log it, 2. PM the CO and alert them to why I did not log the find. Having said that, realize that there is no reason why I could not place a cache on my front doorstep. Private property, hidden with (my) permission. It's not a private property issue per se, its a permission issue. I suspect the person that took the caches was a local resident that saw several people skulking around the area and eventually found a container. Some people are extremely protective of their personal property. I remember one cache I found where I was called to by an apparent land owner that told me I was "on private property" The fact that there was a fence between he and I made it pretty clear it was not HIS private property, but I simply responded " then I'll leave". My sense is he was disappointed when I didn't argue with him. I found the cache while taking the trail back to the geomobile)

Link to comment

I went to cache last summer that was right next to a city park that had a No Trespassing Sign between me and the cache. It looked like a new sign, and the cache was a few years old so I emailed the CO. He responded the next day that he disabled the cache and was going to confirm its location was or was not on private property. (edit: I just went and check and this specific cache has since been archived so it must have been on unmarked private property when he placed it.)

 

This kind of thing, I am sure happens all the time (especially based on other forum discussions about private property), but with my experience last summer, I think the CO responded exactly the correct way. Any time we as responsible cachers think there are any concerns with the cache location we should let the CO know and let them take care of the concern.

Edited by farrtom
Link to comment

I remember one cache I found where I was called to by an apparent land owner that told me I was "on private property" The fact that there was a fence between he and I made it pretty clear it was not HIS private property, but I simply responded " then I'll leave". My sense is he was disappointed when I didn't argue with him. I found the cache while taking the trail back to the geomobile)

Not to complicate the issue even further, but a fence may or may not mark the actual property boundary.

 

My girlfriend, also a cacher, recently hid a cache at an historic cemetery in Pennsylvania. The cemetery borders on a local park, and is surrounded on three sides by a wooden fence. She found a good hiding place just outside the fence, in a tree which she assumed was actually on park property. Someone looking for the cache can easily reach the cache without venturing over the fence. She mentioned all this in a reviewer note.

 

When she submitted the cache listing for review, the reviewer advised her that the park system required a permit before hiding any cache within their parks, and that she would need a permit if the cache were actually in the park. He also asked her whether Google Maps accurately showed the location where she'd placed the cache, because according to his maps, the cache was well within the cemetery and not in the park at all. Once she confirmed that the Google Maps and satellite views were accurate, he immediately published the cache. In this case, the fence turned out to be well within the cemetery property, which worked out perfectly for her.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

I remember one cache I found where I was called to by an apparent land owner that told me I was "on private property" The fact that there was a fence between he and I made it pretty clear it was not HIS private property, but I simply responded " then I'll leave". My sense is he was disappointed when I didn't argue with him. I found the cache while taking the trail back to the geomobile)

Not to complicate the issue even further, but a fence may or may not mark the actual property boundary.

 

 

Well, that's quite true, fences are often approximate. But in the case of the 4 "Woods" caches, they are in a neighborhood with a homeowners association. The development owns everything. These are the kind of places that put up signs at their playgrounds "only for use of members of the homeowners association, or their guests". Similar signs can be seen on their nature trails (i.e., what happened here), and the what you would think are public parking lots in the development (but they aren't). And don't even freaking think about parking on one of the streets, anytime ever, not allowed. I have not set foot within 100 miles of this place in Medford, NJ, but you could transplant it just about anywhere. :o

Link to comment

I remember one cache I found where I was called to by an apparent land owner that told me I was "on private property" The fact that there was a fence between he and I made it pretty clear it was not HIS private property, but I simply responded " then I'll leave". My sense is he was disappointed when I didn't argue with him. I found the cache while taking the trail back to the geomobile)

Not to complicate the issue even further, but a fence may or may not mark the actual property boundary.

 

 

Well, that's quite true, fences are often approximate. But in the case of the 4 "Woods" caches, they are in a neighborhood with a homeowners association. The development owns everything. These are the kind of places that put up signs at their playgrounds "only for use of members of the homeowners association, or their guests". Similar signs can be seen on their nature trails (i.e., what happened here), and the what you would think are public parking lots in the development (but they aren't). And don't even freaking think about parking on one of the streets, anytime ever, not allowed. I have not set foot within 100 miles of this place in Medford, NJ, but you could transplant it just about anywhere. :o

I'm sure that's the case with those caches (we have a development pretty much just like that one down the road from where I live). I was just pointing out that, in the general case, you shouldn't rely on a fence to mark the legal boundary of a property. My post was mostly in response to ras_oscar's statement that "The fact that there was a fence between he and I made it pretty clear it was not HIS private property." Someone could be on private property well before they go over that fence.

 

--Larry

Edited by larryc43230
Link to comment
There was that case of the guy in NY that was caught by the police and hit some very rough roads while going through court for theft, but it is unlikely for that to happen again.
I wouldn't call it "very rough roads."

 

A couple court dates and "keep your nose clean for 6 months and it'll go away." No fines, no restitution. The official wording was "an ACD (Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal). If he does not commit (or alleged to commit) these types of crimes for six months the case is dismissed."

 

The worst that may have come of it was that if he was working on a government/defense contract (not terribly unlikely given the area he was in), it may have affected his employment status. But no one ever heard anything about that.

I would love to know what this guy is doing now. I am in WNY, and these caches were all upstate, but we heard a lot about it. He gave the local cachers a lot of grief for many years. They had no idea who he was. It is truly amazing, the way they finally caught him.

As fellow NYers, we all would have loved to see more happen to him then the slap on the wrist that he got. But really, it is difficult to convince the authorities that our game is in fact NOT littering and trespassing, etc etc etc (although I know of several cachers who do NOT gave a rats behind about hiding caches on private property and lying about getting permission...). So the fact that he got any punishment at all, I think, is quite a relief.

But also, now that they know who he IS, they know who to investigate if things ever go missing again. And best of all, the guy was completely humiliated and embarassed because now his family and friends know what he did and could not believe anyone would be so pathetic.

 

THIS guy sounds like he has nothing better to do. I am amused by the comments that refer to him as a cacher who marks caches Needs Archived after he finds them, like he is actually interested in finding caches. He only created the account to a) find the locations of the caches, and B) brag about his conquests after he is done. And you KNOW he wasn't introduced to geocaching by another cacher...otherwise that poor friend would be apologizing to the community up and down for his "friends" actions. If he is an old fuddy duddy who has nothing better to do, maybe he WILL go to the council to complain. But I would guess he is all bark and no bite. If he does, however, go and b*tch and moan and complain to a council that has far more important things to worry about, I don't think he will get very far. Just make sure placements in the area are following the guidelines. You can try to do what my friends did and try to catch him in the act of "removing" a cache from private property that you DO have permission to place it on (my friend works at a museum and the cache was chained to a tree on their property...the thief used bolt cutters to remove the cache!) That would be stealing. But that would require a community f cachers who would put in the time watching a cache that he might not even steal.

 

I wish you the best of luck. I have had muggle friends ask me whi I geocache, it just seems like a silly waste of time. I guess I can see why they think that, but I thnk an even SILLIER waste of time is putting so much time and effort into stealing geocaches. :mad:

Link to comment

Just to bring it back on topic. Did it occur to anyone that RPACE9 may not be banned. He may have simply requested that Groundspeak disable the mail feature because of all the threatening and harassing email he was getting? There may in fact be others who are getting banned or suspended.

 

I suppose the threat to take caches he finds on what he perceives as private property without permission could be enough to get the account banned. Simply posting a Needs Archive on these caches would not be enough to get you banned. The reviewers generally cannot tell on Google maps if a park or street is in a private development with restrictions on visitors or not. They rely on cachers posting NA (or otherwise contacting reviewers with concerns).

 

I'm pretty sure this is not the case as I reported him to Groundspeak and am pretty clearly the person he's referring to in his profile, as he seems to have changed it right after receiving my second message and just before he got banned.

 

I only sent two messages and wouldn't consider either one harassing--the first was in response to his initial NA log which I deleted because it was obvious he hadn't even bothered to read the description which warned seekers to use the legal access because much of the area around the cache was posted. I explained to him why I deleted the log and asked that he read descriptions in the future before haphazardly posting NA notes.

 

The following day he stole the cache, and after reading this thread I sent him the following note:

 

You took my property today. Please let me know how you intend to return it as I take theft very seriously. Stealing is not part of the procedure for posting a Needs Archived note; it is the responsibility of the cache owner to remove archived cache remains. I want my property back and will take further steps if you refuse to return it.

 

When the cache was hidden I accessed legally from Hawkins Road according to the directions from the state's own preserve website and chose a location for ground zero that was not posted as required by law for private property.

 

The cache was hidden in accordance with all laws and geocaching guidelines and if the area had been posted since I would have been happy to move it myself. From your initial post it sounded like you were simply trying to access from the wrong direction, as areas around the cache were clearly posted and I warned about it in the description. What you did was unwarranted, and in doing so you broke more rules than the people you complain about so vehemently.

 

Also not harassing, but I'm pretty sure this spooked him into responding with what he wrote in his profile (he never replied to me directly). From the posturing in the profile it seems like I made him nervous, so hopefully this will dissuade him from going to the township because that's really the only way I would know who to report to the police for theft. I also have my doubts that he consulted with the supposed property owner before removing the cache as he claims. When I go to replace the cache and/or move the location in a couple weeks I will check the approach I used for the hide and confirm whether GZ has in fact been reposted since or if this clown just didn't bother to find the right way in.

 

On a side note, wouldn't this make a fascinating case study for a law class if it did become a legal matter? What a tangled mess of bailment law if new signs have indeed gone up since I placed the cache! I have no idea who would prevail in that situation...

Link to comment

Hyperbole pretending to be news:

 

“It is very disappointing that we can’t celebrate the Christmas holiday the way that we religiously choose to,” says Buonanno.

Having read numerous religious texts from across the world, I have to admit that this statement made me realized I hadn't read enough of them. I didn't realize there was any deity that demanded its supplicants display blinking lights...

 

Last year, she was fined $400, $10 for each day her lights were up.

Ya know, I'd think that after the first $10, I would remove the offending lights. It's kinda hard for me to feel sympathy for someone who lives in an HOA, with established rules, then chooses to violate those rules, for forty days, knowing that each day they violate the rule their fine goes up $10.

 

But she says she was the only one slapped with a fine.

I'd guess it was because she was the only one who broke the rules... for over a month.

 

“One of my neighbors that I spoke to a few days ago, who decorates with multicolored lights, says he never got a letter of warning or a fine.”

Note the lack of a source?

Link to comment

 

You took my property today. Please let me know how you intend to return it as I take theft very seriously. Stealing is not part of the procedure for posting a Needs Archived note; it is the responsibility of the cache owner to remove archived cache remains. I want my property back and will take further steps if you refuse to return it.

 

When the cache was hidden I accessed legally from Hawkins Road according to the directions from the state's own preserve website and chose a location for ground zero that was not posted as required by law for private property.

 

The cache was hidden in accordance with all laws and geocaching guidelines and if the area had been posted since I would have been happy to move it myself. From your initial post it sounded like you were simply trying to access from the wrong direction, as areas around the cache were clearly posted and I warned about it in the description. What you did was unwarranted, and in doing so you broke more rules than the people you complain about so vehemently.

 

Did you include the name and contact information for the person who initially gave you permission to hide the cache there in either of the notes to him?

Link to comment

Hyperbole pretending to be news:

 

“It is very disappointing that we can’t celebrate the Christmas holiday the way that we religiously choose to,” says Buonanno.

Having read numerous religious texts from across the world, I have to admit that this statement made me realized I hadn't read enough of them. I didn't realize there was any deity that demanded its supplicants display blinking lights...

 

Last year, she was fined $400, $10 for each day her lights were up.

Ya know, I'd think that after the first $10, I would remove the offending lights. It's kinda hard for me to feel sympathy for someone who lives in an HOA, with established rules, then chooses to violate those rules, for forty days, knowing that each day they violate the rule their fine goes up $10.

 

But she says she was the only one slapped with a fine.

I'd guess it was because she was the only one who broke the rules... for over a month.

 

“One of my neighbors that I spoke to a few days ago, who decorates with multicolored lights, says he never got a letter of warning or a fine.”

Note the lack of a source?

This is why I refuse to live in a HOA neighborhood. I don't do well with other adults telling what I can do with my own property. I support the offender. I, too, would leave the lights up in spite of the fine. Go ahead, put a lien on the property, I'll never sell it.

Link to comment

I think it sucks that this individual has logged finds then removed the containers. I would be sending a personal message requesting the return of my property - very politely, of course - within 5 days.

If it were an area they live in, and IF the cache was on private property, why couldn't they send an email asking the CO to remove the cache? They are policing other areas, it seems.

A cache near us was archived as it was on private farmland - no permission. Had permission been sought, it would have been given. It was not removed, and I contacted our reviewer asking if he/she wanted me to do so. As the cache is deemed to be the property of the cache owner, I was asked to leave it and only if the reviewer got back to me was I to remove it. The CO's dealt with it, as is right and proper. Took them awhile, but they got it done. This is what RPace9 should have done....but they've only been caching for 24 hours...........

The proper way to deal with a cache that you think is inappropriately placed is as follows:

1. send an email to the CO about the cache. If you cannot resolve the issue or they don't respond...

2. contact the reviewer.

Using the logs to post personal snide comments is never appropriate, and the CO has every right to delete them as such. I have deleted several that I found slanderous, insulting, or simply deceptive, followed by a note that they can re-log their find if they will be civil in doing so.

It appears that the account in question has been locked. I am sorry that someone is being such a git about geocaching and only hope he doesn't move anywhere near my caches.

Link to comment
You took my property today. Please let me know how you intend to return it as I take theft very seriously. Stealing is not part of the procedure for posting a Needs Archived note; it is the responsibility of the cache owner to remove archived cache remains. I want my property back and will take further steps if you refuse to return it.

 

When the cache was hidden I accessed legally from Hawkins Road according to the directions from the state's own preserve website and chose a location for ground zero that was not posted as required by law for private property.

 

The cache was hidden in accordance with all laws and geocaching guidelines and if the area had been posted since I would have been happy to move it myself. From your initial post it sounded like you were simply trying to access from the wrong direction, as areas around the cache were clearly posted and I warned about it in the description. What you did was unwarranted, and in doing so you broke more rules than the people you complain about so vehemently.

 

Did you include the name and contact information for the person who initially gave you permission to hide the cache there in either of the notes to him?

 

You are assuming that explicit permission was required for the area, aren't you? If it truly was on the homeowner's association property, that would be necessary, but it sounds as though ELECTRICHEADX had reason to believe that it was not. The state preserve may not require explicit permission.

Link to comment
You took my property today. Please let me know how you intend to return it as I take theft very seriously. Stealing is not part of the procedure for posting a Needs Archived note; it is the responsibility of the cache owner to remove archived cache remains. I want my property back and will take further steps if you refuse to return it.

 

When the cache was hidden I accessed legally from Hawkins Road according to the directions from the state's own preserve website and chose a location for ground zero that was not posted as required by law for private property.

 

The cache was hidden in accordance with all laws and geocaching guidelines and if the area had been posted since I would have been happy to move it myself. From your initial post it sounded like you were simply trying to access from the wrong direction, as areas around the cache were clearly posted and I warned about it in the description. What you did was unwarranted, and in doing so you broke more rules than the people you complain about so vehemently.

 

Did you include the name and contact information for the person who initially gave you permission to hide the cache there in either of the notes to him?

 

You are assuming that explicit permission was required for the area, aren't you? If it truly was on the homeowner's association property, that would be necessary, but it sounds as though ELECTRICHEADX had reason to believe that it was not. The state preserve may not require explicit permission.

 

Hmmmm! The usual geocaching problem when you plant a cache on property that is not your own. To end endless assumptions on permission, let's hear it (on this forum) from the person(s) granting the permission to place the cache. All properties are owned/managed by someone or some entity.

 

The statement "The state preserve may not require explicit permission" has the same weight as saying "The state preserve may deny permission". Which begs the question; has the question been asked? To the property owner/manager/land stuart; what say you?

Link to comment

You are assuming that explicit permission was required for the area, aren't you? If it truly was on the homeowner's association property, that would be necessary, but it sounds as though ELECTRICHEADX had reason to believe that it was not. The state preserve may not require explicit permission.

 

First, I was not referring to explicit permission, I was referring to adequate, which ELECTRICHEADX indicated they had.

 

Second, I am not sure where the assumption that it was not on private property come from. I looked at the maps and it seem to be on the property or at least questionable at best.

 

Signs or lack thereof are not the sole indication of private property nor any type of defense. This still appears to be a hider issue.

 

So, back OT, when you communicated with the owner, did you give them the name of the person that gave you permission?

Link to comment
You took my property today. Please let me know how you intend to return it as I take theft very seriously. Stealing is not part of the procedure for posting a Needs Archived note; it is the responsibility of the cache owner to remove archived cache remains. I want my property back and will take further steps if you refuse to return it.

 

When the cache was hidden I accessed legally from Hawkins Road according to the directions from the state's own preserve website and chose a location for ground zero that was not posted as required by law for private property.

 

The cache was hidden in accordance with all laws and geocaching guidelines and if the area had been posted since I would have been happy to move it myself. From your initial post it sounded like you were simply trying to access from the wrong direction, as areas around the cache were clearly posted and I warned about it in the description. What you did was unwarranted, and in doing so you broke more rules than the people you complain about so vehemently.

 

Did you include the name and contact information for the person who initially gave you permission to hide the cache there in either of the notes to him?

 

You are assuming that explicit permission was required for the area, aren't you? If it truly was on the homeowner's association property, that would be necessary, but it sounds as though ELECTRICHEADX had reason to believe that it was not. The state preserve may not require explicit permission.

 

Hmmmm! The usual geocaching problem when you plant a cache on property that is not your own. To end endless assumptions on permission, let's hear it (on this forum) from the person(s) granting the permission to place the cache. All properties are owned/managed by someone or some entity.

 

The statement "The state preserve may not require explicit permission" has the same weight as saying "The state preserve may deny permission". Which begs the question; has the question been asked? To the property owner/manager/land stuart; what say you?

 

I see. You want the manager of the state preserve to come here to the forums and let us know of their policy? Ain't gonna happen, and it doesn't necessarily need to happen. Let me refer you to Keystone's thread post regarding the various types of permission: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=135446&st=50&p=2278334entry2278334

Link to comment

You are assuming that explicit permission was required for the area, aren't you? If it truly was on the homeowner's association property, that would be necessary, but it sounds as though ELECTRICHEADX had reason to believe that it was not. The state preserve may not require explicit permission.

 

First, I was not referring to explicit permission, I was referring to adequate, which ELECTRICHEADX indicated they had.

 

Second, I am not sure where the assumption that it was not on private property come from. I looked at the maps and it seem to be on the property or at least questionable at best.

 

Signs or lack thereof are not the sole indication of private property nor any type of defense. This still appears to be a hider issue.

 

So, back OT, when you communicated with the owner, did you give them the name of the person that gave you permission?

 

Of course you were referring to explicit permission when you asked, "Did you include the name and contact information for the person who initially gave you permission". How else would he have a name and contact information?

Link to comment

You are assuming that explicit permission was required for the area, aren't you? If it truly was on the homeowner's association property, that would be necessary, but it sounds as though ELECTRICHEADX had reason to believe that it was not. The state preserve may not require explicit permission.

 

First, I was not referring to explicit permission, I was referring to adequate, which ELECTRICHEADX indicated they had.

 

Second, I am not sure where the assumption that it was not on private property come from. I looked at the maps and it seem to be on the property or at least questionable at best.

 

Signs or lack thereof are not the sole indication of private property nor any type of defense. This still appears to be a hider issue.

 

So, back OT, when you communicated with the owner, did you give them the name of the person that gave you permission?

 

Of course you were referring to explicit permission when you asked, "Did you include the name and contact information for the person who initially gave you permission". How else would he have a name and contact information?

 

No I wasn't and, if possible, could you let the person who the question was directed at answer it?

 

However directly to your point, from the link you posted from Keystone:

 

"In submitting a cache report, the geocacher assures the listing service that adequate permission has been obtained, and the listing service assumes that this is the case."

 

"If the cache owner arrives at an unwarranted conclusion, the listing service will react to questions about permission. First, if a land owner / land manager requests removal of a cache placed without permission, Groundspeak's policy is to archive the cache unless and until the hider is able to straighten things out and provide an explanation of clear permission. Second, if another geocacher sees a cache location which causes them to have doubts about permission, they are welcome to raise their concern with the cache owner. If that is not productive, the geocacher may contact the website, contact a volunteer reviewer, or place a "needs archived" log on the cache page. The system is thus largely self-policing in this majority of circumstances."

 

In this case, if the caches were indeed archived, GC determined that they were hidden improperly. While I agree that the person who posted the NA and took the cache is viewed by those of us here as wrong, from the property owner who removed them perspective it was appropriate. I imagine the found logs were a misunderstanding of how to post the NA's. The issue here again lies squarely on the shoulders of the hider.

 

Whatever the circumstances here, there is no possible win scenario for the cacher. Most of us would not have chosen to make an issue of it publicly, although that was done by the hider by someone else initially, and would have just moved on. Sending a threatening email implying theft was out of line and the statement about further action could be viewed as a threat by the receiver.

Link to comment
You took my property today. Please let me know how you intend to return it as I take theft very seriously. Stealing is not part of the procedure for posting a Needs Archived note; it is the responsibility of the cache owner to remove archived cache remains. I want my property back and will take further steps if you refuse to return it.

 

When the cache was hidden I accessed legally from Hawkins Road according to the directions from the state's own preserve website and chose a location for ground zero that was not posted as required by law for private property.

 

The cache was hidden in accordance with all laws and geocaching guidelines and if the area had been posted since I would have been happy to move it myself. From your initial post it sounded like you were simply trying to access from the wrong direction, as areas around the cache were clearly posted and I warned about it in the description. What you did was unwarranted, and in doing so you broke more rules than the people you complain about so vehemently.

 

Did you include the name and contact information for the person who initially gave you permission to hide the cache there in either of the notes to him?

 

You are assuming that explicit permission was required for the area, aren't you? If it truly was on the homeowner's association property, that would be necessary, but it sounds as though ELECTRICHEADX had reason to believe that it was not. The state preserve may not require explicit permission.

 

Hmmmm! The usual geocaching problem when you plant a cache on property that is not your own. To end endless assumptions on permission, let's hear it (on this forum) from the person(s) granting the permission to place the cache. All properties are owned/managed by someone or some entity.

 

The statement "The state preserve may not require explicit permission" has the same weight as saying "The state preserve may deny permission". Which begs the question; has the question been asked? To the property owner/manager/land stuart; what say you?

 

I see. You want the manager of the state preserve to come here to the forums and let us know of their policy? Ain't gonna happen, and it doesn't necessarily need to happen. Let me refer you to Keystone's thread post regarding the various types of permission: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=135446&st=50&p=2278334entry2278334

 

To the point, why not offer show proof of permission. Sounds like you are opposed to it if it were to happened. You openned yourself to some doubt and question when stating in the previous thread "may not". If one is so confident in the outcome, why not use the words "the state preserve will not require explicit permission", or will not require any permission for that matter. I agree that no one from the state would come on online, but why not show proof of backing by the state preserve? Show some creditability.

Link to comment

In many instances, land owners / managers do not want to be bothered by people asking if they can play their game on this property. If you ask, they may not give an answer or they may say "Sure, but we reserve the right to ask you to stop at anytime in the future". Sometimes, if people keep asking they are unwilling to develop a formal policy so they take the approach of informally saying "no" to those who ask but keep turning a blind eye to those that don't.

 

Early on, some geocachers proposed the "Frisbee rule". It basically says, if you would play a game of Frisbee without asking permission, then you can hide a geocache without asking. Now, hiding and searching for geocaches is not exactly Frisbee. For one you actually leave a physical object in place for a long period of time (although if your Frisbee ends up on the roof it may stay there for a long period of time as well). For another, non-geocachers are not as used to seeing someone looking for a cache as they are seeing a couple of people tossing a Frisbee. You need to consider how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public and the manager of the property where you place it.

 

Reviewers accept that some property owners and land managers don't have geocaching policies but would most likely be comfortable with geocaches placed on their property. When reviewers know of a particular policy they will ensure that proper permission was received. Certainly if an area is posted to limit access, the assumption that it is OK to play there is not valid. In general, it is the responsibility of the hider to determine what is adequate permission.

 

Sometimes problems occur when a property that has implicit adequate permission borders on one that requires something more explicit. Sometimes cachers looking for a shorter way to the cache will trespass through another property. Sometimes the people on one property get concerned when they see suspicious looking cachers nearby. Sometimes the boundaries are not marked on the ground and there is a dispute as to whether the cache is on one property of another. It is a good idea for cache hiders to be aware of these potential problems when selecting a location for a cache. I know that sometimes reviewers will point out these issue and that it can hold up a cache being published.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

In many instances, land owners / managers do not want to be bothered by people asking if they can play their game on this property. If you ask, they may not give an answer or they may say "Sure, but we reserve the right to ask you to stop at anytime in the future". Sometimes, if people keep asking they are unwilling to develop a formal policy so they take the approach of informally saying "no" to those who ask but keep turning a blind eye to those that don't.

 

Early on, some geocachers proposed the "Frisbee rule". It basically says, if you would play a game of Frisbee without asking permission, then you can hide a geocache without asking. Now, hiding and searching for geocaches is not exactly Frisbee. For one you actually leave a physical object in place for a long period of time (although if your Frisbee ends up on the roof it may stay there for a long period of time as well). For another, non-geocachers are not as used to seeing someone looking for a cache as they are seeing a couple of people tossing a Frisbee. You need to consider how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public and the manager of the property where you place it.

 

Reviewers accept that some property owners and land managers don't have geocaching policies but would most likely be comfortable with geocaches placed on their property. When reviewers know of a particular policy they will ensure that proper permission was received. Certainly if an area is posted to limit access, the assumption that it is OK to play there is not valid. In general, it is the responsibility of the hider to determine what is adequate permission.

 

Sometimes problems occur when a property that has implicit adequate permission borders on one that requires something more explicit. Sometimes cachers looking for a shorter way to the cache will trespass through another property. Sometimes the people on one property get concerned when they see suspicious looking cachers nearby. Sometimes the boundaries are not marked on the ground and there is a dispute as to whether the cache is on one property of another. It is a good idea for cache hiders to be aware of these potential problems when selecting a location for a cache. I know that sometimes reviewers will point out these issue and that it can hold up a cache being published.

 

Thank you... I was just coming here to write essentially the same thing, particularly your opening paragraph. So, please allow me to add, "Ditto" :)

Link to comment
Medford cachers should go ahead to the City Council

 

Agreed, not sure I would poke a sleeping bear just yet if how coldgears represented is fact. When doing so, realize it is the cache hider that created this issue, not the property owner or city council.

 

Going in with that attitude and explaining that this cache hider is not representative of cachers in the area or caching in general will go a long way.

 

OMG

 

Please please do not suggest that random cachers go to Township Council.

 

South Jersey Geocaching (sjgeocaching.org - membership is free) has a representative who has worked with various municipalities and PD's to introduce Geocaching. That volunteer knows what she is doing.

 

The first two archive logs in the post that started this thread were MY caches. The problem there has nothing to do with private property issues.

 

So far we have had a friendly relationship with Medford PD, despite several provocations by reckless cache owners, and despite nasty things having been said about MPD in logs on forums. Those of us who live in Medford would like to keep it that way.

 

A while back there was an issue, and cachers who don't even live here were talking about marching in to a Council meeting to demand that the MPD be somehow stopped from interfering with geocachers. The issue at that time was a cacher who ignored the "day time only" warning on the cache page. Neighbors called police - police responded by having the cache removed. They work for the local taxpayers, not the geocaching community - they were right to do so. If Township Council felt that geocachers coming in from out of town were creating a problem, they could simply ban the game from township parks.

 

So - please - don't tell people - even local cachers - to take matters into their own hands. We already have an organization equipped to work on this.

Link to comment

In many instances, land owners / managers do not want to be bothered by people asking if they can play their game on this property. If you ask, they may not give an answer or they may say "Sure, but we reserve the right to ask you to stop at anytime in the future". Sometimes, if people keep asking they are unwilling to develop a formal policy so they take the approach of informally saying "no" to those who ask but keep turning a blind eye to those that don't.

 

Early on, some geocachers proposed the "Frisbee rule". It basically says, if you would play a game of Frisbee without asking permission, then you can hide a geocache without asking. Now, hiding and searching for geocaches is not exactly Frisbee. For one you actually leave a physical object in place for a long period of time (although if your Frisbee ends up on the roof it may stay there for a long period of time as well). For another, non-geocachers are not as used to seeing someone looking for a cache as they are seeing a couple of people tossing a Frisbee. You need to consider how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public and the manager of the property where you place it.

 

Reviewers accept that some property owners and land managers don't have geocaching policies but would most likely be comfortable with geocaches placed on their property. When reviewers know of a particular policy they will ensure that proper permission was received. Certainly if an area is posted to limit access, the assumption that it is OK to play there is not valid. In general, it is the responsibility of the hider to determine what is adequate permission.

 

Sometimes problems occur when a property that has implicit adequate permission borders on one that requires something more explicit. Sometimes cachers looking for a shorter way to the cache will trespass through another property. Sometimes the people on one property get concerned when they see suspicious looking cachers nearby. Sometimes the boundaries are not marked on the ground and there is a dispute as to whether the cache is on one property of another. It is a good idea for cache hiders to be aware of these potential problems when selecting a location for a cache. I know that sometimes reviewers will point out these issue and that it can hold up a cache being published.

 

Thank you... I was just coming here to write essentially the same thing, particularly your opening paragraph. So, please allow me to add, "Ditto" :)

 

In short, it's better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permisssion.

Link to comment
Medford cachers should go ahead to the City Council

 

Agreed, not sure I would poke a sleeping bear just yet if how coldgears represented is fact. When doing so, realize it is the cache hider that created this issue, not the property owner or city council.

 

Going in with that attitude and explaining that this cache hider is not representative of cachers in the area or caching in general will go a long way.

 

OMG

 

Please please do not suggest that random cachers go to Township Council.

 

South Jersey Geocaching (sjgeocaching.org - membership is free) has a representative who has worked with various municipalities and PD's to introduce Geocaching. That volunteer knows what she is doing.

 

The first two archive logs in the post that started this thread were MY caches. The problem there has nothing to do with private property issues.

 

So far we have had a friendly relationship with Medford PD, despite several provocations by reckless cache owners, and despite nasty things having been said about MPD in logs on forums. Those of us who live in Medford would like to keep it that way.

 

A while back there was an issue, and cachers who don't even live here were talking about marching in to a Council meeting to demand that the MPD be somehow stopped from interfering with geocachers. The issue at that time was a cacher who ignored the "day time only" warning on the cache page. Neighbors called police - police responded by having the cache removed. They work for the local taxpayers, not the geocaching community - they were right to do so. If Township Council felt that geocachers coming in from out of town were creating a problem, they could simply ban the game from township parks.

 

So - please - don't tell people - even local cachers - to take matters into their own hands. We already have an organization equipped to work on this.

 

You do realize that I more or less was agreeing with you? :blink:

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...