Ignoring a cache issue

[+AneMae]

First message to the CO in regards to a neighbour upset about a cache directly in front of his house:

 

Good thread started in the forums over some power trail issues in rural areas (see link below) . Some interesting points to consider.

Like I mentioned before, I have a neighbour with a cache in front of his house- he was not aware what it was until I explained it to him. He does not seem too pleased with it being there. He told me he will take it and place it on the outer side of its hiding place so people will find it quickly and move along. He is reluctant to get rid of it completely, but at the same time is not comfortable with all the traffic/people in front of his place looking for the cache.

What should be done?

Look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter.

 

Thanks.

Here is the thread I mentioned.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=291063

 

No Response.

 

Second Message to CO:

 

You can choose to ignore this, but be prepared for a bunch of DNF logs (maybe even an NA log). My neighbour has asked me what your response was to this. When I told him you had ignored it (for over a week now) he was not happy. He felt you have not taken responsibility for your role in this and the concern it is causing. In his words "if he isn't going to do anything about this I will just throw it in the garbage."

I do not wish to see any caches thrown in the garbage. I have asked him to let me attempt to contact you one more time. So this is it. How do you propose to deal with this?

In my view as the CO - you have a responsibility here. Time to step up to it.

 

Maybe you need to review this:

 

The Geocacher’s Creed

When placing or seeking geocaches, I will: • Not endanger myself or others. • Observe all laws and rules of the area. • Respect property rights and seek permission where appropriate. • Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm. • Minimize my and others’ impact on the environment. • Be considerate of others. • Protect the integrity of the game pieces.

 

So far no response to this one either- I suppose the cache will be thrown in the trash soon. Too bad the CO isn't stepping up to deal with his own cache.

[Luckless]

With all the negative response to the cache I would just go ahead and take the cache. Then I'd send a note to the owner that said :I have your cache which I took because one of its neighbors was very upset by its placement and threatened to throw it in the trash. Please contact me if you want the cache returned to you.

Then I'd send a note to the reviewer explaining what I had done and post a note in the log that it was no longer there explaining that I felt it necessary to take the cache.

[AZcachemeister]

I would have posted a 'Needs Archived' from the get-go.

If the cache was placed in front of someone's house without their permission it's clearly in violation of the guidelines. Some may argue that the 'devil strip' (the area between the sidewalk and the curb) isn't on someone's property, but I think the spirit of the guidelines would include this as 'owned' by the person who's house it is in front of. Indeed, it's called the 'devil strip' because the homeowner does own the land and pays taxes on it, but they can't do anything with it without city approval.

 

Around here people do like to hide caches in alleyways, and I would handle it the same way. If the homeowner popped out to see what I was doing and expressed concern with the activity, I would remove the cache (if I could find it), post a NA, and let the CO know I have the cache and will return it to them if they want it.

[+hukilaulau]

With all the negative response to the cache I would just go ahead and take the cache. Then I'd send a note to the owner that said :I have your cache which I took because one of its neighbors was very upset by its placement and threatened to throw it in the trash. Please contact me if you want the cache returned to you.

Then I'd send a note to the reviewer explaining what I had done and post a note in the log that it was no longer there explaining that I felt it necessary to take the cache.

I completely agree. Make your note to the reviewer a "NA" note on the cache page so it goes to both the owner and the reviewer.

[+SwineFlew]

I would have posted a 'Needs Archived' from the get-go.

If the cache was placed in front of someone's house without their permission it's clearly in violation of the guidelines. Some may argue that the 'devil strip' (the area between the sidewalk and the curb) isn't on someone's property, but I think the spirit of the guidelines would include this as 'owned' by the person who's house it is in front of. Indeed, it's called the 'devil strip' because the homeowner does own the land and pays taxes on it, but they can't do anything with it without city approval.

 

Around here people do like to hide caches in alleyways, and I would handle it the same way. If the homeowner popped out to see what I was doing and expressed concern with the activity, I would remove the cache (if I could find it), post a NA, and let the CO know I have the cache and will return it to them if they want it.

 

Same here.

 

We pay liability insurance on the 'devil strip' as well even it isnt our property.

Edited March 4, 2012 by SwineFlew

[+Max and 99]

I think you have been far too patient and kind. Post a NA log right away!

Update your neighbor when the cache is archived.

[+Sol seaker]

Agreed.

Whenever there is an issue like that with a cache, post a "needs archiving" IMMEDIATELY.

 

The reviewer will then disable the cache and look into the issue. The reviewer can then permanently archive the cache.

 

Taking the cache would just make things worse because then people would spend more time there looking for it.

 

The idea is you want the cache at least disabled right away to get people to stop showing up. The reviewer is the one to deal with this.

 

edit:

The cache owner would have a chance to move the cache after it was disabled.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Sol seaker

[Trinity's Crew]

Why did you explain this to your neighbor? Did you go out of your way to make sure he knew about it? Is it on private property?

[AZcachemeister]

Why did you explain this to your neighbor? Did you go out of your way to make sure he knew about it? Is it on private property?

 

With somewhere between 5 and 6 Zillion other places for a cache, does it really matter if it's actually on private property or not?

 

The homeowner is bothered by people showing up to find the cache.

In my book, that is enough to warrant removal/archival of the cache.

[Trinity's Crew]

Why did you explain this to your neighbor? Did you go out of your way to make sure he knew about it? Is it on private property?

 

With somewhere between 5 and 6 Zillion other places for a cache, does it really matter if it's actually on private property or not?

 

The homeowner is bothered by people showing up to find the cache.

In my book, that is enough to warrant removal/archival of the cache.

I wasn't asking you. I am curious about the specifics of this cache. It sounded like he made his "neighbor" aware of the cache. If that is the case then it obviously wasn't a problem until he made it one.

 

As with many threads in this forum we are only hearing one side of the story.

[+AneMae]

He brought it to my attention when he saw me poking around the area for the cache.

Not that it matters.

[Trinity's Crew]

He brought it to my attention when he saw me poking around the area for the cache.

Not that it matters.

Of course it matters. I didn't see anything resembling a power trail in your recent finds. I didn't notice anything in any of your recent "Found It" logs that indicated a run in with a disgruntled muggle who lived nearby.

 

How old is the cache? If it's been in place for years without an issue why has it become one?

[+Treknschmidt]

If the cache is that much of an issue you should put a needs archive on it. I am certain you are familiar with how to do a NA log as you've done it several times already. However it would be far better to have your neighbour email Groundspeak with his or her concern about the problem it really shouldn't be your responsibility to continue to police other peoples caches.

[AZcachemeister]

 

As with many threads in this forum we are only hearing one side of the story.

 

It was fairly plain in the opening post (to me) that the homeowner had already seen cachers looking for the cache when the OP was asked to explain what it was.

 

I don't see any other side to the story unless the CO cares to chime in and state that they had explicit permission to place the cache there. I suppose it's possible the homeowner has memory issues and doesn't remember giving permission.

[+AneMae]

Are you implying I intentionally created a problem? Why would I do that?

You are just looking for an argument,. You won't find one here.

 

[Trinity's Crew]

 

As with many threads in this forum we are only hearing one side of the story.

 

It was fairly plain in the opening post (to me) that the homeowner had already seen cachers looking for the cache when the OP was asked to explain what it was.

 

I don't see any other side to the story unless the CO cares to chime in and state that they had explicit permission to place the cache there. I suppose it's possible the homeowner has memory issues and doesn't remember giving permission.

Cache placers don't need permission to place a cache on public land from anyone who happens to live nearby. Your conflating issues. If the cache is on private property AND no permission was obtained I agree it needs to be archived. I don't believe that is the case.

[+AneMae]

If the cache is that much of an issue you should put a needs archive on it. I am certain you are familiar with how to do a NA log as you've done it several times already. However it would be far better to have your neighbour email Groundspeak with his or her concern about the problem it really shouldn't be your responsibility to continue to police other peoples caches.

 

Neighbour is an elderly man- does not use computers or email. He has asked me to help him out.

For the record, I have only ever placed an NA on one cache. Reviewer agreed and it was dealt with.

[+AneMae]

 

As with many threads in this forum we are only hearing one side of the story.

 

It was fairly plain in the opening post (to me) that the homeowner had already seen cachers looking for the cache when the OP was asked to explain what it was.

 

I don't see any other side to the story unless the CO cares to chime in and state that they had explicit permission to place the cache there. I suppose it's possible the homeowner has memory issues and doesn't remember giving permission.

Cache placers don't need permission to place a cache on public land from anyone who happens to live nearby. Your conflating issues. If the cache is on private property AND no permission was obtained I agree it needs to be archived. I don't believe that is the case.

 

Not knowing any details of the situation, how could you possibly know what to believe- you are simply making assumptions.

 

Pay particular note the the bold parts here:

 

The Geocacher’s Creed

When placing or seeking geocaches, I will: • Not endanger myself or others. • Observe all laws and rules of the area. • Respect property rights and seek permission where appropriate. • Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm. • Minimize my and others’ impact on the environment. • Be considerate of others. • Protect the integrity of the game pieces.

[Trinity's Crew]

Are you implying I intentionally created a problem? Why would I do that?

You are just looking for an argument,. You won't find one here.

 

I can't speak as to whether you did it intentionally or not but you brought it up.

[Trinity's Crew]

 

As with many threads in this forum we are only hearing one side of the story.

 

It was fairly plain in the opening post (to me) that the homeowner had already seen cachers looking for the cache when the OP was asked to explain what it was.

 

I don't see any other side to the story unless the CO cares to chime in and state that they had explicit permission to place the cache there. I suppose it's possible the homeowner has memory issues and doesn't remember giving permission.

Cache placers don't need permission to place a cache on public land from anyone who happens to live nearby. Your conflating issues. If the cache is on private property AND no permission was obtained I agree it needs to be archived. I don't believe that is the case.

 

Not knowing any details of the situation, how could you possibly know what to believe- you are simply making assumptions.

 

Pay particular note the the bold parts here:

 

The Geocacher’s Creed

When placing or seeking geocaches, I will: • Not endanger myself or others. • Observe all laws and rules of the area. • Respect property rights and seek permission where appropriate. • Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm. • Minimize my and others’ impact on the environment. • Be considerate of others. • Protect the integrity of the game pieces.

If it is on the elderly gentleman's private property stop wasting your time posting here. Remove the cache and log NA. If not, then my assumption is correct.

[Trinity's Crew]

 

As with many threads in this forum we are only hearing one side of the story.

 

It was fairly plain in the opening post (to me) that the homeowner had already seen cachers looking for the cache when the OP was asked to explain what it was.

 

I don't see any other side to the story unless the CO cares to chime in and state that they had explicit permission to place the cache there. I suppose it's possible the homeowner has memory issues and doesn't remember giving permission.

Cache placers don't need permission to place a cache on public land from anyone who happens to live nearby. Your conflating issues. If the cache is on private property AND no permission was obtained I agree it needs to be archived. I don't believe that is the case.

 

Not knowing any details of the situation, how could you possibly know what to believe- you are simply making assumptions.

 

Pay particular note the the bold parts here:

 

The Geocacher’s Creed

When placing or seeking geocaches, I will: • Not endanger myself or others. • Observe all laws and rules of the area. • Respect property rights and seek permission where appropriate. • Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm. • Minimize my and others’ impact on the environment. • Be considerate of others. • Protect the integrity of the game pieces.

You might want to pay some attention to the parts you put in bold as well.

[+AneMae]

It is across the road, right in front of his house- so I would think that it is technically "Not" his private property. Does that mean that we can do whatever we want without thinking of others? I would say no.

[+AneMae]

Instead of making this about me- how about you address the CO's role here. A legitimate concern in brought to their attention and they ignore it? Doesn't fly in my books. How about dealing with the issue (at least respond to it) rather than just ignoring it completely.

[+Treknschmidt]

There could be a reason the cache owner has not responded, they could be away, they may not cache anymore, it could be an owner you've had a run in with before, the reasons are endless and its beyond your control. There are irresponsible owners, there is irresponsible finders, its not your place to figure out why that is. If it is a concern put a needs archive on the listing, there really is no reason to continue on about it.

[Trinity's Crew]

It is across the road, right in front of his house- so I would think that it is technically "Not" his private property. Does that mean that we can do whatever we want without thinking of others? I would say no.

Ok. We have established that it isn't on his property. Is it a power trail?

[Keystone]

It is across the road, right in front of his house- so I would think that it is technically "Not" his private property. Does that mean that we can do whatever we want without thinking of others? I would say no.

Who owns the property across the road from the neighbor you've been describing? It's that person who has a legit beef. Did that landowner grant permission?

 

Also, please note, the "Geocacher's Creed" is not part of the listing guidelines. While there are laudable principles in the Creed, review decisions are made per the listing guidelines. Here the issue is "compliance with applicable laws" and/or "adequate permission."

[Trinity's Crew]

Instead of making this about me- how about you address the CO's role here. A legitimate concern in brought to their attention and they ignore it? Doesn't fly in my books. How about dealing with the issue (at least respond to it) rather than just ignoring it completely.

It would be good if the CO answered you. I can't tell you why he hasn't gotten back to you yet. Perhaps he's ill. Perhaps he's dead. Perhaps he doesn't feel your emails are worthy of a response. But what will you do if he does respond and tells you he has no plan to move or remove the cache? Will you drop it?

[4wheelin_fool]

You can't force a cache if the neighbors don't want it.

Edited March 5, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[+AneMae]

Instead of making this about me- how about you address the CO's role here. A legitimate concern in brought to their attention and they ignore it? Doesn't fly in my books. How about dealing with the issue (at least respond to it) rather than just ignoring it completely.

It would be good if the CO answered you. I can't tell you why he hasn't gotten back to you yet. Perhaps he's ill. Perhaps he's dead. Perhaps he doesn't feel your emails are worthy of a response. But what will you do if he does respond and tells you he has no plan to move or remove the cache? Will you drop it?

 

I will let the neighbour deal with it as he feels fit. When I talked to him earlier this week, his option was the trash can.

[Trinity's Crew]

If it's on someones property without permission it should be removed if they don't want it.

Absolutely! That's not what has been described here but you are absolutely correct.

[AZcachemeister]

It is across the road, right in front of his house- so I would think that it is technically "Not" his private property. Does that mean that we can do whatever we want without thinking of others? I would say no.

Ok. We have established that it isn't on his property. Is it a power trail?

 

AHA! Now we are getting somewhere!

Not sure how the powertrail element comes into play, though.

 

In any case, if the old coot can't be reconciled to knowing that those folks stopping on the other side of his street are harmless (and could well be keeping those who mean harm away), the cache should be archived, or at least moved out of his range.

 

Having a cache that in any way annoys the non-caching populace can never be a good thing.

[Trinity's Crew]

Instead of making this about me- how about you address the CO's role here. A legitimate concern in brought to their attention and they ignore it? Doesn't fly in my books. How about dealing with the issue (at least respond to it) rather than just ignoring it completely.

It would be good if the CO answered you. I can't tell you why he hasn't gotten back to you yet. Perhaps he's ill. Perhaps he's dead. Perhaps he doesn't feel your emails are worthy of a response. But what will you do if he does respond and tells you he has no plan to move or remove the cache? Will you drop it?

 

I will let the neighbour deal with it as he feels fit. When I talked to him earlier this week, his option was the trash can.

You could also try to convince him that this is a harmless game that isn't the least bit malicious. Initially he seemed reluctant to remove the cache. What changed?

[+Chokecherry]

This thread is totally starting to ring of that nasty thread with the little old lady and her garden.

 

The witch hunt against the original poster and the intentions is just sickening to watch.

 

For what it's worth I would not have harassed the man and forced him to like my game. That is his neighborhood where he lives everyday. I would have tossed the cache and logged an na.

[Trinity's Crew]

It is across the road, right in front of his house- so I would think that it is technically "Not" his private property. Does that mean that we can do whatever we want without thinking of others? I would say no.

Ok. We have established that it isn't on his property. Is it a power trail?

 

AHA! Now we are getting somewhere!

Not sure how the powertrail element comes into play, though.

 

The link the OP provided was a discussion about power trails in rural areas. These can cause undue attention because of the high traffic.

 

If that isn't the case, then this is no different than thousands upon thousands of other caches that are hidden in areas that expose you to public scrutiny while you're searching for them.

[+Treknschmidt]

 

Having a cache that in any way annoys the non-caching populace can never be a good thing.

 

I agree completely but there is a way to handle it. I personally would give the neighbour the email address or phone number of Groundspeak. Instructing a neighbour to throw away property that is not on his and technically belongs to someone else is theft. If the OP has contacted the CO and no action has been taken than its out of his hands.

 

The OP has in other threads expressed his issue with a certain power trail, if this cache is part of that trail it should be noted the CO's did seek permission to place ALL of their caches and therefore its possible that they have permission for the cache to be there whether the neighbour likes it or not. I agree it should be moved if it causes angst to the neighbour but it is him that should handle it.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Treknschmidt

[Trinity's Crew]

<snip>

 

Having a cache that in any way annoys the non-caching populace can never be a good thing.

The OP has in other threads expressed his issue with a certain power trail, if this cache is part of that trail it should be noted the CO's did seek permission to place ALL of their caches and therefore its possible that they have permission for the cache to be there whether the neighbour likes it or not.

 

Seriously? I'll give the OP the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this is yet another power trail that he has issues with.

[AZcachemeister]

 

The link the OP provided was a discussion about power trails in rural areas. These can cause undue attention because of the high traffic.

 

If that isn't the case, then this is no different than thousands upon thousands of other caches that are hidden in areas that expose you to public scrutiny while you're searching for them.

 

I didn't check that link...my bad.

I do remember other threads where someone puts out a powertrail through a rural area and the locals are not happy with the increased traffic in their formerly quiet neighborhood.

 

I still maintain that if a cache is causing even minor concern to the locals, it should be moved or archived.

There are umpty-Zillion other places to put a cache that won't cause issues.

 

Apparently the homeowner is going to deal with it in his own way, but little does he realize removing the cache will likely increase the time cachers spend poking around across the street from his home.

 

I still urge the OP to post a Needs Archived with an explanation.

[+AneMae]

This thread is totally starting to ring of that nasty thread with the little old lady and her garden.

 

The witch hunt against the original poster and the intentions is just sickening to watch.

 

For what it's worth I would not have harassed the man and forced him to like my game. That is his neighborhood where he lives everyday. I would have tossed the cache and logged an na.

 

Agreed. Points have all been made. Sadly, so have a fair number of assumptions, which has taken this to a place I no longer choose to be.

 

[+Totem Clan]

We've heard that before too.

[AZcachemeister]

This thread is totally starting to ring of that nasty thread with the little old lady and her garden.

 

The witch hunt against the original poster and the intentions is just sickening to watch.

 

For what it's worth I would not have harassed the man and forced him to like my game. That is his neighborhood where he lives everyday. I would have tossed the cache and logged an na.

 

Agreed. Points have all been made. Sadly, so have a fair number of assumptions, which has taken this to a place I no longer choose to be.

 

 

Why even start if you don't want to see it through?

[Trinity's Crew]

This thread is totally starting to ring of that nasty thread with the little old lady and her garden.

 

The witch hunt against the original poster and the intentions is just sickening to watch.

 

For what it's worth I would not have harassed the man and forced him to like my game. That is his neighborhood where he lives everyday. I would have tossed the cache and logged an na.

You are entitled to your opinion. From my perspective this is hardly a witch hunt. This is a discussion forum and if you post here you should be prepared to discuss an issue from every viewpoint.

 

And for what it's worth I wouldn't toss the cache and log NA. Heck, I probably wouldn't have looked for it if I couldn't do it without attracting attention to myself. There are caches on public land between housing developments less than 1/4 mile from my house that I am not comfortable finding, so I don't look. I know my limitations and my comfort level.I'd personally prefer to ignore a cache than to be the reason it needs to be archived.

[Trinity's Crew]

This thread is totally starting to ring of that nasty thread with the little old lady and her garden.

 

The witch hunt against the original poster and the intentions is just sickening to watch.

 

For what it's worth I would not have harassed the man and forced him to like my game. That is his neighborhood where he lives everyday. I would have tossed the cache and logged an na.

 

Agreed. Points have all been made. Sadly, so have a fair number of assumptions, which has taken this to a place I no longer choose to be.

 

 

And it was just getting fun.

 

BTW, I admit I made assumptions. I used the information I could garner from this thread and your profile to make them. Which assumptions were wrong?

[AZcachemeister]

 

You are entitled to your opinion. From my perspective this is hardly a witch hunt. This is a discussion forum and if you post here you should be prepared to discuss an issue from every viewpoint.

 

And for what it's worth I wouldn't toss the cache and log NA. Heck, I probably wouldn't have looked for it if I couldn't do it without attracting attention to myself. There are caches on public land between housing developments less than 1/4 mile from my house that I am not comfortable finding, so I don't look. I know my limitations and my comfort level.I'd personally prefer to ignore a cache than to be the reason it needs to be archived.

 

And thus by not 'exposing' a cache that is irritating to the non-caching populace, you contribute to 'the problem'.

Is this 'responsible' Geocaching? I think not.

In the past, Geo-cop was a title to be avoided. As our activity becomes increasingly more popular, the need for 'Geo-cops' increases as well. If we do not police our activity for ourselves, it's for sure others will do it for us.

[Trinity's Crew]

 

You are entitled to your opinion. From my perspective this is hardly a witch hunt. This is a discussion forum and if you post here you should be prepared to discuss an issue from every viewpoint.

 

And for what it's worth I wouldn't toss the cache and log NA. Heck, I probably wouldn't have looked for it if I couldn't do it without attracting attention to myself. There are caches on public land between housing developments less than 1/4 mile from my house that I am not comfortable finding, so I don't look. I know my limitations and my comfort level.I'd personally prefer to ignore a cache than to be the reason it needs to be archived.

 

And thus by not 'exposing' a cache that is irritating to the non-caching populace, you contribute to 'the problem'.

Is this 'responsible' Geocaching? I think not.

In the past, Geo-cop was a title to be avoided. As our activity becomes increasingly more popular, the need for 'Geo-cops' increases as well. If we do not police our activity for ourselves, it's for sure others will do it for us.

The caches in question have been there for years. They are on public land, and have been found by many cachers. I am personally not interested in hunting them because I feel exposed and I am not comfortable doing it. Any cache hidden without explicit permission, and even some that are, can cause problems with the non-caching public. Why would I want to post NA on a cache just because I am uncomfortable looking for it?

[+the4dirtydogs]

I don't see this as a cache issue, more like the neighbor thinks he owns the neighborhood. If the cache is not on his property then the cache isn't a problem. If it's that big of a deal go back and toss the cache in the trash if you feel that strongly about the cache. Or let the old guy do the deed. Kinda reminds me of my 85yr old neighbor who calls the cops on people parking in front of her house on the street.

[+hzoi]

If the cache was placed in front of someone's house without their permission it's clearly in violation of the guidelines. Some may argue that the 'devil strip' (the area between the sidewalk and the curb) isn't on someone's property, but I think the spirit of the guidelines would include this as 'owned' by the person who's house it is in front of. Indeed, it's called the 'devil strip' because the homeowner does own the land and pays taxes on it, but they can't do anything with it without city approval.

 

Around here people do like to hide caches in alleyways, and I would handle it the same way. If the homeowner popped out to see what I was doing and expressed concern with the activity, I would remove the cache (if I could find it), post a NA, and let the CO know I have the cache and will return it to them if they want it.

 

Same here.

 

We pay liability insurance on the 'devil strip' as well even it isnt our property.

 

It is your property. The government has a right of way easement on it that severely restricts what you're allowed to do with it, but it's still yours, to mow, shovel, and insure.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It is across the road, right in front of his house- so I would think that it is technically "Not" his private property. Does that mean that we can do whatever we want without thinking of others? I would say no.

 

I would say "no" as well. In a previous post you quote the Geocachers Creed and bolded "Be Considerate to others". That doesn't just mean trying to appease a neighbor that is getting annoyed with all the traffic a cache across the road from their house might be generating. It sounds like in this case the neighbor is just a tad annoyed be the traffic but has (so far) been pretty congenial about expressing their displeasure. However, we've seen several other threads which described scenarios where the neighbor was not so friendly. "Be considerate to others" also should apply to other geocachers that might search for a cache and be subjected to the wrath of a very annoyed, verbally angry citizen. It doesn't matter if it's on private property or not. It doesn't matter if the annoyed citizen is right or wrong. Subjecting other geocachers to irate neighbors is just a very considerate thing to do, and archive a cache might be the only solution to avoid future unpleasant encounters.

[+LightHouseSeekers]

In our area the public right-of-way extends to the side of the sidewalk nearest the house. Though the grassy area and sidewalk are public property (though many homeowners feel otherwise), the city requires the homeowner to maintain them.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

In our area the public right-of-way extends to the side of the sidewalk nearest the house. Though the grassy area and sidewalk are public property (though many homeowners feel otherwise), the city requires the homeowner to maintain them.

 

Same here. Although the sidewalks are public property there is a city ordinance which requires the homeowner to maintain them. That not only means shoveling snow off the sidewalk during winter (I got a citation for failing to do so in a timely manner last year even though I was out of the country at the time) but to also repair any cracks and portions of the sidewalk that are "pitted" or uneven. Technically the owner is even responsible for portions of the sidewalk that have been lifted by roots from a city planted tree. A couple of years ago that city started examining sidewalks throughout the city, flagging any portions that didn't comply with their guidelines (i.e. a sidewalk that is cracked), and then sending out letter to the homeowners with a list of areas where the sidewalk had to be repaired. Homeowners could either hire a contractor to do the repairs or let the city do the work (at a cost of about 30% more than most contractors). We "only" had to pay a couple thousand dollars to fix "our" sidewalk and some homeowners have been force to pay well over $10,000 to repair "damaged" sidewalks.

[+jellis]

What I have done when I was approached was remove the cache, get the info of the person complaining and put an archive request and contact the reviewer and give them the complainer's contact info. That covers everything and usually works for all parties.