Geocaching guidelines (a load of bull)

[Mr.Yuck]

Our problem, the series seems to have some popularity, so having them removed might have negative repercussions for us, the landowner. You might think posting to a fence no biggie

 

No, posting to a fence is a biggie. The publishing reviewer is never going to catch that on a rural roadside Texas micro Power trail. But the placer, and every single crazed smiley seeker, should know better. Someone's fence on a rural roadside is not the public right of way. That would be about as plain as the nose on my face, I'm thinking.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

If there are caches on your property that were placed without permission and you don't want them there, contact the reviewer who published those caches and get them archived. It doesn't matter how popular they are, if they are placed without permission and the landowner (you) wants them gone, they need to be archived and removed.

[+BlueDeuce]

You have caches placed on your property that is causing issues at that level and your complaint is mixed messages? Got a link?

 

Yes, we know the series and the Cache Member who hid them. None of us has said more than what I posted, and we have pretty much decided to do no more, because we were placed in a sticky situation by having the caches placed on our property without our knowledge, people have had the opportunity to enjoy the caches, and the repercussions of having them taken away because we complained is not a comfortable position to be in. We are being more diligent as to the state of those cache locations on our property. The hot weather is helping limit the hunting activity for the time being. As a landowner, we just expected Groundspeak to do what they advertise to do.

 

Understood, but you need to pass your concerns along to your reviewer, and possibly local law enforcement. On a personal note, the forum font you are using is rather annoying. Just saying. Sorry.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

As a landowner, especially since one of us is 78 and actively works the property and the cows, we just expected Groundspeak to do what they advertise to do, and they don't, period.

 

I don't agree with that, at least in regards to caches being placed without permission. Geocaching is, for the most part, done on the honor system. When I (or anyone else) submits a cache for publication, we are essentially telling the reviewer that we were granted permission to place a cache in that location. If a cache owner checks the box that states they read and understood the guidelines, one of which covers permission issues, the reviewer accepts it as fact and publishes the cache.

Groundspeak, from what I've seen in various threads, has been extremely swift in shutting down and archiving caches once they are notified by the landowner that those caches aren't placed with permission and aren't wanted in that location.

[jholly]

You have caches placed on your property that is causing issues at that level and your complaint is mixed messages? Got a link?

 

The mixed messages have led to the poor placement or the attitude, "I can place any cache any where I desire because this is a fun game that a lot of people enjoy," and yes, both of those issues are a concern. We know the series and know the name of the Cache Owner who hid them. None of us has said more than what I posted, and we have pretty much decided to do no more, because we were placed in a sticky situation by having the caches placed on our property without our knowledge, people have had the opportunity to enjoy the caches, and we don't want to chance any repercussions of having the caches taken away because we complained; this is not a comfortable position to be in.

The cache owner has complained already (not to us or because of us) because of their mis-perception and lack of knowledge as to what their belief of public and private property is. CO stated they checked with a landowner about the public v. private property issue they had farther down the series that was not on our property. CO is still not clear on the particular issue surrounding that section of trail. We are being more diligent as to the state of those cache locations on our property, as it has already been made prevalent to us that if we take it down, "muggle" it, the container will be replaced.

We find many aspects of the game interesting. Overall, we think it's a good game, and enjoy opportunities to use the many GPSrs. As a landowner, especially since one of us is 78 and actively works the property and the cows, we just expected Groundspeak to do what they advertise to do, and they don't, period.

Did you contact the cache owner and point out the caches are on your private property without permission and the caches are causing you problems? Did you post a needs archive on the caches stating they are on your private property and that cache finders are damaging your property? Did you contact the reviewer stating the caches are on your private property and the caches are causing you problems? Did you send and email to contact@geocaching.com pointing out the caches are on your private property without your permission and the cache placements are causing you problems? It sounds like the answers to these questions are no. Until some of the answers become yes you will continue to have problems. And if any of the questions, except the first, beome yes then I will agree with you the frog does not care. Until then I don't agree. I have noticed that when reviewers or the frog find out caches are place outside of the guidelines, and especially on private property, the caches get archived.

[+The A-Team]

So, with Groundspeak creating the confusion, it sends the message that not following the guidelines is okay, because caches that do not follow their guidelines get published, receive favorite points, are well-hunted, and well-liked. We took one cache wired to our fence down; it was back up in two days. We left it. Frustrating, very frustrating.

Have you contacted a reviewer about this problem? Until you do, they'll have no idea there's a problem. How do you suggest that they deal with a problem they know nothing about?

What you call the "mixed messages" of caches violating the guidelines is precisely because such caches don't get reported. If people would just report caches with obvious guideline violations instead of getting their smiley at any cost, there wouldn't be any mixed messages. The message would clearly be "Follow the guidelines or your cache will be archived". If people continue to let these caches go, the message is clearly "I don't care if your cache follows the guidelines or what effect it has on geocaching, I'm just going to claim a find".

 

BTW, if what you described happened on my property, I'd instantly send messages to both of the reviewers in my region asking them to archive the caches. Placing caches on private property without permission is a huge no-no, especially when it's causing damage.

[+BlueDeuce]

and don't forget that font.

[jholly]

and don't forget that font.

Must admit I did. My bad. I will be more vigilant in the future.

 

Edited to correct font.

Edited July 19, 2012 by jholly

[+flyfshrgrl]

So, with Groundspeak creating the confusion, it sends the message that not following the guidelines is okay, because caches that do not follow their guidelines get published, receive favorite points, are well-hunted, and well-liked. We took one cache wired to our fence down; it was back up in two days. We left it. Frustrating, very frustrating.

Have you contacted a reviewer about this problem? Until you do, they'll have no idea there's a problem. How do you suggest that they deal with a problem they know nothing about?

 

What happens when the cache gets archived? Do people retaliate? Two of us are not there full-time; the one who is is 78. We want no hard-feelings, but seeing as what has already been written, and then physically seeing some damage in the very area that was complained about (bad grammar, sorry), and I HAVE NO IDEA IF THE DAMAGE THAT WAS DONE IS RELATED TO GEOCACHING OR NOT; that is a coincidental risk we don't want to incur, because it just means we are repairing more damage.

 

I promise you, there is no doubt that the geographical location of the trail and the specific properties on both sides of the dirt road are private. A first-time visitor to the rather barren terrain would know that. So this CO knowingly placed caches on private property without permission. Five of the seven caches in this section of the trail would be affected, and thus really alter the trail, because if they get placed across the dirt road, it's the same problem, just different land owner. My suggestion is that the CO follows the guidelines, whether Groundspeak enforces it or not. CO knew before the containers were placed, they were to ask and should have asked for permission; the answer would have been no they could not be placed on the posts or wired to the fence. Several of the other caches in this trail are under rocks on the ground, and I am guessing, they just got tired of doing the exact same hide all the way down--cache page summaries and hints seem to suggest that, too. We have no problem with those hides on the ground. I will pass your suggestions along and see what the other two think is most prudent for us.

 

 

Just out of curiosity, because we do not understand it and see that this "trail" does not coincide with Groundspeak's guidelines, what is the purpose of a trail, a cache every 1/10th of a mile in a container that won't hold swag the size of a pathtag or a Putt-Putt sized pencil in a remote place, along a dirt road that has no historical or scenic value? (Since I actively participate in Geocaching, I get asked this question a lot, a question I can not even remotely answer.) We really do not understand this whole series. On what I think is an upside, even though I had been very curious for two years as to what geocaching was, this whole incident is why I joined geocaching.com. I do have a good time 97% of the time but am also very wary as to some of the hides and the permission issue. I know in my heart-of-hearts that permission was not sought nor granted.

 

Good night and thank you for your suggestions. It really does help, especially when our personal experience is opposite of what others have had who have been playing the game much, much longer.

 

(tried Times New Roman, even though I prefer Century Gothic; is it better?)

Edited July 19, 2012 by flyfshrgrl

[+Crow-T-Robot]

What happens when the cache gets archived? Do people retaliate? Two of us are not there full-time; the one who is is 78. We want no hard-feelings, but seeing as what has already been written, and then physically seeing some damage in the very area that was complained about (bad grammar, sorry), and I HAVE NO IDEA IF THE DAMAGE THAT WAS DONE IS RELATED TO GEOCACHING OR NOT; that is a coincidental risk we don't want to incur, because it just means we are repairing more damage.

 

I promise you, there is no doubt that the geographical location of the trail and the specific properties on both sides of the dirt road are private. A first-time visitor to the rather barren terrain would know that. So this CO knowingly placed caches on private property without permission. Five of the seven caches in this section of the trail would be affected, and thus really alter the trail, because if they get placed across the dirt road, it's the same problem, just different land owner. My suggestion is that the CO follows the guidelines, whether Groundspeak enforces it or not. CO knew before the containers were placed, they were to ask and should have asked for permission; the answer would have been no they could not be placed on the posts or wired to the fence. Several of the other caches in this trail are under rocks on the ground, and I am guessing, they just got tired of doing the exact same hide all the way down--cache page summaries and hints seem to suggest that, too. We have no problem with those hides on the ground. I will pass your suggestions along and see what the other two think is most prudent for us.

I doubt you'd see any retaliation. If you're ok with the caches being there but not on the fence/posts, contact the CO and let them know that. They can move their hides away from the fence and write in the description not to go near the fence.

As to whether the damage was done by geocachers, did you see these issues with your fences before these caches were placed there?

 

 

Just out of curiosity, because we do not understand it and see that this "trail" does not coincide with Groundspeak's guidelines, what is the purpose of a trail, a cache every 1/10th of a mile in a container that won't hold swag the size of a pathtag or a Putt-Putt sized pencil in a remote place, along a dirt road that has no historical or scenic value? (Since I actively participate in Geocaching, I get asked this question a lot, a question I can not even remotely answer.)

 

The simple answer: numbers. Many cachers don't care at all about location or whether a cache has "value". They're happy enough to sign the log and claim the smiley, thereby increasing their find total by 1.

[Mr.Yuck]

If there are caches on your property that were placed without permission and you don't want them there, contact the reviewer who published those caches and get them archived. It doesn't matter how popular they are, if they are placed without permission and the landowner (you) wants them gone, they need to be archived and removed.

 

You know, sometimes I confuse you with the long-time Groundspeak reviewer of a very similar name, but this time I really, really did. And yes, I used to occasionally watch that goofy show that it comes from.

 

FlyfishGirl, forget about being a pariah in the Geocaching community for "reporting" this or caches on your neighbors property. Half of us around here think stopping every 528 feet on a non-descript Texas Farm Route to sign a film canister is stupid, and would never partake in such silliness. Then again, that's half of us around here, we probably represent like 1% of the mainstream Geocaching community.

[4wheelin_fool]

I guess ultimately my problem with choosing to post guidelines, choosing to allow some caches to be placed in spite of those caches being a direct contradiction to their suggestions, choosing to disable/archive some caches because it violated their guidelines/suggestions is very confusing and sends mixed messages. There is a trail series that has several caches--some pill bottle, some micro, some container of whatever type that are placed on our posts and wired to our fence, an older fence by the way, that were never placed with our permission--implied or direct consent. The trail series is published as a Premium Member series, and that is the reason I signed up for Premium Membership only a few days after joining Geocaching.com, so we could look at the series on the Internet, see how many there were on our property, and begin to figure out just exactly what was happening. We have seen them in person, too.

Our problem, the series seems to have some popularity, so having them removed might have negative repercussions for us, the landowner. You might think posting to a fence no biggie, but on Christmas Day and then Boxing Day, 2011 the cows got out. The break occurred where a cache was wired and one affixed to a post (a post that we kept having to reset prior to the break, and we couldn't figure out as to why we were having to re-set the post). All day Christmas was spent rounding up the cows. Most of Boxing Day was spent repairing the fence and post, a repair we would not have had to make had 20 plus times the fence and post not been pulled on, a fence that is on private property, by the way. As we were leaving after repairing the fence, we ran across someone who was hunting the trail series. A very nice fellow, who had three very nice GPSrs, but as nice as he was, he was still trespassing. Oh, it was just the three of us repairing the fence. None of those who had hunted the series, pulled on the fence, pulled on the post, were there to help round up the cows and make the repairs, even though they helped cause (not the sole cause, but a contributing factor, nonetheless) the problem for us. Coincidentally, the sections of fence that don't have caches adhered to them are fine and probably have 7-10 years of life left. All sections of fence are the same age, built at the same time.

So, with Groundspeak creating the confusion, it sends the message that not following the guidelines is okay, because caches that do not follow their guidelines get published, receive favorite points, are well-hunted, and well-liked. We took one cache wired to our fence down; it was back up in two days. We left it. Frustrating, very frustrating.

 

You are sending mixed messages as well. If the caches are on your property and causing a problem, you should send an email to the cache owner and tell them. Or, you could email the reviewer privately and tell them to archive it, or you could email Groundspeak and tell them to archive it, or post a public "needs archive" log on the page, or simply post a note explaining the problem. "Muggling" the cache without any other communication, and then being disappointed when it is replaced is not a very efficient way to communicate. If the cache is causing a problem, you can usually have the issue resolved by telling someone about it.

[knowschad]

I guess ultimately my problem with choosing to post guidelines, choosing to allow some caches to be placed in spite of those caches being a direct contradiction to their suggestions, choosing to disable/archive some caches because it violated their guidelines/suggestions is very confusing and sends mixed messages.

 

If what you percieve as guideline violations appear to be causing some sort of real problem, be it to the environment, to other hiders, or to the perception of geocaching in general, then feel free to report to the reviewer the conditions as you see them, stating why you believe them to be a problem. It isn't your job, nor in your power, to "allow", to "disable" or to "archive" somebody else's cache.

[+T.D.M.22]

Simple solution. ask the caches to be taken down. Any reviewer, or Groundspeak email address from this website and they will make sure it gets taken down. No one would have known it was you until you started posting here. If you are interested in geocaching, I'm sure the Cache owner would let you help move the caches off the fence to somewhere else, But just like in real life, if you have a problem, say something to those who can help instead of complaining to whoever will listen.