Unfriendly locals

[+Raymond Duck]

Below is an extract from our log for section 2 of the Herding Hill Challenge (GC3JFWQ).

 

Found but not without some considerable hassle from the lunatic woman in the nearby cottage. She stood, arms crossed, shouting abuse while we quietly searched for the cache. We tried our best to ignore her rantings but when asked how long we'd be Mrs Duck answered back with as long as it takes and pointed out that as we were nowhere near property it was none of her business. After five minutes she returned to the cottage, possibly to take medication, and left us alone to find the cache. As we walked past the house on our way to Herding Hill number 3, a man came running out, demanding to know what we were looking for. After a brief chat he returned indoors leaving Mrs Loony to claim that previous Geocacher's had vandalised her cars, upset her dog, and more or less annoyed her by daring to stray anywhere near her house. Mrs Duck put her straight on a number of issues and we left.

 

Surely, as the cache was no where near her property we don't have to take such abuse. Obviously the cache owner sought the relevant permissions prior to placing it there so she has no legal complaint to make.

 

I hate to think how intimidating to the situation might of been for a lone female cacher or youths.

 

As I've mentioned above, what right do these people have to hassle cachers who are innocently searching near to, but on, their property?

 

Can Geocaching.com, as an entity, challenge these poeple over their behaviour and accusations?

[+dartymoor]

An uncomfortable situation, but nothing anyone can do in my view. They're expressing an opinion, and the "other geoacachers did XXX so I hate you" is akin to racism.

 

I've not had anything similar myself, and prefer rural caches where I can walk for a couple of hours and not interact with anyone because I have enough of people at work...

[+stijnhommes]

If they say previous cachers did something like wreck their car or trespass on their property say: "Im sorry to hear that. I can assure you I won't do that." and keep searching. Remain friendly and diffuse the situation.

 

By the way, you say the cacher obtained permission. If it's an old cache, they might not have and let's be honest, if it's not on those people's property, the permission you have isn't going to matter to them.

[+The Patrician]

 

I've not had anything similar myself, and prefer rural caches where I can walk for a couple of hours and not interact with anyone

 

Ditto.

 

I walked past (or close to) at least 3 caches yesterday that I didn't even bother looking for as they were too close to habitation for my liking. Town centre caches are one thing but I think caches near isolated houses in the countryside sometimes need a little more thought before they are placed.

[+dprovan]

I'm sorry, but I'm more inclined to sympathize with her than with your deep seated desire to exercise your God Given Right to invade that neighborhood and do whatever you want no matter how much it upsets the neighbors. I know nothing about what set her off, of course, except that it sounds like you told her to stuff it, which I'm sure didn't make her feel much better about geocaching.

 

My log entry might have been more like, "Neighbors are angry about this cache. Should be archived." To me, it really doesn't matter a bit why they're angry or whether they have a "right" to be angry.

[+mellers]

Obviously the cache owner sought the relevant permissions prior to placing it there

Well, unfortunately I have to say that there are many instances where COs do not seek or obtain the relevent permission... so unless you have inside knowledge that particular assertion is not necessarily a given...

 

My own experience, here with a caravan park owner and his 'heavies' shows that where a property owner's permission has not been sought and they're not happy with the placement, things can get VERY scary indeed. In this case the CO misled the reviewer by saying it was "OUR" caravan park.

 

...we don't have to take such abuse.

Absolutely. There is no need for anyone to behave in this way and I agree wholeheartedly.

 

A geochum of mine has had to archive one of her hides for just the sort of regular intimidation you describe. No harm being done to the owner, their property or anything, just one troubled individual, making things unpleasant for everyone. She did the right thing once she heard about the problems and archived it without being told to. The easiest thing in cases like this is to register a 'Needs Archived' request explaining the situation. This sort of confrontation is bad for everyone and bad for the game. I know I'd rather have someone take action to prevent further problems than just leave it, and hope everyone reads prior logs.

 

Post the NA, and let the reviewer make the final decision.

[team tisri]

I'm sorry, but I'm more inclined to sympathize with her than with your deep seated desire to exercise your God Given Right to invade that neighborhood and do whatever you want no matter how much it upsets the neighbors. I know nothing about what set her off, of course, except that it sounds like you told her to stuff it, which I'm sure didn't make her feel much better about geocaching.

 

My log entry might have been more like, "Neighbors are angry about this cache. Should be archived." To me, it really doesn't matter a bit why they're angry or whether they have a "right" to be angry.

 

I don't know that I'd go this far. If the cache is on public property then any member of the public has the right to be there whatever the locals might think of it. To say people should avoid a public area because a couple of locals dislike their presence is silly.

 

The OP described "Mrs Loony" as claiming that "previous Geocacher's had vandalised her cars, upset her dog, and more or less annoyed her by daring to stray anywhere near her house". It's hard to know who vandalised her cars but to say one person vandalised her cars therefore another person shouldn't be near her house is absurd. If they upset her dog then one would wonder just how they did such a thing but also observe that people have the right to be in a public place and if her dog doesn't like it then her dog needs training to deal with it.

 

If the cache was on private property without permission it should be archived. If it was on public property then the locals get to put up with people passing through to look for it, just as they get to put up with people passing through for any other reason.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

My own experience, here with a caravan park owner and his 'heavies' shows that where a property owner's permission has not been sought and they're not happy with the placement, things can get VERY scary indeed. In this case the CO misled the reviewer by saying it was "OUR" caravan park.

 

 

That's the Caravan park where me & Mrs MartyBartfast spent the first month of our married life :lol: :lol: , while we were waiting for the builders to finish our house we spent June/July in a friends static caravan by the sea - it was lovely. I suspect that by "Our caravan park" they meant the park where their static caravan is located.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I'm sorry, but I'm more inclined to sympathize with her than with your deep seated desire to exercise your God Given Right to invade that neighborhood and do whatever you want no matter how much it upsets the neighbors.

It might be different in your part of the world, but in the UK we have freedom to walk around and even hang about, as long as it's a public area. This cache is at a stile leading from a public road to a public footpath and isn't even outside the cottage. Check the map. There are no other houses nearby.

 

The cache description details the hide precisely, so there's unlikely to be people hanging about for long. Indeed, there seems to be about 10 visits per month; I expect that there are more than 10 visits per day from other people just walking the footpath. The lady in the cottage is being totally unreasonable and could become the subject of complaints to the police if she persists in harrassing the passers-by. It's a popular path, which I've walked myself despite never having lived anywhere near.

 

I know nothing about what set her off, of course, except that it sounds like you told her to stuff it, which I'm sure didn't make her feel much better about geocaching.

I doubt that the cachers walked down to the cottage and told her to "stuff it" if she hadn't said anything first. Possibly they could have been more diplomatic about it but in the end it's the cachers who were wronged.

[+abanazar]

It sounds an unpleasant experience that I wouldn't wish on anyone; but from the tone of your log I imagine that you gave as good as you got from the "lunatic Mrs Loony", even if she started it.

 

In terms of expectations when playing this game, I choose to leave some of my possessions in the wild. I find a listing site that will publish the coordinates of my possessions, subject to some basic conditions. In addition to the basic conditions, I will do my best to make the experience enjoyable for anyone who chooses to seek my possessions. However, my possessions are left in the real world, and seekers may encounter humans, animals, and environmental conditions over which I have no control, just as in the rest of life.

 

If a seeker reported an experience like yours to me though, as an owner I would move my possessions, both to improve the experience for future seekers, plus to safeguard my possessions, in case the "lunatic" worked out the most effective way to remove the perceived disruption to their life. There are too many "neighbours from hell" instances where parties stick rigidly to their "rights". I play games for enjoyment, not to test the limits of my entitlement.

 

Can Geocaching.com, as an entity, challenge these poeple over their behaviour and accusations?

geocaching.com is just a listing site and it won't challenge external factors.

[+littlegemsy]

I understand why some people would archive - but ultimately, archiving is simply pandering to somebody who doesn't like a footpath near their home being used in a legal and moral manner. So, what - first she stops geocachers, then people with dogs, then people with small children... no, she chose to live near a public footpath, she has to deal with people using it.

 

Personally, I think the correct approach would be to call the police over her threatening behaviour. I believe you (or the writer of the log) could do this now, not just at the time - if she routinely shouts at people for using a footpath, they may have records of her previous behaviour.

[+dprovan]

It might be different in your part of the world, but in the UK we have freedom to walk around and even hang about, as long as it's a public area.

It might be different in the UK, but in other parts of the world, people don't annoy other people just because they have the freedom to.

 

The cache description details the hide precisely, so there's unlikely to be people hanging about for long.

Well, the OP describes what sounds like a lengthy search -- long enough the the lady's complaints to become a serious issue -- so I guess it didn't work in this case. And, of course, it can't possibly work if the cache goes missing.

 

The lady in the cottage is being totally unreasonable and could become the subject of complaints to the police if she persists in harrassing the passers-by. It's a popular path, which I've walked myself despite never having lived anywhere near.

I don't know whether or not she's being unreasonable with the evidence we have so far, we only understand that the OP didn't know her side of it while giving her more reason to be combative with strangers.

 

I doubt that the cachers walked down to the cottage and told her to "stuff it" if she hadn't said anything first. Possibly they could have been more diplomatic about it but in the end it's the cachers who were wronged.

Whether the cachers were "wronged" is not quite in evidence yet. All we know is that lady was rude, and it sounds like the cachers were rude right back.

 

Anyway, I fully admit I have no idea whether this lady is being unreasonable, either specifically against geocachers who keep loitering near her property or generally against anyone that walks past her house. As you mention, that sounds like something for the police to decide. What I do see is a problem as impersonal as a cache planted in a patch of poison ivy. Some people don't mind searching in poison ivy, and most people hate it, but neither side blames the poison ivy for being where the cache is.

 

Frankly, it's starting to sound like this cache is being kept in place (if not originally placed) to get back at this lady, and at that point the target's position becomes entirely secondary to the goal of geocaching having a positive relation with the community.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Frankly, it's starting to sound like this cache is being kept in place (if not originally placed) to get back at this lady, and at that point the target's position becomes entirely secondary to the goal of geocaching having a positive relation with the community.

Sounds like nonsense to me. You've seen the map and satellite image, and the cache seems placed in a reasonable spot well away from the cottage. If it was meant to be provocative it would at least be close to the cottage - it was closer originally but the CO moved it away because her aggressive behaviour.

Luckily I know about poison ivy, having cached in California, but I don't really see the similarity.

[+agentmancuso]

It might be different in the UK, but in other parts of the world, people don't annoy other people just because they have the freedom to.

 

From the description given, the lady in the cottage is annoying people even though she doesn't have the right to.

 

If it were my cache, I wouldn't archive it unles there seemed a likelihood of physical agression, but I would add a note to the description warning sensitive souls to be aware that there's a nutter in the vicinity.

[team tisri]

It might be different in your part of the world, but in the UK we have freedom to walk around and even hang about, as long as it's a public area.

It might be different in the UK, but in other parts of the world, people don't annoy other people just because they have the freedom to.

 

Where is the sense in allowing public areas to become no-go areas just because one or two individuals think they shouldn't be public?

 

The cache description details the hide precisely, so there's unlikely to be people hanging about for long.

Well, the OP describes what sounds like a lengthy search -- long enough the the lady's complaints to become a serious issue -- so I guess it didn't work in this case. And, of course, it can't possibly work if the cache goes missing.

 

If it's a public area then anyone has the right to be there for as long as they want and local residents get to deal with it.

 

The lady in the cottage is being totally unreasonable and could become the subject of complaints to the police if she persists in harrassing the passers-by. It's a popular path, which I've walked myself despite never having lived anywhere near.

I don't know whether or not she's being unreasonable with the evidence we have so far, we only understand that the OP didn't know her side of it while giving her more reason to be combative with strangers.

 

If the cache is in a public area her side of it is irrelevant, people have a right to be in a public place.

 

I doubt that the cachers walked down to the cottage and told her to "stuff it" if she hadn't said anything first. Possibly they could have been more diplomatic about it but in the end it's the cachers who were wronged.

Whether the cachers were "wronged" is not quite in evidence yet. All we know is that lady was rude, and it sounds like the cachers were rude right back.

 

If someone was rude to me when I was in a public place I'd be less inclined to be hugely civil in response. Much as I generally try to avoid being all-out rude to people even if they deserve it I'm unlikely to be very cooperative to someone who is being rude to me when I'm going about my lawful business in a public place.

 

Anyway, I fully admit I have no idea whether this lady is being unreasonable, either specifically against geocachers who keep loitering near her property or generally against anyone that walks past her house. As you mention, that sounds like something for the police to decide. What I do see is a problem as impersonal as a cache planted in a patch of poison ivy. Some people don't mind searching in poison ivy, and most people hate it, but neither side blames the poison ivy for being where the cache is.

 

The thing with poison ivy (which we don't get in the UK so your analogy may be at least partly lost) is that it's an entirely passive thing. The ivy doesn't care if you are there or not, if you don't want to look for the cache because of the poison ivy you can walk on by. It's not like the ivy starts abusing you if you start looking, or decides that you've been there long enough so it's time to be rude to you.

 

Frankly, it's starting to sound like this cache is being kept in place (if not originally placed) to get back at this lady, and at that point the target's position becomes entirely secondary to the goal of geocaching having a positive relation with the community.

 

It's great if a hobby can have a positive relation with the community but it's not the be all and end all. If caches were removed every time a local resident had an issue with some aspect of geocaching the chances are we'd be back to the odd cache on mountain tops and nothing much in between. While some might think that was a good thing, I rather like being able to find geocaches without having to leave London.

 

If the cache was placed to annoy the woman described as the lunatic the person placing it has perhaps been inconsiderate but ultimately that doesn't change the fact that anyone is entitled to walk through a public place whatever the woman might think of it.

 

Where the image of our hobby with the community is concerned, whatever we do there's going to be someone who spoils it. There's always one who tears up a woodland looking for a cache, who pulls the stones out of a dry stone wall to find a cache, who leaves a trail of destruction wherever they go because the smiley is more important to them than anything else. The trouble is if we start removing caches whenever someone is unhappy about them (you know, for PR reasons) then before we know it we're back to having no caches at all and the hobby is destroyed for the sake of a few moaners.

[I!]

I've got this cool series of 25 caches spanning 11.5 miles and with a total of 20 favourite points. A short distance along the lane between the tea shop and the froggy stile there's a spot overlooked by a cottage inhabited by an angry woman! I think I should put a plain old under-the-stile cache there ... ha ha! ... what do you reckon?

Well, if that really was the situation then we'd all say "don't be daft". We'd recommend against ever placing what is now HHC #2 - no place like Gnome.

 

So, archive the listing.

[+The_Rawli's]

For the record the cache isnow disabled whilst i move to a better location away from the cottage, i dont appreciate thecomment that the cache is placed to deliberately annoy the lady, i have already moved it onceto keep her happy, her house has a constant stream of walkers going past. So the antagonism is probably notdirectedjust atcachers, it probably isnt the best place for her to live though. I also dont apprecaite assumptions being made about us or our thoughts when placing a cache, this series took at lot of hard work and thought and the route was put together working with a ranger from the Northumberland National park and sitevisit.co.uk, we wanted to make sure it waseasy to follow with some easy and hard to reach parts which i had thought we had achieved...

[I!]

I trust you didn't interpret my post as a slight on your good intentions for the series.

 

Anyway ... well done for taking the initiative to move the cache away from trouble.

[+The_Rawli's]

I trust you didn't interpret my post as a slight on your good intentions for the series.

 

Anyway ... well done for taking the initiative to move the cache away from trouble.

I did a bit..but i had already decided to move it just hadnt disabled it yet, there is another nice little spot further down the lane and out of view of her house...im convinced that she moved the actual gnome and probably should have moved location then, but i had already moved it once from the opposite side of the road because shedidnt like it and it wasout of site of her house.....oh well these things are sent to try us

[+dprovan]

If someone was rude to me when I was in a public place I'd be less inclined to be hugely civil in response. Much as I generally try to avoid being all-out rude to people even if they deserve it I'm unlikely to be very cooperative to someone who is being rude to me when I'm going about my lawful business in a public place.

Since I'm out of my culture, I think I'll let this be the last word. In my culture, someone that's rude is ignored, shunned, avoided, and perhaps pitied. But apparently where this cache is, being rude in return is the correct cultural response.

 

No, I haven't looked at the cache, and obviously I know nothing about this lady or the path beyond what's been posted here. I have no idea whether this lady is a menace to society, I just know she would make this cache extremely unpleasant for me, just as if it were in a thicket of poison ivy.

 

I'll stay out of it now. Sorry to be a bother.

[+dprovan]

I did a bit..but i had already decided to move it just hadnt disabled it yet, there is another nice little spot further down the lane and out of view of her house...im convinced that she moved the actual gnome and probably should have moved location then, but i had already moved it once from the opposite side of the road because shedidnt like it and it wasout of site of her house.....oh well these things are sent to try us

I hadn't notice the CO join us, so forgive me for making one more comment: this sounds great. Best of luck. I truly regret and withdraw the crack suggesting that this cache might be intentionally provocative. I was reacting to other attitudes that made it sound like some people liked the idea of this cache pissing off this lady, not a specific feeling that you as the CO actually felt that way. Obviously such a notion would be completely wrong. Please accept my sincere apology if you took that personally. I actually don't think it was a nice thing for me to think about anyone, so I'm sorry I said it at all, but now that I see you're actively trying to reduce the conflict, I'm embarrassed about it as well as being sorry for saying it.

[+Raymond Duck]

The lady in the cottage doesn't have a grudge against the geocaching community, she has a grudge against people being within a 500ft radius of her house. The only reason this lady was alerted to our presence, was the incessant barking of her dog, who had obviously sensed our presence within the area. Had it not been for the dog barking, she would never had known we were there, as we were no where near her house, not in the direct sight lines of her windows, and making no noise apart from a conversation between ourselves.

 

We are primarily walkers, and on the day concerned, had just set off on a circular walk of the area, picking up any caches we passed along the way. So had we decided not to look for the cache, but had stopped at that stile anyway, whether to grab a cold drink or to check our direction or for whatever reason, I believe the same confrontation would have happened.

 

The lady's aggressive tone, body language and condescending nature, were a factor in the way I responded to her when she questioned how long we would be. Even after we walked past her house to continue on our walk, her ranting continued when she came outside again to have her say. Her main points of argument were that her cars had been vandalised, her husband had nearly knocked over one of 'you people' in his car and that we made her dog bark. I explained that we had neither been anywhere near her cars, nor her dog, and that if it's barking irritates her, then she should take it inside the house.

 

We have previously abandoned caches that we have felt were too close to houses, to prevent causing any concern or objection from residents, and to prevent being muggled. In this case, the cache was well away from their property, and is in fact located on a stile which is part of a public footpath, which I'm sure must be used by hundreds of people throughout the year.

 

I am disappointed to hear that the cache has been moved due to this lady, as it was a perfect location on the circular route. I have no doubt that there will still be further confrontations between her and countless other unsuspecting members of the public, who make the mistake of walking past her house and 'making her dog bark'.

 

Mrs Duck

[team tisri]

If someone was rude to me when I was in a public place I'd be less inclined to be hugely civil in response. Much as I generally try to avoid being all-out rude to people even if they deserve it I'm unlikely to be very cooperative to someone who is being rude to me when I'm going about my lawful business in a public place.

Since I'm out of my culture, I think I'll let this be the last word. In my culture, someone that's rude is ignored, shunned, avoided, and perhaps pitied. But apparently where this cache is, being rude in return is the correct cultural response.

 

No, I haven't looked at the cache, and obviously I know nothing about this lady or the path beyond what's been posted here. I have no idea whether this lady is a menace to society, I just know she would make this cache extremely unpleasant for me, just as if it were in a thicket of poison ivy.

 

I'll stay out of it now. Sorry to be a bother.

 

Being rude isn't necessarily the correct response, but one of many valid responses. If I'm walking in a public area and someone tells me I shouldn't be there I am likely to tell them where to get off in a more or less curt manner, depending n my mood and how aggressive they appear at the time. Certainly if I'm in a public place I care little whether someone likes my presence or not.

 

Even in your culture if someone is rude to you in a public space do you regard that as a good reason to avoid using that public space? If so then anyone being rude to strangers gets to declare a public space to effectively be a private space.

[+littlegemsy]

If someone was rude to me when I was in a public place I'd be less inclined to be hugely civil in response. Much as I generally try to avoid being all-out rude to people even if they deserve it I'm unlikely to be very cooperative to someone who is being rude to me when I'm going about my lawful business in a public place.

Since I'm out of my culture, I think I'll let this be the last word. In my culture, someone that's rude is ignored, shunned, avoided, and perhaps pitied. But apparently where this cache is, being rude in return is the correct cultural response.

 

No, I haven't looked at the cache, and obviously I know nothing about this lady or the path beyond what's been posted here. I have no idea whether this lady is a menace to society, I just know she would make this cache extremely unpleasant for me, just as if it were in a thicket of poison ivy.

 

I'll stay out of it now. Sorry to be a bother.

 

 

Yea, as a generalisation the UK seems to be made up of 2 sets of people... the ones who shy away and the ones who don't, the latter in most cases will confront people and be quite... let's go with "firm! It sounds odd but I've not met many people who truly are in the middle. Some who act one most of the time and will swing suddenly, but not many who are genuinely middling.

 

Not a bother though IMO - doesn't hurt for us to all learn what happens elsewhere.

 

My reaction would likely be a very firm but polite argument until she backed off. I've noticed it actually works better with many people than a string of swear words does.

[+Happy Humphrey]

The lady in the cottage doesn't have a grudge against the geocaching community, she has a grudge against people being within a 500ft radius of her house...

That's exactly how I read it. Let's face it, there are thousands of people who need anger management and from time to time walkers and geocachers are bound to come across them. If it was my cache I'd leave it at the stile but put a warning in the description that you might be subject to wild ranting from Mrs. Angry. And increase the difficulty level a notch (or is it the terrain rating)!

[+keehotee]

 

It might be different in your part of the world, but in the UK we have freedom to walk around and even hang about, as long as it's a public area. This cache is at a stile leading from a public road to a public footpath and isn't even outside the cottage. Check the map. There are no other houses nearby.

 

 

Then the answer seems so simple.

 

As there's no public property in the UK - only publically accessible property - either the local authority (if the cache is on the road) or the landowner whose land the footpath crosses must have given permission for the cache to be there.

All the CO needs to do is publish details of that permission on the cache page, and any future finders getting hassle from the locals will have the evidence to wave at them!

Edited August 19, 2012 by keehotee

[+redsox_mark]

 

It might be different in the UK, but in other parts of the world, people don't annoy other people just because they have the freedom to.

 

........

 

Since I'm out of my culture, I think I'll let this be the last word. In my culture, someone that's rude is ignored, shunned, avoided, and perhaps pitied. But apparently where this cache is, being rude in return is the correct cultural response.

 

 

I'm late to the party but felt a need to comment here. I feel I have a good understanding of cultural differences between the USA and the UK - being a dual citizen who has lived roughly half his live in each country.

 

Cultural differences do exist. They are tricky things as cultures are made up of individuals, no two the same. So not everyone fits a cultural "stereotype". But if you accept that, cultural differences do exist which can be discussed. I have given training in cultural differences between the USA and UK.

 

But in this case: I do not believe there is any cultural difference in how we react when being unexpectedly confronted by a hostile person in a public place. Some of us will ignore it, some will confront it. Most of us I expect could go either way depending on what was said. I would like to think I would try and ignore it. But if someone said something I found particularly offensive I would react.

 

What is different in the UK and worth mentioning again is the public footpaths. These are public rights of ways. They cross private land, but you have the right to walk on them. Putting geocaching aside - sometimes there are those who don't like living near a path. Sometimes a land owner will try to block a path (e.g. with a fence) - they are not allowed to do that. They also should not be shouting abuse at people who are walking on a public path. Many people feel these rights of way are important, so would challenge someone who is opposing their use.

 

Such footpaths are rare in the USA. There are loads of wonderful footpaths in wilderness areas, parks, etc. But footpaths which allow you to walk from one town to another crossing private property are not common.

 

Back to the cache - I'm pleased the CO has moved it, that is what I would have done. And I agree with abanazar's earlier post. I don't want my "toys" upsetting anyone, and I don't want those looking for them to be confronted by hostile locals. If it continues to cause problems I would remove it altogether.

[+MartyBartfast]

When I was a kid there was an old bloke on the way to school who used to stand in his garden morning & afternoon berating all the kids for walking across the corner of his lawn (which some of them did), me & my mate took the seemingly inconceivable approach of saying "Good Morning" and "Good Afternoon" to him and very quickly he returned the civility and we often chatted to him.

 

An ex girlfriend of mine had a neighbour who spent an inordinate amount of time sweeping the footpath along the roadside outside her house on a housing estate, she would also come out of her house and shout at people walking past for 'messing up' the footpath.

 

The old bloke was a regular chap who was a bit grumpy, the woman was not right in the head. Maybe the woman in this case also has mental health problems; if so winding her up by being rude back or insisting on leaving the cache where it may be causing her distress are probably not the best course of action.

 

Maybe moving it was a sensible, pragmatic approach.

Edited August 19, 2012 by MartyBartfast

[+Happy Humphrey]

As there's no public property in the UK - only publically accessible property - either the local authority (if the cache is on the road) or the landowner whose land the footpath crosses must have given permission for the cache to be there.

All the CO needs to do is publish details of that permission on the cache page, and any future finders getting hassle from the locals will have the evidence to wave at them!

I don't think that permission to place the cache is the issue here. I can't be sure, but it sounds very likely that if you simply walked past the cottage and then stopped for a few minutes to check the map or eat a sandwich before taking the footpath you'd be subjected to a similar tirade. As Marty says, anyone stopping in the vicinity (i.e. within sight of the cottage) is likely to cause the lady in question distress. The only real solution is for her to put up a sign on the road 100 yards each side of her cottage warning people not to stop, and then people could hasten through without receiving abuse. Either that or she could keep her dogs out of sight of the road.

 

In answer to Redsox Mark - good post, but as I understand it the cache was moved a good distance away from the cottage some time ago: however, the ranting has continued.

[I!]

The only real solution is for her to put up a sign on the road 100 yards each side of her cottage warning people not to stop

That is, quite vacuously, not a solution.

[+dprovan]

But in this case: I do not believe there is any cultural difference in how we react when being unexpectedly confronted by a hostile person in a public place. Some of us will ignore it, some will confront it. Most of us I expect could go either way depending on what was said. I would like to think I would try and ignore it. But if someone said something I found particularly offensive I would react.

Thanks for the insights. I agree that people everywhere can respond to rudeness with rudeness. The culture difference that struck me here is the proud assurance that returned rudeness was a good and appropriate way to deal with the situation.

 

What is different in the UK and worth mentioning again is the public footpaths. These are public rights of ways. They cross private land, but you have the right to walk on them. Putting geocaching aside - sometimes there are those who don't like living near a path. Sometimes a land owner will try to block a path (e.g. with a fence) - they are not allowed to do that. They also should not be shouting abuse at people who are walking on a public path. Many people feel these rights of way are important, so would challenge someone who is opposing their use.

Although I appreciate that the legal aspects of footpaths are interesting -- and I often wish we had such an enlightened approach to foot traffic here -- it's not clear to me that the legal issue is really that important in this case. After all, I have no problem at all imagining a neighbor trying to exert their influence where they have no legal rights even if I have very little experience with UK footpaths.

 

Back to the cache - I'm pleased the CO has moved it, that is what I would have done.

Yeah, me, too. I don't know what the correct legal or cultural reaction to this lady is, but I'm glad that whatever approach people take won't involve geocaching.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Back to the cache - I'm pleased the CO has moved it, that is what I would have done.

Yeah, me, too. I don't know what the correct legal or cultural reaction to this lady is, but I'm glad that whatever approach people take won't involve geocaching.

I don't get that. The cache was moved to be well away from the cottage before this incident: so how has it helped? Have you actually read this thread and looked at the cache listing and satellite image, or are you (with respect) just answering based on your own assumptions without bothering to check? And the correct legal and cultural action is to ignore her completely (as she has no grounds for these attacks); but as humans we find that difficult, and it's understandable that some will want to discuss the matter directly with the antagonist.

 

The only real solution is for her to put up a sign on the road 100 yards each side of her cottage warning people not to stop

That is, quite vacuously, not a solution.

Well it's not a serious suggestion but it would work as long as all passers-by observed her rules. I did say that she could keep her dogs out of the way so that they don't bark at passing walkers but I also doubt that she'd go for that either as I suspect that she enjoys berating innocent walkers.

[+agentmancuso]

...I often wish we had such an enlightened approach to foot traffic here...

 

It's a side issue, but I'd dispute the idea that English law has an enlightened approach to access - it's positively feudal.

[+drsolly]

I regard muggles as part of the fun.

 

Some of them are friendly and helpful, and I'm friendly back to them.

 

Some of them are unfriendly and unhelpful, and I'm friendly back to them also, always with a nice smile. But if I'm on a public footpath, then I will politely but firmly insist on my right to be there, and when I'm attacked by their dog, I will insist on my right to defend myself.

 

An angry and agressive muggle can be the high point of a caching day, turning an otherwise bland and routine cache, into a bit of an adventure. And a helpful and friendly muggle can be even better, warming the cockles of my heart.

 

So I use the soft answer that turneth away wrath, except that sometimes it doesn't.

 

On Saturday, I stopped the car in a layby and jumped out to look for a cache. I was immediately confronted by Mrs Angry, who jumped out of her van and wanted to know what I was doing there. I hadn't actually done anything yet, so I told her "I'm admiring the view".

 

She didn't believe me. And she said so. She's had stuff stolen from her field, chickens and blankets, as I recall, and there was a list of other stuff too. She took my car registration number. So I took hers. And she asked me again what I was doing. "Admiring the view", was what I replied, because in truth, that was all I'd done so far. "That's the weakest excuse I've ever heard," she replied, and I wondered how she'd regard "I'm counting the slugs".

 

So she repeated her allegations of theft, and I asked if she was suggesting that I was here to steal her chickens, and I suggested that she call the police if she had that suspicion, since she had her mobile in her hand. She said that the police are fed up with her and wouldn't come. "But I'm going to tell everyone in the village about you," she shouted. I wondered how many people in the village would be interested. I certainly wasn't. "I don't believe you were just admiring the view, that's a weak excuse."

 

"Well, it's the only one you're getting," I said as I got into my car and drove off.

 

 

A few hours later, I was in the village, having finished the circuit, and I'd just biked back to the car. A van pulled up, and I thought, "Here we go again". But it was a man, and he wanted to know if I knew of anyone in the village that wanted a foam mattress. "Sorry, I don't know anyone here who would want a foam mattress," I replied.

 

See - muggles are part of the fun.

[+FOX 661L]

Why, when reading this do I think of Tom & Jerry cartoons ? Remember the ones where there is Butch, an angry bulldog, tied up to his kennel and so Tom draws a line in the ground at the limit of Butch's rope, and everytime Tom comes past he keeps behind the line and Butch comes storming out of his kennel snapping and barking until he gets to his limit to find Tom just out of his reach...

 

I don't want to annoy local residents by my caching activities, and I wouldn't want to subject other cachers to the rantings of an angry resident, even if the cache is beyond the limits of their property... because as always happens in the cartoons, eventually the rope snaps and Tom gets marmalysed

[+Happy Humphrey]

On Saturday, I stopped the car in a layby and jumped out to look for a cache. I was immediately confronted by Mrs Angry, who jumped out of her van and wanted to know what I was doing there. I hadn't actually done anything yet, so I told her "I'm admiring the view".

Ah - you're not supposed to wind them up you know. You should apologise for having the temerity to stand in a layby, and beat a grovelling retreat whilst doffing cap. Then turn yourself in to the local fuzz. You could also ask for your offence of standing on the cracks in the pavement to be considered, along with two counts of assembling a folding bicycle in an unapproved fashion.

[+MartyBartfast]

along with two counts of assembling a folding bicycle in an unapproved fashion.

You mean by putting the front wheel on back to front?

[team tisri]

Reminds me of the time I was looking for a cache in a very expensive looking part of London. A guy who looked very much like he was probably the local wino was watching me very closely as I was squatted down beside my bike, fiddling with the chain.

 

Eventually he suddenly said (in a very slurred voice) something along the lines of "I stay here. What are you doing?". I noticed he didn't say "I live here", which may or may not have been relevant. Anyway I asked him what it looked like I was doing, given I had a multi tool in my hand and was adjusting the brake blocks at the time. Then he made a comment about the GPS on my handlebars and demanded to know what I was doing, so I told him I was minding my own business, and then ignored him as he uttered lots of expletives about why I was lying to him.

 

Irritatingly I still didn't find the cache.

[+Raymond Duck]

On Saturday, I stopped the car in a layby and jumped out to look for a cache. I was immediately confronted by Mrs Angry, who jumped out of her van and wanted to know what I was doing there. I hadn't actually done anything yet, so I told her "I'm admiring the view".

Ah - you're not supposed to wind them up you know. You should apologise for having the temerity to stand in a layby, and beat a grovelling retreat whilst doffing cap. Then turn yourself in to the local fuzz. You could also ask for your offence of standing on the cracks in the pavement to be considered, along with two counts of assembling a folding bicycle in an unapproved fashion.

 

Abolutely class

 

I like the cut of your jib, Mr Humphrey.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Raymond Duck