Private Property Help

[Troutonthebrain]

Ok, so we have hidden and placed three geocaches of which I am co-owner. There were No Trespassing signs, for what reason I do not understand. We entered from a different side and didn't see them until we exited. The caches in question are GC3V3DG and GC3V3E0. The problem we are having is with a local cacher. Due to the No Trespassing signs he refuses to find the caches and is sending us emails and posting notes on the cache pages. Normally we would trust the signs, but so far we have found no evidence that it is not owned by the county other than those signs. The map of the park shows that they on public property, the county map shows that they are on public property, and, since the reviewer published, I am assuming that his map said it was on public property.

 

We have gotten two emails from the cacher since, neither of which really made that much sense to me.

 

Email 1: Just said that we shouldn't have posted the map of the park showing the cache is on public propery.

Sorry to say...http://coord.info/GL92QAHP...nope...you shouldn't have posted,

private property

 

Email 2:This one makes less sense to me since the caches are EAST of the road.

http://coord.info/GC3V3DG...hmmm...just look at your map...everything towards the

west is private property...standing on said roadway...looking at said signs as I

posted...as such...from the road...93 feet away...yet, being posted as being private

property...didn't proceed!

 

What would you do? We don't know whether to trust the signs and archive, or trust the three online sources that say that it is indeed public. We have posted maps on the cache pages and haven't responded to his emails because we don't want to add more fuel to the fire just yet. I guess that we could email the county, but I just don't know what actions should be taken. Help!

[+Keelmann And Cici]

Your caches appear to be right on the edge of public property. You may be in the right here, but if it were me, I'd adjust the caches to remove any possibility of confusion or confrontation. Seems like there's plenty of room to adjust.

[knowschad]

Too hard to find the spot on the county GIS site that you linked to. I sure wish the counties would get some decent GIS software! This one doesn't seem to allow a coordinate search.

 

The signs could very well be artifacts left over from a time when that was private land, before it was aquired by the park. But I think this may be a time to get explicit permission for your hides. Or, at least ask the park about those signs. They may want to know so they can remove them if they are no longer valid.

[+SwineFlew]

Your caches appear to be right on the edge of public property. You may be in the right here, but if it were me, I'd adjust the caches to remove any possibility of confusion or confrontation. Seems like there's plenty of room to adjust.

That isnt all. Ground Speak always side with the property owners even the cache is on public property.

 

To the OP, archive it even you are in the "right".

[knowschad]

Your caches appear to be right on the edge of public property. You may be in the right here, but if it were me, I'd adjust the caches to remove any possibility of confusion or confrontation. Seems like there's plenty of room to adjust.

That isnt all. Ground Speak always side with the property owners even the cache is on public property.

 

To the OP, archive it even you are in the "right".

 

Probably true, but this isn't a dispute between the property owner and the cache owner. This is a difference in opinion between the cache owner and another geocacher.

[+Ike 13]

He posted a NA so the reviewer will double check. I think going to the park and having them confirm it's on Public property would be best. The park map seems weird since there are no trails to that lake so I guess it may be a newer addition not fully developed.

 

If they are on private property move them in the park, it looks to have plenty of room.

[+SwineFlew]

Your caches is reminding me of this cache. http://coord.info/GC1DHN9

 

Its a tricky one to get to because you have to take the long route(a really long route) to stay off of private property.

 

Keep in mind that most cachers take the shortest route to a cache. Thats where the problems happen with property owners.

[Troutonthebrain]

Ok. It is undeveloped and we were going to hide in the rest of the park but ran out of time. By the looks of things the cacher denies that there is any public land and my words have begun to be twisted by him from the cache pages. I am leaving it up to the reviewer. The cache will not be moved since it is an hour and a half from home.

 

Oh well, sometimes even a nice reply can't make everyone happy.

[Chino1130]

Just move the signs

[4wheelin_fool]

Some cachers don't act as nice when a NA is posted. I would disable it, check again, and post the correct route.

 

Just because u can find doesn't mean you need to act like baby! There were no sign when we were there!

Edited August 23, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[Troutonthebrain]

Just move the signs

Signs are nailed to the tree, unfortunately. By the sound of things though the cacher would find a way for us to get kicked out of geocaching for it. Oh well, good idea though. I approve! Edited August 23, 2012 by Troutonthebrain

[Troutonthebrain]

If these caches gets archived, it will be our shortest life of a cache since somebody poached beavers by gz (not a cacher, that we know of) and we archived for the park service's sake.

[4wheelin_fool]

I removed signs that were posted on public land near my cache. But I contacted both the tax office and the police department before I did so. It seems that there was illegal hunting going on back there according to the cops. So, I went back there, found the deer stand, and took that down also. Problem solved.

[knowschad]

Just move the signs

Signs are nailed to the tree, unfortunately.

Then move the trees, too, for crying out loud!

[+SwineFlew]

Just move the signs

Signs are nailed to the tree, unfortunately.

Then move the trees, too, for crying out loud!

Let me state of what the guideline say about that.

 

 

Sorry, the devil made me do it.

 

[Troutonthebrain]

Just move the signs

Signs are nailed to the tree, unfortunately.

Then move the trees, too, for crying out loud!

Let me state of what the guideline say about that.

 

 

Sorry, the devil made me do it.

 

[schattentanz]

I know what to do! Be like the people here.

 

Start with a "The caches in the area were there for so long, and caused no damage" followed by saying he´s just upset and wants the caches gone because he´s not first to find. Then post a million pictures of the area in question, with a billion excuses...

 

And I stop there because I find it so mind-numbingly stupid what some people do and say in this area.

 

Send your friend the way you went to search if there´s the signs along that way, and if there´s some that say it is indeed the park. It could be that the road and the area around it is the private property. When that´s the case, make waypoints going around the proper, legal way.

 

Then when someone decides to take the short and easy way, and gets in trouble, it´s their problem.

 

Provided that the cache is where it´s allowed to be.

[+Hemorrhage]

There are a couple caches in a similar area near me that also have no trespassing signs posted even though the land is owned by fish and game. One of the signs is actually nailed to a tree that has a fish and game marker attached to the same tree! It was determined that somebody posted the signs to deter hunters from the area. It may be a similar situation in your area

[knowschad]

I know what to do! Be like the people here.

 

Start with a "The caches in the area were there for so long, and caused no damage" followed by saying he´s just upset and wants the caches gone because he´s not first to find. Then post a million pictures of the area in question, with a billion excuses...

 

And I stop there because I find it so mind-numbingly stupid what some people do and say in this area.

 

Send your friend the way you went to search if there´s the signs along that way, and if there´s some that say it is indeed the park. It could be that the road and the area around it is the private property. When that´s the case, make waypoints going around the proper, legal way.

 

Then when someone decides to take the short and easy way, and gets in trouble, it´s their problem.

 

Provided that the cache is where it´s allowed to be.

 

Guess what? You are now one of "the people on here" . You also are nudging the boundaries of the forum guidelines by calling other posters stupid. Thanks for adding to the quality of conversation here.

[schattentanz]

 

Guess what? You are now one of "the people on here" . You also are nudging the boundaries of the forum guidelines by calling other posters stupid. Thanks for adding to the quality of conversation here.

 

I was referring to some of the cache owners in this area, not the forum.

 

Next time, I´ll make it a bit clearer which is the target of the comment.

[knowschad]

Guess what? You are now one of "the people on here" . You also are nudging the boundaries of the forum guidelines by calling other posters stupid. Thanks for adding to the quality of conversation here.

 

I was referring to some of the cache owners in this area, not the forum.

 

Next time, I´ll make it a bit clearer which is the target of the comment.

 

I beg your pardon. Perhaps I didn't read carefully enough.

[schattentanz]

[

I beg your pardon. Perhaps I didn't read carefully enough.

No need. It´s more a general bad habit of mine to use general words like "here", meaning here here, not here forum. It also drives some people I speak with crazy.

 

It´s been a while since I was in a forum, and often forget that world wide part of things.

[4wheelin_fool]

Guess what? You are now one of "the people on here" . You also are nudging the boundaries of the forum guidelines by calling other posters stupid. Thanks for adding to the quality of conversation here.

 

I was referring to some of the cache owners in this area, not the forum.

 

Next time, I´ll make it a bit clearer which is the target of the comment.

 

I beg your pardon. Perhaps I didn't read carefully enough.

 

I wouldn't worry about it. It was a stupid mistake.

[4wheelin_fool]

Your caches appear to be right on the edge of public property. You may be in the right here, but if it were me, I'd adjust the caches to remove any possibility of confusion or confrontation. Seems like there's plenty of room to adjust.

 

Yes, it seems they are both right on the edge. Perhaps the land is over posted, but I would move them to show respect to the property owner.

[knowschad]

Guess what? You are now one of "the people on here" . You also are nudging the boundaries of the forum guidelines by calling other posters stupid. Thanks for adding to the quality of conversation here.

 

I was referring to some of the cache owners in this area, not the forum.

 

Next time, I´ll make it a bit clearer which is the target of the comment.

 

I beg your pardon. Perhaps I didn't read carefully enough.

 

I wouldn't worry about it. It was a stupid mistake.

 

[+Mike & Jess]

I had a very similar issue with one of my caches. Bushwhacked into the location where I placed it.

If you drive down the road south of the cache (you have to enter the road from the North), you would never see the road south of the cache with the sign.

 

Who ever complained, went to the reviewer with a note, and did not indicate anything on the GC page. The actual private property was an old graveyard at the end of the small dirt road, not the actual road or land around it (which is city owned).

Long story short, I couldn't prove my cache was not on private property in time.

I do wish the complaining cacher would have said something to me or posted a note on the GC page. I could have informed them it was the graveyard, which can be seen from GZ, but is not near it.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I would...

 

1) Make it clear on the cache pages how to approach the caches to avoid No Trespassing signs and/or possibly straying onto private property.

2) Contact the park to clarify the situation.

3) Disable the caches until the situation can be resolved.

[+niraD]

I've found caches where the entire point is to figure out how to access the location in a safe and legal manner. I've also found caches where there was only one way to approach the location legally, and the CO mentioned that in the cache description. Both of these approaches can be fine, depending on the situation.

[+SwineFlew]

I've found caches where the entire point is to figure out how to access the location in a safe and legal manner. I've also found caches where there was only one way to approach the location legally, and the CO mentioned that in the cache description. Both of these approaches can be fine, depending on the situation.

 

I just about hidden a cache that theres only one way to get to it but I was afraid people will try the easiest way to it which its across private land.. Hell, I had a really HARD time finding the legal way to it! Mind me, I was in places where I shouldnt be when I was searching a way to it!!! :ph34r: :ph34r: Its alot of back roads and its really out of the way to get to it. Once I found the right way, I gave up placing a cache there because I dont think most people will read the cache page. I can make it into a muti and that would work, but I worry about people giving away final coordinates and not tell other the way to it.

[+ArcherDragoon]

This one played out pretty much the way I expected it too based on the Reviewer Notes recently added to the pages. While mistakes do happen, I believe Reviewers do an excellent job of reviewing caches. Since they were published (these particular caches), I had full confidence that based on the info available to Reviewers, the caches could be published. Keep in mind, however, they are called "Reviewers" and "Publish" caches...and no longer "Approvers" who "Approve" caches.

 

The status of the caches have been left completely in your hands...do what you feel is best.

[knowschad]

Looks like the reviewer has done a fine job of mediating! Nice going, MN.Fruitcake!

[+Sol seaker]

I had to check the cache page to know if that was an insult or not.

 

My main complaint is being required to wear pants while searching.

 

 

Edited to fix smiley face. Nothing worse than a broken smiley face.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Sol seaker

[knowschad]

My main complaint is being required to wear pants while searching.

It was just a recommendation, SS. I'm sure you can go after it any way you'd like. What time are you gonna be there?

[Troutonthebrain]

My main complaint is being required to wear pants while searching.

It was just a recommendation, SS. I'm sure you can go after it any way you'd like. What time are you gonna be there?

You could wear shorts if you want to. Go ahead, but don't blame me for your loss of blood. Plenty of buckthorn and poison ivy, not to mention numerous other species of thorny plants.

 

Anyhow, the problem has been resolved. The person who objected the caches placements has written us a nice apologetic email as well as writing the reviewer. I am betting that the example from post #10 did not result in as kind of an ending.

[knowschad]

My main complaint is being required to wear pants while searching.

It was just a recommendation, SS. I'm sure you can go after it any way you'd like. What time are you gonna be there?

You could wear shorts if you want to. Go ahead, but don't blame me for your loss of blood. Plenty of buckthorn and poison ivy, not to mention numerous other species of thorny plants.

 

Anyhow, the problem has been resolved. The person who objected the caches placements has written us a nice apologetic email as well as writing the reviewer. I am betting that the example from post #10 did not result in as kind of an ending.

 

I don't think Sol was exactly thinking of shorts, either, but I'll let her answer for herself.

 

Glad it was resolved without bad feelings. Running into each other at an event or in the field will go much smoother now! Good old Minnesota Nice!

[4wheelin_fool]

I am betting that the example from post #10 did not result in as kind of an ending.

 

The jury is still out on that. New NAs, along with others saying its ok.