Geocaches in public places

[+SwineFlew]

i think another aspect to it is that everyone is on high alert after things like 9/11 and such. Plus, cachers tend too look extremely sketchy when hunting. You may want to start out with finding caches in less public areas like woods trails and cemeteries to build up your 'geocaching courage"

For most urban caches, I just walk straight up to it and sign the log and move on. I did that in Salem this past weekend with like two people watching me and many more were ignoring me. The people that work at the store come out and smile at me. (I think someone told them about a guy with long hair with a eight foot stepladder) The cache is on top of a no parking sign and you need a tall step ladder to get it done. I walked straight to GZ with a step ladder and yep, I do stand out big time but hell, I think it will look worse if I try to be sketchy. The business next to it know its there and its on the sidewalk and not on their property. Its on public property. I know its a fine there there but as long they dont mind, it will stay.

[+Team Bayberry]

certainly not get anyone in trouble.

 

I understand that you are fairly new and don't want to make waves, but if you look at the part of your quote that I underlined, this is exactly what the cache owner is doing by insisting that the cache is okay. He led you into a bad situation, and he is willing to lead others as well. The typical response to such a situation is to post a Needs Archive log which alerts one of the area's reviewers. They can then communicate with the cache owner and figure out the best course of action. If you feel more comfortable doing this out of the public view, you can email the reviewer privately. Give them the cache GC# and explain your experience.

 

I recently was asked by a friend (fairly new cacher) to go look at a cache (placed by a even newer newbie) that may or may not be on private property. It's in a copse of trees, definitely the property of the local office building owners. The question was raised because of two "Private Property" signs nearby. One sign also said "No Thru Traffic" (the property is on a busy corner.) This sign I ignored, since there was none on the other end of the driveway. But the 2nd was on a fence surrounding a natural gas gate station. Right in front of the gate is a gravel parking space. I just know that someone will call police when a cacher parks there. Bad enough that the building owner didn't give permission, and the CO refuses to understand that it IS private property. But the close placement of a cache to a prime terrorist target per Homeland Security - whether we agree or not - is a problem.

 

But the reviewer said that the cache wasn't dangerous (?) and "However, it should be pointed out that the cache would not have been published had it not met the reviewing and publishing criteria."

 

So I doubt that I'll post any more NAs. It's just not worth the hassle.

 

Hassle? Really? It's an option on a pull down menu. Add in a line or two of text, and it's done. That's not hassle. Hassle is being questioned by property owners because somebody was too lazy/complacent to log an NA log on a cache that needs an NA log

 

The hassle is not in the mechanics of the report. Rather, it's in being targeted by a batch of local newbie cachers as "a problem" (they're already hassling other cachers, especially one who failed to sign a couple of logbooks), and in the fact that I do want to continue to put caches out, and don't have a choice of reviewers.

 

SO - what would you do when a reviewer failed to see the cache placement as a problem?

[+Armorsmith]

My "ban" would be for caches placed on clearly commercial locations (such as shopping malls). When you said that would elimiate most of the nearby hides, I assumed that meant most of the hides near you were in shopping plazas.

 

-------

 

I live in the smallest state, and there's still plenty of space to hide caches in state and city parks and state DEM land. PLENTY of space.

 

I apologize if I misunderstood you, but "such as no caches on commercial property, period" made me think you meant "no caches on commercial property, period."

 

I was merely trying to point out the futility of trying to implement that kind of a policy. If you state the policy the way you did, it empirically eliminates massive areas where people can currently geocache. When you modify it to start adding words like "clearly" you're introducing a judgement call that makes it pointless, what you think is clear and what I think is clear aren't the same, clearly.

 

While I admit there are more LPC's and GRC's around than I'd like, there are also many very clever, difficult, and interesting hides in the areas you're proposing banning, including my favorite hide, which is located on the local college campus. I wasn't trying to argue with you per se, merely trying to point out, admittedly with a bit of hyperbole, the futility if a legislative approach to this. Of course there would still be many places to hide a cache, I'm not denying that, but rather than pass an arbitrary rule to counteract the breaking of an existing rule I'm proposing that it would be better to either enforce the existing rule, or better yet, impress on people the importance of following the said rule.

 

My point is, if people don't follow the rule, how is making a new rule for them not to follow going to fix it?

 

Geocaching is a ground-up thing, not a top down thing. While Groundspeak is good enough to keep track of the database for is, it isn't their responsibility to police this, it's ours. We are the ones who have to take caches that are placed in violation of the rules or common sense and insist that they be removed and archived. We are the ones who are responsible for making it unacceptable to place caches without permission. We are the ones who created the culture of this game we love, and we are the ones who have to impress rather than impose our values on it.

 

To do anything less, to ask Groundspeak to step in and attempt to constrain or control something that only flourishes because of the individual ingenuity and creativity of members is to take away the very freedom that has allowed this to become what it is. To do that, is to lessen it, lessen the game, lessen the pursuit, lessen us.

[Mr.Yuck]

My "ban" would be for caches placed on clearly commercial locations (such as shopping malls). When you said that would elimiate most of the nearby hides, I assumed that meant most of the hides near you were in shopping plazas.

 

-------

 

I live in the smallest state, and there's still plenty of space to hide caches in state and city parks and state DEM land. PLENTY of space.

 

I apologize if I misunderstood you, but "such as no caches on commercial property, period" made me think you meant "no caches on commercial property, period."

 

I was merely trying to point out the futility of trying to implement that kind of a policy. If you state the policy the way you did, it empirically eliminates massive areas where people can currently geocache. When you modify it to start adding words like "clearly" you're introducing a judgement call that makes it pointless, what you think is clear and what I think is clear aren't the same, clearly.

 

 

Areas where people can currently Geocache, while the hider checks the two boxes saying they've read the guidelines, and are in compliance with them, and the reviewers publish the caches without question under what I've described 1,000 times as a "look the other way policy".

 

They could have nipped this caches on commercial property thing in the bud early on. I predate such caches in my area. We got an "Off your Rocker" cache on a Cracker Barrel front porch in very late 2004, and the parking lot micros started a comin' in early 2005. Earlier in some areas, of course. But that was the time to say "whoa, none of this stuff". That didn't happen, and I agree, it's probably too late now.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[+The A-Team]

SO - what would you do when a reviewer failed to see the cache placement as a problem?

If the cache definitely violates the guidelines, but a reviewer doesn't take action? Take it to the next link up the chain: appeals@geocaching.com.

 

Honestly though, if they don't take action, it's probably because you haven't demonstrated well enough to them that there's a problem. Send them photos of the signs and describe or show where they're located. Show the cache location on town GIS maps showing it is located on private property. Make an ironclad case that shows exactly how the cache violates the guidelines.

[4wheelin_fool]

certainly not get anyone in trouble.

 

I understand that you are fairly new and don't want to make waves, but if you look at the part of your quote that I underlined, this is exactly what the cache owner is doing by insisting that the cache is okay. He led you into a bad situation, and he is willing to lead others as well. The typical response to such a situation is to post a Needs Archive log which alerts one of the area's reviewers. They can then communicate with the cache owner and figure out the best course of action. If you feel more comfortable doing this out of the public view, you can email the reviewer privately. Give them the cache GC# and explain your experience.

 

I recently was asked by a friend (fairly new cacher) to go look at a cache (placed by a even newer newbie) that may or may not be on private property. It's in a copse of trees, definitely the property of the local office building owners. The question was raised because of two "Private Property" signs nearby. One sign also said "No Thru Traffic" (the property is on a busy corner.) This sign I ignored, since there was none on the other end of the driveway. But the 2nd was on a fence surrounding a natural gas gate station. Right in front of the gate is a gravel parking space. I just know that someone will call police when a cacher parks there. Bad enough that the building owner didn't give permission, and the CO refuses to understand that it IS private property. But the close placement of a cache to a prime terrorist target per Homeland Security - whether we agree or not - is a problem.

 

But the reviewer said that the cache wasn't dangerous (?) and "However, it should be pointed out that the cache would not have been published had it not met the reviewing and publishing criteria."

 

So I doubt that I'll post any more NAs. It's just not worth the hassle.

 

Hassle? Really? It's an option on a pull down menu. Add in a line or two of text, and it's done. That's not hassle. Hassle is being questioned by property owners because somebody was too lazy/complacent to log an NA log on a cache that needs an NA log

 

The hassle is not in the mechanics of the report. Rather, it's in being targeted by a batch of local newbie cachers as "a problem" (they're already hassling other cachers, especially one who failed to sign a couple of logbooks), and in the fact that I do want to continue to put caches out, and don't have a choice of reviewers.

 

SO - what would you do when a reviewer failed to see the cache placement as a problem?

 

That cache is definitely on private property without permission. The "No Trespassing" sign on the road out front was installed by the DOT to prevent motorists from using the parking lot to circumvent the nearby traffic light. The "No Trespassing" sign on the fenced in pipe area is intended to address access to that area. So it appears that the land surrounding the gate is not specifically intended to keep people out. However, it is not open to the public either..

 

I have no idea why that was published, and no idea why it has not been archived. It would be sad for a cacher to be ignored, but for the police to have to call Groundspeak themselves to have it archived. Since the office is closed, and the building on the other side is boarded up, anyone parking there and acting oddly would attract their attention. I also have no idea why someone would want to hide a cache there, unless they wanted to break into either building..

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

My "ban" would be for caches placed on clearly commercial locations (such as shopping malls). When you said that would elimiate most of the nearby hides, I assumed that meant most of the hides near you were in shopping plazas.

 

-------

 

I live in the smallest state, and there's still plenty of space to hide caches in state and city parks and state DEM land. PLENTY of space.

 

I apologize if I misunderstood you, but "such as no caches on commercial property, period" made me think you meant "no caches on commercial property, period."

 

I was merely trying to point out the futility of trying to implement that kind of a policy. If you state the policy the way you did, it empirically eliminates massive areas where people can currently geocache. When you modify it to start adding words like "clearly" you're introducing a judgement call that makes it pointless, what you think is clear and what I think is clear aren't the same, clearly.

 

 

Areas where people can currently Geocache, while the hider checks the two boxes saying they've read the guidelines, and are in compliance with them, and the reviewers publish the caches without question under what I've described 1,000 times as a "look the other way policy".

 

They could have nipped this caches on commercial property thing in the bud early on. I predate such caches in my area. We got an "Off your Rocker" cache on a Cracker Barrel front porch in very late 2004, and the parking lot micros started a comin' in early 2005. Earlier in some areas, of course. But that was the time to say "whoa, none of this stuff". That didn't happen, and I agree, it's probably too late now.

 

What he said.

 

The only reason people cache in these locations is because people assume that just becuase they can be at the location (for a legitimate reason such as shopping in a store in the mall) they are allowed to hide a cahe. They blindly check the box indicating they understand the guidelines and have "adequate permission", without really understanding public/puiblic access/private issues.

[+J the Goat]

SO - what would you do when a reviewer failed to see the cache placement as a problem?

If the cache definitely violates the guidelines, but a reviewer doesn't take action? Take it to the next link up the chain: appeals@geocaching.com.

 

Honestly though, if they don't take action, it's probably because you haven't demonstrated well enough to them that there's a problem. Send them photos of the signs and describe or show where they're located. Show the cache location on town GIS maps showing it is located on private property. Make an ironclad case that shows exactly how the cache violates the guidelines.

 

Yes. If my concern were the guidelines and the reviewer looked into it and was satisfied, I also have no problems putting caches on my ignore list. My point is though, that to ignore them first because you don't want to deal with it is just part of the problem. You're supporting caches placed without permission by not reporting that there are caches without permission, and this very frequently leads to conflict between cachers and business/land owners.

 

If the NA log and your local stigma is what you're worried about, an email to the local reviewer will keep everything off the cache page and you don't have to worry about those pesky newbies and their badgering

[+Don_J]

certainly not get anyone in trouble.

 

I understand that you are fairly new and don't want to make waves, but if you look at the part of your quote that I underlined, this is exactly what the cache owner is doing by insisting that the cache is okay. He led you into a bad situation, and he is willing to lead others as well. The typical response to such a situation is to post a Needs Archive log which alerts one of the area's reviewers. They can then communicate with the cache owner and figure out the best course of action. If you feel more comfortable doing this out of the public view, you can email the reviewer privately. Give them the cache GC# and explain your experience.

 

I recently was asked by a friend (fairly new cacher) to go look at a cache (placed by a even newer newbie) that may or may not be on private property. It's in a copse of trees, definitely the property of the local office building owners. The question was raised because of two "Private Property" signs nearby. One sign also said "No Thru Traffic" (the property is on a busy corner.) This sign I ignored, since there was none on the other end of the driveway. But the 2nd was on a fence surrounding a natural gas gate station. Right in front of the gate is a gravel parking space. I just know that someone will call police when a cacher parks there. Bad enough that the building owner didn't give permission, and the CO refuses to understand that it IS private property. But the close placement of a cache to a prime terrorist target per Homeland Security - whether we agree or not - is a problem.

 

But the reviewer said that the cache wasn't dangerous (?) and "However, it should be pointed out that the cache would not have been published had it not met the reviewing and publishing criteria."

 

So I doubt that I'll post any more NAs. It's just not worth the hassle.

 

Hassle? Really? It's an option on a pull down menu. Add in a line or two of text, and it's done. That's not hassle. Hassle is being questioned by property owners because somebody was too lazy/complacent to log an NA log on a cache that needs an NA log

 

The hassle is not in the mechanics of the report. Rather, it's in being targeted by a batch of local newbie cachers as "a problem" (they're already hassling other cachers, especially one who failed to sign a couple of logbooks), and in the fact that I do want to continue to put caches out, and don't have a choice of reviewers.

 

SO - what would you do when a reviewer failed to see the cache placement as a problem?

 

If I truly thought that it was critical that the cache be removed I would write him a detailed email explaining why. I would stick to the facts and try not to tell him how to do his job. Beyond that, I would not pursue it further. Otherwise, I would just move on.

 

You said that the cache was at a "natural gas gate station", did you mean a natural gas station gate? And what is a natural gas station? In our area we have a few which are set up for the public to fill their LNG powered vehicles. No different than a typical gasoline station. Are we talking about something different, and was that made clear to the reviewer? We have to keep things in perspective. Bridges can be a terrorist target, but that does not mean that all bridges are terrorist targets. This is where the reviewer's discretion, based on facts known to him, comes into play.

[+Don_J]

My "ban" would be for caches placed on clearly commercial locations (such as shopping malls). When you said that would elimiate most of the nearby hides, I assumed that meant most of the hides near you were in shopping plazas.

 

-------

 

I live in the smallest state, and there's still plenty of space to hide caches in state and city parks and state DEM land. PLENTY of space.

 

I apologize if I misunderstood you, but "such as no caches on commercial property, period" made me think you meant "no caches on commercial property, period."

 

I was merely trying to point out the futility of trying to implement that kind of a policy. If you state the policy the way you did, it empirically eliminates massive areas where people can currently geocache. When you modify it to start adding words like "clearly" you're introducing a judgement call that makes it pointless, what you think is clear and what I think is clear aren't the same, clearly.

 

 

Areas where people can currently Geocache, while the hider checks the two boxes saying they've read the guidelines, and are in compliance with them, and the reviewers publish the caches without question under what I've described 1,000 times as a "look the other way policy".

 

They could have nipped this caches on commercial property thing in the bud early on. I predate such caches in my area. We got an "Off your Rocker" cache on a Cracker Barrel front porch in very late 2004, and the parking lot micros started a comin' in early 2005. Earlier in some areas, of course. But that was the time to say "whoa, none of this stuff". That didn't happen, and I agree, it's probably too late now.

 

Of course it's to late. Anyone who thinks that Groundspeak is going to archive half it's active database is not living in the real world. This is their bread and butter. You don't sign up an advertiser by telling him you have 2 million active caches and then come back a month later and tell them, well, it was a hard decision, but these five guys on the forum made a good argument, so we deleted a million listings.

 

BTW, I have no idea the percentage of caches that are clearly on commercial property without explicit permission. 50% is probably way to low.

[+JL_HSTRE]

If I am ever confronted by a property owner, security guard, park ranger, police, or similiar authority figure while looking for a cache and asked to leave then I will nearly always post a NA log explaining the circumstances. That puts it on the record with Groundspeak and the Reviewers know too. This not only avoids any problems with dismissive owners but also helps prevent future problems with other caches that might be placed in the area.

[+Sol seaker]

I've been in a few situations applicable to this thread.

 

One, the really tough cache was in a parking lot of a mall. The security did not like it there. I was new and just left. Others had complained on the cache page that the security had hassled them.

In retrospect I would at least email the local reviewer if not put an "NA" on the cache. Now I know that an NA just alerts the reviewer to a cache. It does not archive a cache. Once I put the "NA" on the cache, it is up to the reviewer what to do about it. It's in their hands, not mine.

 

Another situation we were looking for a cache in the parking lot of a skiing store.

The owner came out and asked us what we were doing. Red-faced we explained. I told her that if she did not want the cache there I would be happy to report that. I expressed to her that her feelings about this were important.

She considered the situation.

She asked some questions.

I told her (among other things) that the cache will draw people to her store. She asked me not to report it, that it would be fine there.

 

A big part of the reason she said we could leave the cache there was that I expressed that I felt it was really important that if she wanted it gone to let me know and I would see that it was taken away (I would have reported to it the owner and the reviewer that she had asked it be removed, if she did). I think that was important to her.

 

We need to be making a good impression on people about geocaching.

 

If we're saying, "We can put our caches here whether you want them or not" it does not give the public a good impression of our game.

 

 

 

If they want them moved, find out and tell the reviewer and the cache owner.

 

 

 

There are whole lot of other places to put them.

[+Sol seaker]

My "ban" would be for caches placed on clearly commercial locations (such as shopping malls). When you said that would elimiate most of the nearby hides, I assumed that meant most of the hides near you were in shopping plazas.

 

-------

 

I live in the smallest state, and there's still plenty of space to hide caches in state and city parks and state DEM land. PLENTY of space.

 

I apologize if I misunderstood you, but "such as no caches on commercial property, period" made me think you meant "no caches on commercial property, period."

 

I was merely trying to point out the futility of trying to implement that kind of a policy. If you state the policy the way you did, it empirically eliminates massive areas where people can currently geocache. When you modify it to start adding words like "clearly" you're introducing a judgement call that makes it pointless, what you think is clear and what I think is clear aren't the same, clearly.

 

 

Areas where people can currently Geocache, while the hider checks the two boxes saying they've read the guidelines, and are in compliance with them, and the reviewers publish the caches without question under what I've described 1,000 times as a "look the other way policy".

 

They could have nipped this caches on commercial property thing in the bud early on. I predate such caches in my area. We got an "Off your Rocker" cache on a Cracker Barrel front porch in very late 2004, and the parking lot micros started a comin' in early 2005. Earlier in some areas, of course. But that was the time to say "whoa, none of this stuff". That didn't happen, and I agree, it's probably too late now.

 

Of course it's to late. Anyone who thinks that Groundspeak is going to archive half it's active database is not living in the real world. This is their bread and butter. You don't sign up an advertiser by telling him you have 2 million active caches and then come back a month later and tell them, well, it was a hard decision, but these five guys on the forum made a good argument, so we deleted a million listings.

 

BTW, I have no idea the percentage of caches that are clearly on commercial property without explicit permission. 50% is probably way to low.

 

I really like what someone posted in another thread.

 

They called it the "Frisbee rule", that is, if you would show up and play frisbee there and not be bothered, then it's okay to place a cache (as long as they don't have a policy in place). Of course this is a loose guideline rather than a hard and fast rule, but it's interesting.

 

I would not expect to be allowed to play Frisbee in a parking lot. The lot is for other purposes (parked cars) that I would interrupt.

[+Team Bayberry]

certainly not get anyone in trouble.

 

I understand that you are fairly new and don't want to make waves, but if you look at the part of your quote that I underlined, this is exactly what the cache owner is doing by insisting that the cache is okay. He led you into a bad situation, and he is willing to lead others as well. The typical response to such a situation is to post a Needs Archive log which alerts one of the area's reviewers. They can then communicate with the cache owner and figure out the best course of action. If you feel more comfortable doing this out of the public view, you can email the reviewer privately. Give them the cache GC# and explain your experience.

 

I recently was asked by a friend (fairly new cacher) to go look at a cache (placed by a even newer newbie) that may or may not be on private property. It's in a copse of trees, definitely the property of the local office building owners. The question was raised because of two "Private Property" signs nearby. One sign also said "No Thru Traffic" (the property is on a busy corner.) This sign I ignored, since there was none on the other end of the driveway. But the 2nd was on a fence surrounding a natural gas gate station. Right in front of the gate is a gravel parking space. I just know that someone will call police when a cacher parks there. Bad enough that the building owner didn't give permission, and the CO refuses to understand that it IS private property. But the close placement of a cache to a prime terrorist target per Homeland Security - whether we agree or not - is a problem.

 

But the reviewer said that the cache wasn't dangerous (?) and "However, it should be pointed out that the cache would not have been published had it not met the reviewing and publishing criteria."

 

So I doubt that I'll post any more NAs. It's just not worth the hassle.

 

Hassle? Really? It's an option on a pull down menu. Add in a line or two of text, and it's done. That's not hassle. Hassle is being questioned by property owners because somebody was too lazy/complacent to log an NA log on a cache that needs an NA log

 

The hassle is not in the mechanics of the report. Rather, it's in being targeted by a batch of local newbie cachers as "a problem" (they're already hassling other cachers, especially one who failed to sign a couple of logbooks), and in the fact that I do want to continue to put caches out, and don't have a choice of reviewers.

 

SO - what would you do when a reviewer failed to see the cache placement as a problem?

 

If I truly thought that it was critical that the cache be removed I would write him a detailed email explaining why. I would stick to the facts and try not to tell him how to do his job. Beyond that, I would not pursue it further. Otherwise, I would just move on.

 

You said that the cache was at a "natural gas gate station", did you mean a natural gas station gate? And what is a natural gas station? In our area we have a few which are set up for the public to fill their LNG powered vehicles. No different than a typical gasoline station. Are we talking about something different, and was that made clear to the reviewer? We have to keep things in perspective. Bridges can be a terrorist target, but that does not mean that all bridges are terrorist targets. This is where the reviewer's discretion, based on facts known to him, comes into play.

 

the gate station is where natural gas (the stuff you cook and heat a house with) comes into an area in a large transmission pipeline, and where it's diverted into smaller pipelines with lower pressure. It's the gas company's version of an electrical power substation. You wouldn't want caches placed within 150 feet of either of them. I said as much to the reviewer in an email, and he responded that there was no danger to cachers, and anyway, other caches are dangerous, such as guardrail caches along highways. My email was intended to supplement the NA post on the cache page, which clearly points to "Homeland Security".

 

I really don't want to keep going back and forth with this reviewer (don't know who he or she is), and the cacher in question WILL keep putting out caches like this, because he has a fan club urging him on.

 

Take a look... GC3TV9C

 

I have a photo there. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough in my email, but I kind of don't think that's the problem.

[+Team Bayberry]

certainly not get anyone in trouble.

 

I understand that you are fairly new and don't want to make waves, but if you look at the part of your quote that I underlined, this is exactly what the cache owner is doing by insisting that the cache is okay. He led you into a bad situation, and he is willing to lead others as well. The typical response to such a situation is to post a Needs Archive log which alerts one of the area's reviewers. They can then communicate with the cache owner and figure out the best course of action. If you feel more comfortable doing this out of the public view, you can email the reviewer privately. Give them the cache GC# and explain your experience.

 

I recently was asked by a friend (fairly new cacher) to go look at a cache (placed by a even newer newbie) that may or may not be on private property. It's in a copse of trees, definitely the property of the local office building owners. The question was raised because of two "Private Property" signs nearby. One sign also said "No Thru Traffic" (the property is on a busy corner.) This sign I ignored, since there was none on the other end of the driveway. But the 2nd was on a fence surrounding a natural gas gate station. Right in front of the gate is a gravel parking space. I just know that someone will call police when a cacher parks there. Bad enough that the building owner didn't give permission, and the CO refuses to understand that it IS private property. But the close placement of a cache to a prime terrorist target per Homeland Security - whether we agree or not - is a problem.

 

But the reviewer said that the cache wasn't dangerous (?) and "However, it should be pointed out that the cache would not have been published had it not met the reviewing and publishing criteria."

 

So I doubt that I'll post any more NAs. It's just not worth the hassle.

 

Hassle? Really? It's an option on a pull down menu. Add in a line or two of text, and it's done. That's not hassle. Hassle is being questioned by property owners because somebody was too lazy/complacent to log an NA log on a cache that needs an NA log

 

The hassle is not in the mechanics of the report. Rather, it's in being targeted by a batch of local newbie cachers as "a problem" (they're already hassling other cachers, especially one who failed to sign a couple of logbooks), and in the fact that I do want to continue to put caches out, and don't have a choice of reviewers.

 

SO - what would you do when a reviewer failed to see the cache placement as a problem?

 

That cache is definitely on private property without permission. The "No Trespassing" sign on the road out front was installed by the DOT to prevent motorists from using the parking lot to circumvent the nearby traffic light. The "No Trespassing" sign on the fenced in pipe area is intended to address access to that area. So it appears that the land surrounding the gate is not specifically intended to keep people out. However, it is not open to the public either..

 

I have no idea why that was published, and no idea why it has not been archived. It would be sad for a cacher to be ignored, but for the police to have to call Groundspeak themselves to have it archived. Since the office is closed, and the building on the other side is boarded up, anyone parking there and acting oddly would attract their attention. I also have no idea why someone would want to hide a cache there, unless they wanted to break into either building..

 

Fool, I'm guessing that you've been to the site. I didn't even go to look at the area on the other side.

 

Also, please note that my NA post is the secondon this cache. The first person who posted an NA got slammed for it. A third party asked me to go take a look. I found the cache (took a photo, since the CO seemed to think that the first NA was because of a DNF), but didn't log it because I refuse to log a find on a cache that should be archived(which makes me a rarity around here.)

 

The CO had 52 finds when he hid this. It's a tube wrapped in snakeskin duct tape sitting at the base of a tree. This was his first hide. His second was already archived - by him - after one of his friends reported that it was in a field of poison ivy. (He apologized, saying he didn't know - because he'd placed the cache at night.)

[+ProfessorBenson]

My first four were done on a park trail with permission of the ranger. He even helped me place them. And I had to fill out four pages of paper work for each.

I just did a blog entry about what happens when you place a cache in the wrong location. I'd post the link to it, but don't want to get accused of "self promotion".

[4wheelin_fool]

certainly not get anyone in trouble.

 

I understand that you are fairly new and don't want to make waves, but if you look at the part of your quote that I underlined, this is exactly what the cache owner is doing by insisting that the cache is okay. He led you into a bad situation, and he is willing to lead others as well. The typical response to such a situation is to post a Needs Archive log which alerts one of the area's reviewers. They can then communicate with the cache owner and figure out the best course of action. If you feel more comfortable doing this out of the public view, you can email the reviewer privately. Give them the cache GC# and explain your experience.

 

I recently was asked by a friend (fairly new cacher) to go look at a cache (placed by a even newer newbie) that may or may not be on private property. It's in a copse of trees, definitely the property of the local office building owners. The question was raised because of two "Private Property" signs nearby. One sign also said "No Thru Traffic" (the property is on a busy corner.) This sign I ignored, since there was none on the other end of the driveway. But the 2nd was on a fence surrounding a natural gas gate station. Right in front of the gate is a gravel parking space. I just know that someone will call police when a cacher parks there. Bad enough that the building owner didn't give permission, and the CO refuses to understand that it IS private property. But the close placement of a cache to a prime terrorist target per Homeland Security - whether we agree or not - is a problem.

 

But the reviewer said that the cache wasn't dangerous (?) and "However, it should be pointed out that the cache would not have been published had it not met the reviewing and publishing criteria."

 

So I doubt that I'll post any more NAs. It's just not worth the hassle.

 

Hassle? Really? It's an option on a pull down menu. Add in a line or two of text, and it's done. That's not hassle. Hassle is being questioned by property owners because somebody was too lazy/complacent to log an NA log on a cache that needs an NA log

 

The hassle is not in the mechanics of the report. Rather, it's in being targeted by a batch of local newbie cachers as "a problem" (they're already hassling other cachers, especially one who failed to sign a couple of logbooks), and in the fact that I do want to continue to put caches out, and don't have a choice of reviewers.

 

SO - what would you do when a reviewer failed to see the cache placement as a problem?

 

That cache is definitely on private property without permission. The "No Trespassing" sign on the road out front was installed by the DOT to prevent motorists from using the parking lot to circumvent the nearby traffic light. The "No Trespassing" sign on the fenced in pipe area is intended to address access to that area. So it appears that the land surrounding the gate is not specifically intended to keep people out. However, it is not open to the public either..

 

I have no idea why that was published, and no idea why it has not been archived. It would be sad for a cacher to be ignored, but for the police to have to call Groundspeak themselves to have it archived. Since the office is closed, and the building on the other side is boarded up, anyone parking there and acting oddly would attract their attention. I also have no idea why someone would want to hide a cache there, unless they wanted to break into either building..

 

Fool, I'm guessing that you've been to the site. I didn't even go to look at the area on the other side.

 

Also, please note that my NA post is the secondon this cache. The first person who posted an NA got slammed for it. A third party asked me to go take a look. I found the cache (took a photo, since the CO seemed to think that the first NA was because of a DNF), but didn't log it because I refuse to log a find on a cache that should be archived(which makes me a rarity around here.)

 

The CO had 52 finds when he hid this. It's a tube wrapped in snakeskin duct tape sitting at the base of a tree. This was his first hide. His second was already archived - by him - after one of his friends reported that it was in a field of poison ivy. (He apologized, saying he didn't know - because he'd placed the cache at night.)

 

I haven't been there, but I have heard details about the site. The first time was the NA notification, and then someone mentioned it in another forum. They were questioning whether geocaching could be used as a cover for illegal activity. Since that spot seems to have no redeeming value, and there are 2 unused buildings nearby, someone could park there and be a lookout, while their buddy enters the buildings. Perhaps there could be scrap metal pipes, or copper wire to be sold, ect. If a cop shows up, they would just send them a text as a warning, while keeping the police occupied and explaining that they were there geocaching. All of those Off Your Rocker caches were mentioned, as Cracker Barrel keeps valuable items on their porches. I would say that 90% of cachers are honest, but since so many coins are going missing, there are questions about what level of theivery could be involved. It would really suck for an outside agency to impose new rules and regulations on the sport, but if valid concerns are ignored, that is inevitable unfortunately. We really should be proactive, rather than reactive.

Edited September 8, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[4wheelin_fool]

the gate station is where natural gas (the stuff you cook and heat a house with) comes into an area in a large transmission pipeline, and where it's diverted into smaller pipelines with lower pressure. It's the gas company's version of an electrical power substation. You wouldn't want caches placed within 150 feet of either of them. I said as much to the reviewer in an email, and he responded that there was no danger to cachers, and anyway, other caches are dangerous, such as guardrail caches along highways. My email was intended to supplement the NA post on the cache page, which clearly points to "Homeland Security".

 

I really don't want to keep going back and forth with this reviewer (don't know who he or she is), and the cacher in question WILL keep putting out caches like this, because he has a fan club urging him on.

 

Take a look... GC3TV9C

 

I have a photo there. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough in my email, but I kind of don't think that's the problem.

 

Let me add that I dont think its necessarily a Homeland Security concern. However, its clear that the property owner does not want activity there, so its not open to the public, has no permission, and could provide cover for criminal activity nearby. I suppose that if someone did want to cause a disruption in gas service, they could hide a cache there as to desensitize the public and law enforcement enough, so that nobody would get suspicious.

[+Team Bayberry]

 

That cache is definitely on private property without permission. The "No Trespassing" sign on the road out front was installed by the DOT to prevent motorists from using the parking lot to circumvent the nearby traffic light. The "No Trespassing" sign on the fenced in pipe area is intended to address access to that area. So it appears that the land surrounding the gate is not specifically intended to keep people out. However, it is not open to the public either..

 

I have no idea why that was published, and no idea why it has not been archived. It would be sad for a cacher to be ignored, but for the police to have to call Groundspeak themselves to have it archived. Since the office is closed, and the building on the other side is boarded up, anyone parking there and acting oddly would attract their attention. I also have no idea why someone would want to hide a cache there, unless they wanted to break into either building..

 

Fool, I'm guessing that you've been to the site. I didn't even go to look at the area on the other side.

 

Also, please note that my NA post is the secondon this cache. The first person who posted an NA got slammed for it. A third party asked me to go take a look. I found the cache (took a photo, since the CO seemed to think that the first NA was because of a DNF), but didn't log it because I refuse to log a find on a cache that should be archived(which makes me a rarity around here.)

 

The CO had 52 finds when he hid this. It's a tube wrapped in snakeskin duct tape sitting at the base of a tree. This was his first hide. His second was already archived - by him - after one of his friends reported that it was in a field of poison ivy. (He apologized, saying he didn't know - because he'd placed the cache at night.)

 

I haven't been there, but I have heard details about the site. The first time was the NA notification, and then someone mentioned it in another forum. They were questioning whether geocaching could be used as a cover for illegal activity. Since that spot seems to have no redeeming value, and there are 2 unused buildings nearby, someone could park there and be a lookout, while their buddy enters the buildings. Perhaps there could be scrap metal pipes, or copper wire to be sold, ect. If a cop shows up, they would just send them a text as a warning, while keeping the police occupied and explaining that they were there geocaching. All of those Off Your Rocker caches were mentioned, as Cracker Barrel keeps valuable items on their porches. I would say that 90% of cachers are honest, but since so many coins are going missing, there are questions about what level of theivery could be involved. It would really suck for an outside agency to impose new rules and regulations on the sport, but if valid concerns are ignored, that is inevitable unfortunately. We really should be proactive, rather than reactive.

 

I'm actually more concerned about the reaction of South Jersey Gas to having cachers parked smack in front of their "Private Property sign. They'd be likely to call police. In fact, the police would definitely investigate if they spotted anyone nosing around the area.

 

It's such an obvious problem that there are two NAs postes, and it's being discussed in forums, yet the reviewer refuses to archive it... WTF?

[4wheelin_fool]

 

I'm actually more concerned about the reaction of South Jersey Gas to having cachers parked smack in front of their "Private Property sign. They'd be likely to call police. In fact, the police would definitely investigate if they spotted anyone nosing around the area.

 

It's such an obvious problem that there are two NAs postes, and it's being discussed in forums, yet the reviewer refuses to archive it... WTF?

 

I dont know either. Here is another cache with a NA posted a few days ago without any action.

 

 

The cache owner has only 2 finds. Perhaps it's an official or someone else testing the system.

Edited September 8, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Team Bayberry]

 

I'm actually more concerned about the reaction of South Jersey Gas to having cachers parked smack in front of their "Private Property sign. They'd be likely to call police. In fact, the police would definitely investigate if they spotted anyone nosing around the area.

 

It's such an obvious problem that there are two NAs postes, and it's being discussed in forums, yet the reviewer refuses to archive it... WTF?

 

I dont know either. Here is another cache with a NA posted a few days ago without any action.

 

 

The cache owner has only 2 finds. Perhaps it's an official or someone else testing the system.

 

I'm guessing that the sign refers to a point beyond the "trail", but a quick look at the logs tells me I'll never bother with that cache. But... did you notice that one of the finders is a reviewer? Not the same one who published the cache.

[4wheelin_fool]

Perhaps it's a new sign. I don't think the CO would mind archival, as they were only active for 2 weeks.

[+SwineFlew]

 

I'm actually more concerned about the reaction of South Jersey Gas to having cachers parked smack in front of their "Private Property sign. They'd be likely to call police. In fact, the police would definitely investigate if they spotted anyone nosing around the area.

 

It's such an obvious problem that there are two NAs postes, and it's being discussed in forums, yet the reviewer refuses to archive it... WTF?

 

I dont know either. Here is another cache with a NA posted a few days ago without any action.

 

 

The cache owner has only 2 finds. Perhaps it's an official or someone else testing the system.

We got a cache here that the reviewer keep on publishing caches at the same location three times so far.(dont know if there were caches there before my time) Its a bad location and the neighbors there arent very friendly. (its right on the edge of the city and problems do happen in those area. Here it is the newish one. Yep, its PMO cache as well. There is no signs in the area that said No Trespassing but I been asked why I am there three years ago.(that cache is now archived.)

[+Don_J]

 

I'm actually more concerned about the reaction of South Jersey Gas to having cachers parked smack in front of their "Private Property sign. They'd be likely to call police. In fact, the police would definitely investigate if they spotted anyone nosing around the area.

 

It's such an obvious problem that there are two NAs postes, and it's being discussed in forums, yet the reviewer refuses to archive it... WTF?

 

I dont know either. Here is another cache with a NA posted a few days ago without any action.

 

 

The cache owner has only 2 finds. Perhaps it's an official or someone else testing the system.

 

Wow! Violating an EPA no trespassing order? They are probably the most powerful of all the Federal agencies. Go find that cache you may end up in Gitmo.

[+uxorious]

Take a look... GC3TV9C

 

Your picture in your NA log doesn't mean anything. All the signs in that picture are clearly for the fenced inclosure. It doesn't sound like the cache is behind that fence.

 

I will say, I bet the Reviewer is aware of any homeland security concerns. I would guess they do not come into play with this cache location.

 

A while back I found a cache just outside a power substation. When I pulled into the gravel drive that lead to the gate, there was a police car there. (watching the traffic coming down the hill.) The cop pulled his car out a little to give me room to park, and then waved when I left. There were all kinds of no tresspassing signs on the fence and gate, just like in your picture.

 

Clearly, there may have been a permission issue, but that doesn't seem to be your complaint.

[+Team Bayberry]

Take a look... GC3TV9C

 

Your picture in your NA log doesn't mean anything. All the signs in that picture are clearly for the fenced inclosure. It doesn't sound like the cache is behind that fence.

 

I will say, I bet the Reviewer is aware of any homeland security concerns. I would guess they do not come into play with this cache location.

 

A while back I found a cache just outside a power substation. When I pulled into the gravel drive that lead to the gate, there was a police car there. (watching the traffic coming down the hill.) The cop pulled his car out a little to give me room to park, and then waved when I left. There were all kinds of no tresspassing signs on the fence and gate, just like in your picture.

 

Clearly, there may have been a permission issue, but that doesn't seem to be your complaint.

 

Power substations in the Mid-Atlantic region are not good cache locations. I've had similar discussions with friends on the west coast and midwest - what is seen as innocuous out there is seen as high-risk here. Proximity effect, I suppose. That kinda makes a difference. I'm sure you don't have earthquakes where people flee buildings (stand in doorways? No way!) and calm down only when assured that it was an earthquake, not a bomb. Or caches honoring local people who died on 9/11. Please excuse us for being just a little bit antsy. Our bad.

[+Don_J]

Take a look... GC3TV9C

 

Your picture in your NA log doesn't mean anything. All the signs in that picture are clearly for the fenced inclosure. It doesn't sound like the cache is behind that fence.

 

I will say, I bet the Reviewer is aware of any homeland security concerns. I would guess they do not come into play with this cache location.

 

A while back I found a cache just outside a power substation. When I pulled into the gravel drive that lead to the gate, there was a police car there. (watching the traffic coming down the hill.) The cop pulled his car out a little to give me room to park, and then waved when I left. There were all kinds of no tresspassing signs on the fence and gate, just like in your picture.

 

Clearly, there may have been a permission issue, but that doesn't seem to be your complaint.

 

Power substations in the Mid-Atlantic region are not good cache locations. I've had similar discussions with friends on the west coast and midwest - what is seen as innocuous out there is seen as high-risk here. Proximity effect, I suppose. That kinda makes a difference. I'm sure you don't have earthquakes where people flee buildings (stand in doorways? No way!) and calm down only when assured that it was an earthquake, not a bomb. Or caches honoring local people who died on 9/11. Please excuse us for being just a little bit antsy. Our bad.

 

I have to agree with you on this. My initial reaction to viewing your photo was, "What's the big deal", especially if the cache is 50' away. I guess we are a little more laid back about such things. Most Los Angels Department of Water and Power electrical substations are surrounded by 10' concrete walls. There is grassy areas and trees between the walls and the street. People do hide caches in these areas and the idea of someone searching is no different than that of someone sitting in the grass waiting for the bus to come. I don't think that I have ever seen NG facilities such as in your photo. I'm guessing that most of ours are underground.

 

In my seven years of being involved with the local caching community, I don't think the discussion of terrorist targets has ever been brought up. As far as the other argument, that such a cache could be used to desensitize the locals to having visitors so that eventually someone can break into the local businesses. This could be said about just about every cache that is located in an urban area. I honestly don't think that that is a good reason for getting a cache archived.

[Mr.Yuck]

Take a look... GC3TV9C

 

Your picture in your NA log doesn't mean anything. All the signs in that picture are clearly for the fenced inclosure. It doesn't sound like the cache is behind that fence.

 

I will say, I bet the Reviewer is aware of any homeland security concerns. I would guess they do not come into play with this cache location.

 

A while back I found a cache just outside a power substation. When I pulled into the gravel drive that lead to the gate, there was a police car there. (watching the traffic coming down the hill.) The cop pulled his car out a little to give me room to park, and then waved when I left. There were all kinds of no tresspassing signs on the fence and gate, just like in your picture.

 

Clearly, there may have been a permission issue, but that doesn't seem to be your complaint.

 

How funny is this. Just tonight, another cacher texted me, and said they were parking near an enclosure like that (for a cache they knew I'd found), and were worried about the signs. I texted back, yo' that's if you're like going to hop over the fence into the enclosure.

 

So I'm not quoting a lot of posts, but I've read them. I have in fact seen newer cachers "band together" with other newer cachers they are acquainted with, and give crap to seasoned cachers who are trying to help them out. And surprise, it's always the seasoned cachers who are correct. I've never personally dealt with such a situation, but I can imagine how frustrating it might be.

 

The reviewer disagreeing there's a problem? This I have not seen. I'd like to hear the possible solutions to that one myself.

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

Take a look... GC3TV9C

 

Your picture in your NA log doesn't mean anything. All the signs in that picture are clearly for the fenced inclosure. It doesn't sound like the cache is behind that fence.

 

I will say, I bet the Reviewer is aware of any homeland security concerns. I would guess they do not come into play with this cache location.

 

A while back I found a cache just outside a power substation. When I pulled into the gravel drive that lead to the gate, there was a police car there. (watching the traffic coming down the hill.) The cop pulled his car out a little to give me room to park, and then waved when I left. There were all kinds of no tresspassing signs on the fence and gate, just like in your picture.

 

Clearly, there may have been a permission issue, but that doesn't seem to be your complaint.

 

How funny is this. Just tonight, another cacher texted me, and said they were parking near an enclosure like that (for a cache they knew I'd found), and were worried about the signs. I texted back, yo' that's if you're like going to hop over the fence into the enclosure.

 

So I'm not quoting a lot of posts, but I've read them. I have in fact seen newer cachers "band together" with other newer cachers they are acquainted with, and give crap to seasoned cachers who are trying to help them out. And surprise, it's always the seasoned cachers who are correct. I've never personally dealt with such a situation, but I can imagine how frustrating it might be.

 

The reviewer disagreeing there's a problem? This I have not seen. I'd like to hear the possible solutions to that one myself.

 

You know what it says on the other side of those signs if you do hop over the fence? Nothing.

 

Disclaimer: I have never hopped one of those fences while geocaching.

[4wheelin_fool]

A few questions.

• Is it open to the public?
  
• Would the property owner welcome the cache if they read about it in the newspaper?
  
• Does it have the potential to cause undue alarm?
  

 

Although the signs do not address the area outside the enclosure, since they are very close by I'm willing to bet that permission would not be granted, and they would not like to hear about the extra traffic in the newspaper, or from someone else. There is another "No Trespassing Private Property" erected by the DOT to stop motorists from using it as a shortcut. The local police would be absolutely very curious about the presence of someone who is not associated with the gas company, and someone seen placing a container back nearby could very well trigger a visit from the local friendly bomb squad.

 

We dont want additional regulations imposed from outside agencies, and they are not needed as long as we police ourselves and use common sense. Common sense says that the No Trespassing signs implies that the property owner would probably not want people loitering nearby. The guidelines say to get permission. Since we know that many caches do not have that, we should at least pretend that they could have permission.

Edited September 9, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

A few questions.

• Is it open to the public?
  
• Would the property owner welcome the cache if they read about it in the newspaper?
  
• Does it have the potential to cause undue alarm?
  

 

Although the signs do not address the area outside the enclosure, since they are very close by I'm willing to bet that permission would not be granted, and they would not like to hear about the extra traffic in the newspaper, or from someone else. There is another "No Trespassing Private Property" erected by the DOT to stop motorists from using it as a shortcut. The local police would be absolutely very curious about the presence of someone who is not associated with the gas company, and someone seen placing a container back nearby could very well trigger a visit from the local friendly bomb squad.

 

We dont want additional regulations imposed from outside agencies, and they are not needed as long as we police ourselves and use common sense. Common sense says that the No Trespassing signs implies that the property owner would probably not want people loitering nearby. The guidelines say to get permission. Since we know that many caches do not have that, we should at least pretend that they could have permission.

 

Can't sleep, so I'll play Devil's advocate.

 

[*] Which side of the sign is it on? If you can read the sign, it logically follows that you're not on the other side, where you would be trespassing.

[*] That would actually make the newspaper? Doesn't seem like a hotbed of terrorist activity if so.

[*] To Mrs. Kravits, or who?

 

No matter the town, I'd be willing to bet that the local police have seen much stranger things going on in all kinds of places.

[4wheelin_fool]

A few questions.

• Is it open to the public?
  
• Would the property owner welcome the cache if they read about it in the newspaper?
  
• Does it have the potential to cause undue alarm?
  

 

Although the signs do not address the area outside the enclosure, since they are very close by I'm willing to bet that permission would not be granted, and they would not like to hear about the extra traffic in the newspaper, or from someone else. There is another "No Trespassing Private Property" erected by the DOT to stop motorists from using it as a shortcut. The local police would be absolutely very curious about the presence of someone who is not associated with the gas company, and someone seen placing a container back nearby could very well trigger a visit from the local friendly bomb squad.

 

We dont want additional regulations imposed from outside agencies, and they are not needed as long as we police ourselves and use common sense. Common sense says that the No Trespassing signs implies that the property owner would probably not want people loitering nearby. The guidelines say to get permission. Since we know that many caches do not have that, we should at least pretend that they could have permission.

 

Can't sleep, so I'll play Devil's advocate.

 

[*] Which side of the sign is it on? If you can read the sign, it logically follows that you're not on the other side, where you would be trespassing.

[*] That would actually make the newspaper? Doesn't seem like a hotbed of terrorist activity if so.

[*] To Mrs. Kravits, or who?

 

No matter the town, I'd be willing to bet that the local police have seen much stranger things going on in all kinds of places.

 

You apparently missed the part about the other No Trespassing Private Property sign erected by the DOT, in which the cache is behind.

[+Don_J]

A few questions.

• Is it open to the public?
  
• Would the property owner welcome the cache if they read about it in the newspaper?
  
• Does it have the potential to cause undue alarm?
  

 

Although the signs do not address the area outside the enclosure, since they are very close by I'm willing to bet that permission would not be granted, and they would not like to hear about the extra traffic in the newspaper, or from someone else. There is another "No Trespassing Private Property" erected by the DOT to stop motorists from using it as a shortcut. The local police would be absolutely very curious about the presence of someone who is not associated with the gas company, and someone seen placing a container back nearby could very well trigger a visit from the local friendly bomb squad.

 

We dont want additional regulations imposed from outside agencies, and they are not needed as long as we police ourselves and use common sense. Common sense says that the No Trespassing signs implies that the property owner would probably not want people loitering nearby. The guidelines say to get permission. Since we know that many caches do not have that, we should at least pretend that they could have permission.

 

Can't sleep, so I'll play Devil's advocate.

 

[*] Which side of the sign is it on? If you can read the sign, it logically follows that you're not on the other side, where you would be trespassing.

[*] That would actually make the newspaper? Doesn't seem like a hotbed of terrorist activity if so.

[*] To Mrs. Kravits, or who?

 

No matter the town, I'd be willing to bet that the local police have seen much stranger things going on in all kinds of places.

 

You apparently missed the part about the other No Trespassing Private Property sign erected by the DOT, in which the cache is behind.

 

Just curious. Why would the DOT be placing a No Trespassing sign on property that they do not own?

[7rxc]

Maybe it was placed on one of their poles, on a right of way they do own. It is supposed to be a traffic control measure correcting a 'shortcut' through someone elses property instead of using the DOT route. That paved roadway would be very tempting when sitting at a light waiting for it to clear. But it leads to parking area based on the GE stuff. The streetview parts show other surfaces in that area that could also be used. Not much of my concern though, but it was interesting to ponder.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+ShaunEM]

It may be a little unfair to show which cache it was speaking in regard to- I wouldn't want to offend anyone and certainly not get anyone in trouble. With regards to going when the car park is closed, it's open 24-7 so can't really do that. The cache owner gave me exact details when I mailed them so I could find it very quickly if I ever whent back which was very helpful, but I think unless I knew for definite there was permission asked to place the cache I still wouldn't want to go back. It's a beautiful place to put a cache- just not really practical if permission to cache isn't acknowledged.

 

It is definately worth showing which cache it is. Then people can look at it, look at the logs and NOT create a cache like that in the future.

 

No one wants to have a run in like this while caching. Nice if this can be avoided in the future.

 

You did all the right things, IMO.

 

Well maybe going back at night wasn't the best idea, but I would probably have done the same.

 

Shaun

[+Off Grid]

Hello

 

I'm fairly new to Geocaching and was really getting into it, but I just tried to find a cache hidden in a public area and got marched out and interrogated by a guard as soon as I found ground zero. Others seem to have found the cache no problem, but others like myself have been kicked out. I thought all chaches were placed in locations that didn't mind geocachers? Is there something we were doing wrong? We went late evening hoping to avoid muggles, but were caught within minutes of arrival.It was really terrible and now I feel quite embarrassed.

 

Also- is there a way of filtering out caches so the one's I go for are in more 'accessible' places? I don't want to be getting into trouble

 

Taz

 

One must remember that many security guards are frustrated "want to bes" and get off on harassing people.

[+J the Goat]

Hello

 

I'm fairly new to Geocaching and was really getting into it, but I just tried to find a cache hidden in a public area and got marched out and interrogated by a guard as soon as I found ground zero. Others seem to have found the cache no problem, but others like myself have been kicked out. I thought all chaches were placed in locations that didn't mind geocachers? Is there something we were doing wrong? We went late evening hoping to avoid muggles, but were caught within minutes of arrival.It was really terrible and now I feel quite embarrassed.

 

Also- is there a way of filtering out caches so the one's I go for are in more 'accessible' places? I don't want to be getting into trouble

 

Taz

 

One must remember that many security guards are frustrated "want to bes" and get off on harassing people.

 

Not true, and a gross over generalization. I have two different acquaintences who were "real" police officers who were injured and unable to continue their duties, and several who retired from "real" police work but didn't want to sit on a couch all day. The fact of the matter is that they're doing their jobs, wanna be's or not. If security doesn't want the cache there, it shouldn't be there. It's a pretty simple concept.

[4wheelin_fool]

certainly not get anyone in trouble.

 

I understand that you are fairly new and don't want to make waves, but if you look at the part of your quote that I underlined, this is exactly what the cache owner is doing by insisting that the cache is okay. He led you into a bad situation, and he is willing to lead others as well. The typical response to such a situation is to post a Needs Archive log which alerts one of the area's reviewers. They can then communicate with the cache owner and figure out the best course of action. If you feel more comfortable doing this out of the public view, you can email the reviewer privately. Give them the cache GC# and explain your experience.

 

I recently was asked by a friend (fairly new cacher) to go look at a cache (placed by a even newer newbie) that may or may not be on private property. It's in a copse of trees, definitely the property of the local office building owners. The question was raised because of two "Private Property" signs nearby. One sign also said "No Thru Traffic" (the property is on a busy corner.) This sign I ignored, since there was none on the other end of the driveway. But the 2nd was on a fence surrounding a natural gas gate station. Right in front of the gate is a gravel parking space. I just know that someone will call police when a cacher parks there. Bad enough that the building owner didn't give permission, and the CO refuses to understand that it IS private property. But the close placement of a cache to a prime terrorist target per Homeland Security - whether we agree or not - is a problem.

 

But the reviewer said that the cache wasn't dangerous (?) and "However, it should be pointed out that the cache would not have been published had it not met the reviewing and publishing criteria."

 

So I doubt that I'll post any more NAs. It's just not worth the hassle.

 

Hassle? Really? It's an option on a pull down menu. Add in a line or two of text, and it's done. That's not hassle. Hassle is being questioned by property owners because somebody was too lazy/complacent to log an NA log on a cache that needs an NA log

 

The hassle is not in the mechanics of the report. Rather, it's in being targeted by a batch of local newbie cachers as "a problem" (they're already hassling other cachers, especially one who failed to sign a couple of logbooks), and in the fact that I do want to continue to put caches out, and don't have a choice of reviewers.

 

SO - what would you do when a reviewer failed to see the cache placement as a problem?

 

If I truly thought that it was critical that the cache be removed I would write him a detailed email explaining why. I would stick to the facts and try not to tell him how to do his job. Beyond that, I would not pursue it further. Otherwise, I would just move on.

 

You said that the cache was at a "natural gas gate station", did you mean a natural gas station gate? And what is a natural gas station? In our area we have a few which are set up for the public to fill their LNG powered vehicles. No different than a typical gasoline station. Are we talking about something different, and was that made clear to the reviewer? We have to keep things in perspective. Bridges can be a terrorist target, but that does not mean that all bridges are terrorist targets. This is where the reviewer's discretion, based on facts known to him, comes into play.

 

the gate station is where natural gas (the stuff you cook and heat a house with) comes into an area in a large transmission pipeline, and where it's diverted into smaller pipelines with lower pressure. It's the gas company's version of an electrical power substation. You wouldn't want caches placed within 150 feet of either of them. I said as much to the reviewer in an email, and he responded that there was no danger to cachers, and anyway, other caches are dangerous, such as guardrail caches along highways. My email was intended to supplement the NA post on the cache page, which clearly points to "Homeland Security".

 

I really don't want to keep going back and forth with this reviewer (don't know who he or she is), and the cacher in question WILL keep putting out caches like this, because he has a fan club urging him on.

 

Take a look... GC3TV9C

 

I have a photo there. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough in my email, but I kind of don't think that's the problem.

 

Update - It was archived today, after being disabled by a reviewer presumably for permission, and for resulting inactivity by the CO.

 

The suspected sock cache owner has not logged for the last two months either.