Jump to content

Bikers don't need no stinkin' guidelines


Recommended Posts

I thought this was interesting as it appears some local bikers didn't like a cache...so it was archived. It doesn't seem like the CO was contacted prior to archival as the archive note looks to be the initial notification. However, there was a six day gap between NA and Archival. There were no references to an issue prior to the day that the logs below were posted. The only reason given for archiving was the logs which I will quote (names removed).

 

Found it

Team XXXX got the cache. But also got visited by some lost souls tha(t) frequent the area. 3 lost souls advised that this is not welcome in there area. So when a gang of motorcycle black vest wearing fellows appraoch a(t) night and advise we are not welcome and to tell the cache owner to move his g(a)me....i comply with out any problems.

 

Found it

Found cache but was approached by gang members and asked us to let owner that the cache is not welcome there.

 

Needs Archived

as per request of some rather un happy resissdents in the area of this cache...they have asked and told this needs to be removed from the property! i was approached by 3 big black vest wearing indivisuals asking me nicely to advice that they dont want it there! i told them i would comply so i could get my gps and driver liscense back, after i explained to them what i was doing, and and they found out i was no harm. sorry guys.

 

Write note

Whereas I wouldn't want to be caching in that area now that these guys are complaining, assuming the cache is placed with permission and not on their property, it seems that XXXX City's finest might like to know that this lot is intimidating people. Gotta wonder what they're concerned about...

 

Write note

most gang memebrs of this type are ok. just dont wont any eyes or problems. i do not know who the land owner is or if they own the property. i was not going to get in a tussle with 3 guys over a cache. they were all respectful, didnt show any sighns of force other then the power of 3 on 1 around 730 in the evening. the respectfully asked me what i was doing, asked for my id, and respectfull asked me to tell the opwner they do not want it in the area. they said it seemed odd, i pulled up, got out and walked to the cache site. they did not know about, and did not want there. im sure this may blow up do to some lost souls not wanting to be dealt with.

 

Archived

To the cache owner,

 

I am archiving this listing based on notes on cache page.

Link to comment

1. Doesn't sound like the CO had permission for placement

2. If I were approached in this manner around any cache, I don't think I would argue with the gentlemen. Does sound like the possibility of someone getting threatened or worse might increase over time. sad.gif

I didn't see anything indicating lack of permission. Infact, the following hint indicates that the CO might have actually had permission:

Say 'Hello' to the ladies in the Thrift Shop.
Link to comment

Sounds to me like it really didn't matter if the CO had permission from the actual property owner...if they consider it their "turf", whether they have a legal interest in the property or not, they're going to harass and intimidate whoever comes around.

 

Permission or not, if they're that serious about it it's probably better off archived.

Link to comment

Even if the CO did have permission, the following part of the guidelines would come into play in this case:

Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public. Although your cache will be hidden with landowner or land manager permission, concerned passersby who are unaware of geocaching, may view people searching the property as suspicious.

Based on the content of those logs, archival was the right thing to happen.

Link to comment

Even if the CO did have permission, the following part of the guidelines would come into play in this case:

Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public. Although your cache will be hidden with landowner or land manager permission, concerned passersby who are unaware of geocaching, may view people searching the property as suspicious.

Based on the content of those logs, archival was the right thing to happen.

Keep in mind that I posted this because I thought it was an interesting set of circumstances, not that I had a strong opinion one way or the other. I do think the guideline you point to is a true guideline for cacher education, not a guideline for which archival would be automatic. I have seen many caches placed where "neighbors" complained. They were not archived. I think the issue here is safety, an aspect for which the lack of responsibility by GS has been defended ad nauseam in this forum.

Link to comment

Even if the CO did have permission, the following part of the guidelines would come into play in this case:

Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public. Although your cache will be hidden with landowner or land manager permission, concerned passersby who are unaware of geocaching, may view people searching the property as suspicious.

Based on the content of those logs, archival was the right thing to happen.

Keep in mind that I posted this because I thought it was an interesting set of circumstances, not that I had a strong opinion one way or the other. I do think the guideline you point to is a true guideline for cacher education, not a guideline for which archival would be automatic. I have seen many caches placed where "neighbors" complained. They were not archived. I think the issue here is safety, an aspect for which the lack of responsibility by GS has been defended ad nauseam in this forum.

 

I find it interesting that all of a sudden a cache, legal by the guidelines was archive for "safety" issues. When all of these other threads going on about "unsafe" caches usually sound like "well, the cacher knows the risks, it isn't up to GS, the reviewers or the CO's to determine what is safe or not" - Why is this any different? I just see a lot of double standards here (even though I agree with this being a good judgement call, archiving it so nobody unsuspectingly happens to come about a bunch of degenerates who claimed a bit of ground as "their turf"

Link to comment

Even if the CO did have permission, the following part of the guidelines would come into play in this case:

Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public. Although your cache will be hidden with landowner or land manager permission, concerned passersby who are unaware of geocaching, may view people searching the property as suspicious.

Based on the content of those logs, archival was the right thing to happen.

Keep in mind that I posted this because I thought it was an interesting set of circumstances, not that I had a strong opinion one way or the other. I do think the guideline you point to is a true guideline for cacher education, not a guideline for which archival would be automatic. I have seen many caches placed where "neighbors" complained. They were not archived. I think the issue here is safety, an aspect for which the lack of responsibility by GS has been defended ad nauseam in this forum.

 

I find it interesting that all of a sudden a cache, legal by the guidelines was archive for "safety" issues. When all of these other threads going on about "unsafe" caches usually sound like "well, the cacher knows the risks, it isn't up to GS, the reviewers or the CO's to determine what is safe or not" - Why is this any different? I just see a lot of double standards here (even though I agree with this being a good judgement call, archiving it so nobody unsuspectingly happens to come about a bunch of degenerates who claimed a bit of ground as "their turf"

 

There are two different types of dangerous....there's danger I can control, and danger I can't control. This cache falls into the latter category.

 

If a cache is in hazardous terrain, up a tree, on top of an abandoned structure, etc., I can weigh the risks vs my own capabilities and decide whether to attempt it or not. I can also abort the attempt at any time if I get uncomfortable with it. In this case, I can't control how the locals will react to my presence, and if they are really the dangerous type it may be too late to back out once confronted.

 

Although by all accounts the locals seemed unaggresive in this case, they made it clear that the cache was not wanted there. Keep pushing the issue and they might become less amiable.

Link to comment

Even if the CO did have permission, the following part of the guidelines would come into play in this case:

Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public. Although your cache will be hidden with landowner or land manager permission, concerned passersby who are unaware of geocaching, may view people searching the property as suspicious.

Based on the content of those logs, archival was the right thing to happen.

Keep in mind that I posted this because I thought it was an interesting set of circumstances, not that I had a strong opinion one way or the other. I do think the guideline you point to is a true guideline for cacher education, not a guideline for which archival would be automatic. I have seen many caches placed where "neighbors" complained. They were not archived. I think the issue here is safety, an aspect for which the lack of responsibility by GS has been defended ad nauseam in this forum.

 

I find it interesting that all of a sudden a cache, legal by the guidelines was archive for "safety" issues. When all of these other threads going on about "unsafe" caches usually sound like "well, the cacher knows the risks, it isn't up to GS, the reviewers or the CO's to determine what is safe or not" - Why is this any different? I just see a lot of double standards here (even though I agree with this being a good judgement call, archiving it so nobody unsuspectingly happens to come about a bunch of degenerates who claimed a bit of ground as "their turf"

 

Where does it indicate that the reviewer archived the cache because of safety? The cache was archived because people that claim to control the area asked for it to be removed. Whether that claim is legitimate or not is not the issue as Groundspeak almost always errors on the side of caution and honors the request. Our local reviewers have a well worded canned note that they use in such situations. I have seen caches archived by reviewers because neighbors are complaining that a cache is causing a disruption in the neighborhood. Usually, proof of explicit permission is requested in order to get the cache reinstated.

Link to comment

I got a cache archived in a few sec once

simply since I had a very unplesant experiance with a crasy dog and the owner of the wild dog,

I was VERY affraight to get eaten, it was darn close too,

I had to quickly pick up a stick as a selfprotect weapon,

this happend at a cache site, the cache was hidden with permission under the corner of the house,

and the dog and man was in the house yard when I was there..

when I got home I filed a DNF and NA !!

I imagined kids with their lovely gps go play here, that is a NO NO !!

same matter with the bikers,

they might be nice to you, say you are not welcome and the cache there is not welcome,

surely it is the right thing to do : NA

 

We also once found a cache in a front yard, the co moved away but forgot the active cache,

the new house owner was not happy to see us there, he was very tired of people comming all day and all night

and they poke arround in all his things and also damage his fence and plants,

I took the cache away and told him I could make no one else show up here from now on,

he then looked happy again.

in my log I made it very clear the cache is no longer here, please do not attempt to come and look for it,

game is over HERE.

Link to comment

I have archived several caches under the 'not a good idea' category. No warning to the CO either, but still open for discussion should the desire.

 

There are situations not foreseeable in the guidelines. Many times legal, no permissionissues, just not a good idea...

 

examples:

At the entrance to a homeless camp. Many tiomes these are OK, this open was muggled weekely.

Truck driver pull over... in the middle of a constant supply of fresh urine and fecies.

Post on city street just outside angry business owner - he would yell at geocachers.

 

Geocaching is a light and fun activity. These types experiences are not light and fun (except maybe for the CO), so they do not fall in the realm of geocaching.

Link to comment

If the bikers were a bunch of seniors who asked that the cache be removed as they didn't want their peace and quiet disturbed by cachers, would there be the same comments?

 

Our game is for us to enjoy, but not at the expense of Joe Public. If our game impacts a non player then their objection is valid, regardless of if they are a biker, a senior, the property owner or an LEO.

Link to comment

Where's Chuck "caching" Norris when you need him?

:lol:

 

Now that there is funny. In case people didn't know, it is said that Chuck Norris has Geocached. I don't have a link or anything, but he supposedly once saw a Geocacher looking for a cache, and knew all about it, and suggested nearby caches. :o

 

Oh, and put me down for "not a good idea" caches being archived. And I think the one being discussed is a good example.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

Yes, & the bikers weren't exactly "amiable" when they demanded to see ID & inspect the gps!

They are very through, I'm not surprised they checked ID and looked at the GPS.

In my younger days before I had a family of my own, my wife (girl friend at the time) and I attended several field meets and Pow-Wows. There are always the no guns, no glass rule, and I have opened my cooler a few times during entering the events. They have their own security, and once my police scanner was suspect. I just asked the man if he would hang on to it and give it to my friend who at that time was a officer in the Club.

The bikers that scare me are the ones in those tight shorts making 10 mph in a 55 mph zone that don't believe in sharing the road with motor vehicles. :(

 

Edit to add: I do agree that the listing should be archived. Some joker hid a cache in front of a crack house in a gang tagged area, I did not find it funny that someone would put other geocachers at risk just to get a kick. If I put myself at risk geocaching it needs to be listed as a 5/5.

Edited by Manville Possum Hunters
Link to comment

I would archive a cache like that because it doesn't sound like a place to bring people. It's obviously not a place worth visiting. I pity urban cachers, I really do, never knowing what they are getting themselves into. Cache hiders should really learn to take into consideration what kind of situation they are putting people in.

I applaud this archival. Bravo to whoever it was that archived it.

 

And some of my best friends are "bikers".

Link to comment

Sorry but the hypocrisy here is too thick for my liking. I am reminded of a thread a while back about a cache that a finder was complaining about because it was hidden near a pile of trash and there were hypodermic needles near there. Some of the same characters in this thread where in that one and had a different tune all together.

I love how the rules change to fit the situation. Oh well.

 

(Again, as I said earlier, archiving was the correct thing to do, I just wish you all would remain consistent in these threads)

Link to comment

Folks who like to do these kinds of hides should already be aware of possible risks involved.

The options are to go for the hide or pass.

When an areas not friendly to cachers, best to scoot and look elsewhere.

The CO probably could have done a little research and found that maybe it wasn't such a good spot afterall.

- But I'm amazed that more than one person thought that smiley was important enough to pass a biker group to access.

Link to comment

Sorry but the hypocrisy here is too thick for my liking. I am reminded of a thread a while back about a cache that a finder was complaining about because it was hidden near a pile of trash and there were hypodermic needles near there. Some of the same characters in this thread where in that one and had a different tune all together.

I love how the rules change to fit the situation. Oh well.

 

(Again, as I said earlier, archiving was the correct thing to do, I just wish you all would remain consistent in these threads)

 

Muggles are not the same as hypodermic needles. When a non cacher becomes aware of a cache and wants it removed, there is little that can be done to keep it in place, whether its a biker on meth or an angry mom that lives nearby. Aside from getting stolen, it also is not good for community relations either. In this case law enforcement as well as the property owner should be made aware of what is going on.

Link to comment

Sorry but the hypocrisy here is too thick for my liking. I am reminded of a thread a while back about a cache that a finder was complaining about because it was hidden near a pile of trash and there were hypodermic needles near there. Some of the same characters in this thread where in that one and had a different tune all together.

I love how the rules change to fit the situation. Oh well.

 

(Again, as I said earlier, archiving was the correct thing to do, I just wish you all would remain consistent in these threads)

 

Unless the hypodermic needles stood up and asked for the cache to be removed, I don't see the comparison. Groundspeak archived this cache based on a request from a member of the community, not because an individual cacher decided that the area was not safe. You are confusing two issues.

Link to comment

If the bikers were a bunch of seniors who asked that the cache be removed as they didn't want their peace and quiet disturbed by cachers, would there be the same comments?

 

Our game is for us to enjoy, but not at the expense of Joe Public. If our game impacts a non player then their objection is valid, regardless of if they are a biker, a senior, the property owner or an LEO.

 

For me, yes. I agree, if even after explaining geocaching, neighbors are feeling uncomfortable, it should be archived. For others in this thread, I suspect they would be more willing to argue with the seniors than the bikers. Seniors are usually less scary...not always though. :blink:

 

I did a multi once where the first stage was right outside someone's house. Their dog was barking and they came out wondering why so many people were intersted in the pole outside their house. I explained geocaching to them and told them if it was a problem we'd be happy to move it. Fortunately they were more curious than bothered and the multi is not found very often. I suspect if people were looking for that cache every day, they'd feel differently.

Link to comment

I have archived several caches under the 'not a good idea' category. No warning to the CO either, but still open for discussion should the desire.

 

There are situations not foreseeable in the guidelines. Many times legal, no permissionissues, just not a good idea...

 

examples:

At the entrance to a homeless camp. Many tiomes these are OK, this open was muggled weekely.

Truck driver pull over... in the middle of a constant supply of fresh urine and fecies.

Post on city street just outside angry business owner - he would yell at geocachers.

 

Geocaching is a light and fun activity. These types experiences are not light and fun (except maybe for the CO), so they do not fall in the realm of geocaching.

 

I once contacted a reviewer about a cache being in an area where the homeless stayed and there were hypodermic needles everywhere. Most cachers that found the cache would comment on the hypodermic needles and garbage. The reviewer answered me back saying that he understood my concern but reviewers are not expected to "judge" caches or locations. Reviewers are only responsible to assure it meets the guidelines. I didn't know what to say after that.

Link to comment

Groundspeak archived this cache based on a request from a member of the community, not because an individual cacher decided that the area was not safe.

 

That's really what I found interesting. A couple of people didn't like it and now it is gone. There are many out there that do not like GC. Some go on missions to destroy caches and we get up in arms and call them cache maggots. Why is this different?

Link to comment

What I find interesting is that some people think that it is their God given right to place and hunt a cache wherever they wish, regardless of the impact that it may have on the area.

 

I live and breath Geocaching, but if you hung a bison tube on the telephone pole in front of my house and made my dog bark every time someone pulled up to look for it, I would request that it be archived, and it would more than likely get archived. There is no reason why a little old lady, or a great big biker shouldn't have that same courtesy.

 

Regarding homeless camps, I have seen caches archived when a cache finder states that the homeless people specifically asked that other cachers do not come to their area. I have never seen a cache archived simply because a cacher felt uncomfortable because of a homeless camp, yet had no actual interaction with the people living in it. There is a cache in LA that one cacher has posted three NA logs on because, "There is a homeless camp". In between the NA logs, others are posting Found It logs. Should the cache be archived because this one cacher is concerned about the homeless camp?

Link to comment

1. Doesn't sound like the CO had permission for placement

2. If I were approached in this manner around any cache, I don't think I would argue with the gentlemen. Does sound like the possibility of someone getting threatened or worse might increase over time. sad.gif

I didn't see anything indicating lack of permission. Infact, the following hint indicates that the CO might have actually had permission:

Say 'Hello' to the ladies in the Thrift Shop.

Funny. The lady in the thrift shop aside, if i read any of this stuff i wouldn't even consider going for that cache.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...