Trespassing and Vandalism

[1unhappyowner]

Recently saw people trespassing and climbing over our rock wall at the entrance to our Private Subdivision and finally figured it out. After years and years of unsolved damage & vandalism to our entrance sign, lights, lighting system, rock wall and other rock structures (one decorative rock structure covering an irrigation valve was recently pulled apart) we went onto this website and found that one of the more active members had driven past a "Private Drive" sign and trespassed to place his illegal cache.

 

I evidently have a better GPS unit than the idiots searching yesterday because I quickly found the cache and removed it, even though I am disabled. 8 years of problems and over $1700 in damage (part of which I paid personally) solved by 2 idiots that wandered aimlessly yesterday trying to find an a cache hidden illegally on private property.

 

We were able to easily find out the cache hider's real name and address (he's not as smart as he proclaimed) and will turn both over to the local Sheriff and our attorney in an attempt to collect some of the long, ongoing expenses caused by geo-cacher damage (why would someone pull apart a nice structure and then leave it?).

 

Some out there may think this is funny, but we do not. It gives your little sport a very bad name and now 240 residents and landowners think you all are a bunch of IDIOTS because of the 300 people who trespassed and then posted it on this site. Included in that number there are a bunch of vandals who defaced the entrance to our beautiful neighborhood - SHAME ON ALL OF YOU WHO TRESPASSED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY INCLUDING THE CACHE HIDER!

Edited May 28, 2013 by 1unhappyowner

[+captnemo]

If you were to provide to Ground Speak who are the listing service on this web site, the name and number of this geocache they will archive the cache.

 

Removing the cache as you have done will not stop people from searching as they will read the online listing and go looking not knowing any better.

[+cerberus1]

If you were to provide to Ground Speak who are the listing service on this web site, the name and number of this geocache they will archive the cache.

 

Removing the cache as you have done will not stop people from searching as they will read the online listing and go looking not knowing any better

The OP notified a reviewer, who then archived the hide.

[+Legochugglers]

Recently saw people trespassing and climbing over our rock wall at the entrance to our Private Subdivision and finally figured it out. After years and years of unsolved damage & vandalism to our entrance sign, lights, lighting system, rock wall and other rock structures (one decorative rock structure covering an irrigation valve was recently pulled apart) we went onto this website and found that one of the more active members had driven past a "Private Drive" sign and trespassed to place his illegal cache.

 

I evidently have a better GPS unit than the idiots searching yesterday because I quickly found the cache and removed it, even though I am disabled. 8 years of problems and over $1700 in damage (part of which I paid personally) solved by 2 idiots that wandered aimlessly yesterday trying to find an a cache hidden illegally on private property.

 

We were able to easily find out the cache hider's real name and address (he's not as smart as he proclaimed) and will turn both over to the local Sheriff and our attorney in an attempt to collect some of the long, ongoing expenses caused by geo-cacher damage (why would someone pull apart a nice structure and then leave it?).

 

Some out there may think this is funny, but we do not. It gives your little sport a very bad name and now 240 residents and landowners think you all are a bunch of IDIOTS because of the 300 people who trespassed and then posted it on this site. Included in that number there are a bunch of vandals who defaced the entrance to our beautiful neighborhood - SHAME ON ALL OF YOU WHO TRESPASSED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY INCLUDING THE CACHE HIDER!

I think you will find that a very large percentage of the Geocaching community will be absolutely horrified by the circumstances you allege have taken place here. I am not sure anyone will consider it funny as an explicit 'rule' for placing a cache is that any landowner permission is obtained where necessary and care is taken when searching for a cache. Please don't tar us all with the same brush.

Obviously we don't have the cache owners side of the story but at this stage the evidence does seem somewhat damning.

[+Manville Possum]

I see this more often than most are willing to admit. The cache owner should be held accountable.

[+Panda Inc]

I see this more often than most are willing to admit. The cache owner should be held accountable.

 

+1

[+The_Incredibles_]

Sorry to hear this, it shouldn't happen!

 

A cache like that wouldn't last 3 days here. People would report it to a reviewer and it would get archived.

[1unhappyowner]

Cache has been removed from the website so no one else will trespass (look for it). This is not a case of alleged - this actually happened. Cache was past the entrance which has a bright yellow reflective sign reading "Private Drive". About 300 people looked for the cache and 253 confirmed to finding it as logged here on this website. The cache was well past the signage and on privately owned property. All 253 finders illegally trespassed under state law - not allegedly. The damage over the years could not be explained until now because this is a remote area and there is no reason for someone to stop along the highway - no store or public facilities at our location. We thought that animals had been in the area but animals of the nature kind do not twist lights off their mounts, cut power cords (knife, shovel?), tamper with electrical boxes and pull apart stone structures piece by piece.

 

We do not "paint all with a broad brush", BUT 253 PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE THE WHEREWITHALL TO STAY OUT OF AND OFF OF A PRIVATE ROAD. ALSO, OUR ROCK STRUCTURES WERE RESTACKED SEVERAL TIMES AND THEN PULLED APART AGAIN SUNDAY, MAY 26th WHEN THE PEOPLE WERE OBSERVED GEOCACHING AT OUR ENTRANCE. There is absolutely no reasonable explanation as to why anyone would hide a cache after entering a private housing development. We wanted to get a gate, but the county would not allow us to install one here. The person who place the cache was well over 50 years old at the time and if age is an indicator, he should have known better.

 

We wanted to pass this along so all of the decent people enjoying this activity could understand how a stupid act can cause unwanted visitors to invade private property, property that rarely has visitors - all over a game - and cause actual monetary damage to the installed improvements there. We live in a quiet, remote area and want to keep it that way. We are surrounded by thousands of acres of public land, allowing all who want to geocache plenty of room to enjoy themselves without invading our private area and damaging our property.

Edited May 28, 2013 by 1unhappyowner

[+The_Incredibles_]

Some may still have the geocache on their GPSs and may not be aware it's removed from the website.

 

I would suggest putting up signs as well so they don't continue searching for it.

 

Sorry to hear there are so many idiots in your area.

[1unhappyowner]

Sorry to hear this, it shouldn't happen!

 

A cache like that wouldn't last 3 days here. People would report it to a reviewer and it would get archived.

 

We just figured it out by accidently coming upon people parked at our entrance on the 3 day weekend. Then we reported it to this site and it was quickly archived. What concerns us is that 253 geo-cachers walked or drove past a "Private Drive" sign to enter our development and a few of those did damage during their activity of playing this game. Not one of them reported this cache to be on private property or asked that it be archived.

[+sparklefingers]

Sorry to hear this, it shouldn't happen!

 

A cache like that wouldn't last 3 days here. People would report it to a reviewer and it would get archived.

 

We just figured it out by accidently coming upon people parked at our entrance on the 3 day weekend. Then we reported it to this site and it was quickly archived. What concerns us is that 253 geo-cachers walked or drove past a "Private Drive" sign to enter our development and a few of those did damage during their activity of playing this game. Not one of them reported this cache to be on private property or asked that it be archived.

 

They probably assumed there was permission for it to be there. that being said i would have thought it would have been mentioned by the cachers going to the area.

 

Seems like a silly question but have you lived there longer then the cache was in place? If the answer was in fact no the cache was there before you moved there it may have had permission to be there and then when the people that gave permission moved and the CO didn't know. Not saying that that is okay but it may explain why it was there in the first place.

[cezanne]

[ Cache was past the entrance which has a bright yellow reflective sign reading "Private Drive". About 300 people looked for the cache and 253 confirmed to finding it as logged here on this website. The cache was well past the signage and on privately owned property. All 253 finders illegally trespassed under state law - not allegedly.

 

I'm not from your area and I do not know the local laws. I just wonder why "Private drive" means also that access is forbidden. Regardless of the cache (and the damages caused that are not to be excused) I would have thought that it is allowed to enter the area on foot (this would be the case in my country). Why doesn't the sign say something like "No trespassing"? That would be easy to understand to everyone.

 

Cezanne

Edited May 28, 2013 by cezanne

[+etphoneme2plz]

Because the person placing the cache is the one responsible for obtaining the permission to hide the cache in the location, the 253 people who went past the sign probably assumed the cache placer did what he/she was supposed to do and obtained permission for the hide. From what I know, that's the way it works. BUT they should have NEVER destroyed any property looking for the cache... Sorry that y'all went through that....

[+Flintstone5611]

All 253 finders illegally trespassed under state law

 

I agree that the damage is inexcusable, but I think you should take a step back before vilifying anyone. If this is a development then there are others that live in this area and may feel that they have the right to allow permission for people to enter as a result of partial ownership. It is a simple error in judgement that is exacerbated by the amount of damage done. I am sure that if you were called to account for the damage you could have inadvertently made by something you may have done, you would regret your actions. I am sure the same is true of the CO. I can appreciate your having to pay out of pocket and would likewise be upset about it, but as you can see TPTB are always looking to respect the wishes of the land owner and once the complaint was filed action was taken. Sorry for the annoyance, but let's not make this a federal case.

[+redsox_mark]

The cache seems to have been hidden in/near a rock wall which belongs to the private housing development. So no question, the cache should not have been hidden there without permission. And if damage has been done - which could have been by geocachers, that is bad. The rest of this message is in no way trying to defend that. But I suspect that it was not so obvious to those who were looking for it. Now I live far away so I am just going by what I can see on google street view, and the comments in the logs.

 

Considering the 253 people who found it (over nearly 8 years): We have no way of knowing what they did - where they parked, how they approached, what they thought. We do know that this weekend people parked in the entrance (on the private road).

 

The cache description says

 

"A cache hidden amoung the boulders along Highway 58. A turnout is located close by so you do not have to park on the highway."

 

There does seem to be a "Turnout" on the main road on the other side. This would not involve the private drive.

 

I suspect that many of those who found it had no idea it was private property.

 

If they did drive or park on the private road; I don't know if that is trespassing under Oregon law. I found a nice definition of a Private Road under Michigan law. But Oregon could be much different.

 

"(2) "Private road" means a privately owned and maintained road, allowing access to more than 1 residence or place of business, which is normally open to the public and upon which persons other than the owners located thereon may also travel." Reference

[Mr.Yuck]

Because the person placing the cache is the one responsible for obtaining the permission to hide the cache in the location, the 253 people who went past the sign probably assumed the cache placer did what he/she was supposed to do and obtained permission for the hide. From what I know, that's the way it works. BUT they should have NEVER destroyed any property looking for the cache... Sorry that y'all went through that....

 

I will join the "they assumed permission" chorus. I'll tell you what though, I would not have been one of the 253 if this cache had been placed in my area. I've said before around here, if a cache is on private property (and this one was quite obvious), I assume there is no permission, unless the cache page tells otherwise. However, I know I'm a fringe element in that situation. What most likely would have happened, were it placed in my area, is that it would have been Google Sat Viewed, and put on my ignore list. Would I have "reported"? Unfortunately, probably not.

 

I'm actually every bit as appalled when I see a cache published in the Wal-Mart parking lot. But hey, I am a fringe element, after all.

[+redsox_mark]

Not knowing what I know now... if I had seen this cache and looked at on street view I think I easily could have been one of the 253.

Maybe it is more obvious when you are there.

 

Google link

[+Harrald]

Sorry to stray.....But does anyone else see the irony in the land owner logging a find?

[Clan Riffster]

Cache was past the entrance which has a bright yellow reflective sign reading "Private Drive". All 253 finders illegally trespassed under state law - not allegedly.

 

I'm not from your area and I do not know the local laws. I just wonder why "Private drive" means also that access is forbidden.

In Florida, a sign declaring "Private Drive" does not imply that access is forbidden. It merely states that the roadway is privately owned/maintained. So long as there is no gate, public access is perfectly legal. Like Cezanne, I can't speak to the laws in 1unhappyowner's state. I am curious about why the county would not allow a gate to be placed on private property. If it is private, why would the county have any say in the matter?

 

Sorry to see this happen.

 

I would love to hear from the cache owner.

[Mr.Yuck]

Not knowing what I know now... if I had seen this cache and looked at on street view I think I easily could have been one of the 253.

Maybe it is more obvious when you are there.

 

Google link

 

I might be more in sync with this being an American? Maybe not, but just a thought. The landscaping at the entrance of a housing development, I'm not going there. On top of that, I also think that a cache in the landscaping at the entrance of a housing development is very unlikely to have permission. Because we've all heard those horror stories about Homeowner associations, and how "strict" they can be.

[+geodarts]

Unfortunately the line between "private" and "public" property is often blurred on this site and people assume that if they can access an area without encountering a no trespassing sign they can place a cache there. And once there, people will move rocks or take apart fixtures in search of a container.

 

The rock wall should have alerted people, but the closest any finder came to recognizing there might be a problem here was pointing out the irony of looking for a cache across the street from a neighborhood watch sign. Although I doubt that I would have stopped for this cache, I also would not have done anything more than the finders did. The last time I notified a cache owner and reviewer about a cache placed behind a fence (that was posted in other areas) neither took any action until there was a confrontation with an angry property owner. I have heard about another case where the property owner reacted violently. So now I keep on driving.

 

This is another reminder to be certain about the property before placing a cache, not to confuse an area that might appear to be open with adequate or express permission, and not to take things apart during a search.

[+Walts Hunting]

Personally when I see a sign like that I move to the next cache. There are to many out there to get to worry about one like that. As to those who "assume permission was gotten." You are deludeing yourself to justify your actions. With the exception of public lands where the reviewer knows permission is needed and enforces it NOONE gets permission. It would be better to assume no permission given unless specifically noted in the description.

[+Flintstone5611]

Personally when I see a sign like that I move to the next cache. There are to many out there to get to worry about one like that. As to those who "assume permission was gotten." You are deludeing yourself to justify your actions. With the exception of public lands where the reviewer knows permission is needed and enforces it NOONE gets permission. It would be better to assume no permission given unless specifically noted in the description.

 

Well if we all felt that way I don't think very many caches would get found. In fact I doubt that you actually adhere to your own policy 100% of the time. Get off your soap box, there are lots of circumstances that allow for no permission to be obtained. People make mistakes, no need to be sanctimonious about it.

[cezanne]

I might be more in sync with this being an American? Maybe not, but just a thought. The landscaping at the entrance of a housing development, I'm not going there. On top of that, I also think that a cache in the landscaping at the entrance of a housing development is very unlikely to have permission. Because we've all heard those horror stories about Homeowner associations, and how "strict" they can be.

 

From the European point of view, I'd say that most caches I know of are placed without permission and that geocaching would hardly exist in many European countries if it were different. I would not have hidden such a cache (because the area does not look attractive and I prefer lonesome areas), but I have hidden several caches in forest areas where I have no idea who owns the forest (a large proportion of forest in my region and even mountains with many public hiking trails are privately owned). This is common practice around here and applies to certainly more than 95% of the caches hidden.

 

As the search is regarded, I would not have had any bad conscience to enter the area as I would have thought that the sign private drive only restricts driving in into the area. I would not have the slightest idea that the sign also refers to walking into the area. I know of many private roads that are not located on private land, but are private because they lead to a private property and have been built or improved using private money. As long as there is no sign "no trespassing" I would not feel reluctant to enter such an area, both for geocaching and for non-geocaching related activities (like looking at the area, taking photos of a lovely garden, going for a walk etc).

I'm aware of course that my point of view is not at all American and I do know that the situation there is quite different. Nevertheless I think that a sign saying "Private drive" is very misleading.

 

Cezanne

[+kunarion]

Personally when I see a sign like that I move to the next cache. There are to many out there to get to worry about one like that. As to those who "assume permission was gotten." You are deludeing yourself to justify your actions. With the exception of public lands where the reviewer knows permission is needed and enforces it NOONE gets permission. It would be better to assume no permission given unless specifically noted in the description.

 

Well if we all felt that way I don't think very many caches would get found. In fact I doubt that you actually adhere to your own policy 100% of the time. Get off your soap box, there are lots of circumstances that allow for no permission to be obtained. People make mistakes, no need to be sanctimonious about it.

Whether or not there is “permission”, damaging property that is not yours is unacceptable. Geocaching or not.

[+Flintstone5611]

You are right Cezanne. The term "private road" does not mean the same thing as "no entry" or "no trespassing", but our visiting muggle is upset as a result of the property damage (and rightly so) and now is trying to exercise a legal authority that doesn't exist. It happens from time to time, but I am curious to see if the muggle is the property manager/owner or just another person in the subdivision that has forced a long established cache to be archived because they said so.

[+redsox_mark]

 

I might be more in sync with this being an American? Maybe not, but just a thought. The landscaping at the entrance of a housing development, I'm not going there. On top of that, I also think that a cache in the landscaping at the entrance of a housing development is very unlikely to have permission. Because we've all heard those horror stories about Homeowner associations, and how "strict" they can be.

 

Yes, you may be more in sync. And if I got there and it was clear that this was in landscaping of a housing development when I would have driven past. But from streetview it's not obvious to me. The streetview image is from 2008, but the cache was there 3 years before that.

I do see the little yellow "Private Drive" sign.

[team tisri]

Personally when I see a sign like that I move to the next cache. There are to many out there to get to worry about one like that. As to those who "assume permission was gotten." You are deludeing yourself to justify your actions. With the exception of public lands where the reviewer knows permission is needed and enforces it NOONE gets permission. It would be better to assume no permission given unless specifically noted in the description.

 

Well if we all felt that way I don't think very many caches would get found. In fact I doubt that you actually adhere to your own policy 100% of the time. Get off your soap box, there are lots of circumstances that allow for no permission to be obtained. People make mistakes, no need to be sanctimonious about it.

 

I don't see it as being sanctimonious. If I'm out caching and the GPS points me past a sign that says it's private I assume it's private and leave it alone.

 

If it looks like the cache is the other side of a private area (i.e. I could cross the private property to get to it, or I could go around the private property while remaining on public property) then I'd decide whether to go around the private area or abandon the search. If it looked like the cache was on private property I'd abandon the search.

 

People make mistakes but ignoring signs that land is privately owned isn't a mistake, it's a wilful act.

Edited May 28, 2013 by team tisri

[+Flintstone5611]

Personally when I see a sign like that I move to the next cache. There are to many out there to get to worry about one like that. As to those who "assume permission was gotten." You are deludeing yourself to justify your actions. With the exception of public lands where the reviewer knows permission is needed and enforces it NOONE gets permission. It would be better to assume no permission given unless specifically noted in the description.

 

Well if we all felt that way I don't think very many caches would get found. In fact I doubt that you actually adhere to your own policy 100% of the time. Get off your soap box, there are lots of circumstances that allow for no permission to be obtained. People make mistakes, no need to be sanctimonious about it.

Whether or not there is “permission”, damaging property that is not yours is unacceptable. Geocaching or not.

 

Well that isn't absolutely accurate. Anytime we bushwhack we are doing damage, every time we drive to a cache we pollute. So the fact that some choose to do so isn't made to seem like a sin, do we know if the damage was done by geocachers for certain. It was mentioned that the cache was not where those people were looking. Could it be that if actually was children from the subdivision just being kids and geocachers are being made the scapegoat.

[+Flintstone5611]

Personally when I see a sign like that I move to the next cache. There are to many out there to get to worry about one like that. As to those who "assume permission was gotten." You are deludeing yourself to justify your actions. With the exception of public lands where the reviewer knows permission is needed and enforces it NOONE gets permission. It would be better to assume no permission given unless specifically noted in the description.

 

Well if we all felt that way I don't think very many caches would get found. In fact I doubt that you actually adhere to your own policy 100% of the time. Get off your soap box, there are lots of circumstances that allow for no permission to be obtained. People make mistakes, no need to be sanctimonious about it.

 

I don't see it as being sanctimonious. If I'm out caching and the GPS points me past a sign that says it's private I assume it's private and leave it alone.

 

If it looks like the cache is the other side of a private area (i.e. I could cross the private property to get to it, or I could go around the private property while remaining on public property) then I'd decide whether to go around the private area or abandon the search. If it looked like the cache was on private property I'd abandon the search.

 

People make mistakes but ignoring signs that land is privately owned isn't a mistake, it's a wilful act.

 

So how many lamp posts do you own or have checked the permission on?

[cezanne]

I don't see it as being sanctimonious. If I'm out caching and the GPS points me past a sign that says it's private I assume it's private and leave it alone.

 

If I'm walking, I see no reason whatsoever to be stopped by "private drive". Of course, I would not drive into such a road.

The big majority of well established and official hiking trails in my region lead over private land.

If I encounter a sign "No trespassing" I will respect it.

Typically I try to use the same rules for geocaching than for other activities. If I see no issue to enter an area to go for a walk or to photos there, then this also applies to entering an area because I want to have a look at a cache. Of course it can happen in the latter case that I refrain from searching due to the circumstances.

 

Cezanne

Edited May 28, 2013 by cezanne

[+geodarts]

So how many lamp posts do you own or have checked the permission on?

 

That states the problem better than I could have said. I am not certain that any cache needs to be placed in a lamp post and even less certain that having adequate permission to place a cache on private property can ever be done without express permission.

[cezanne]

That states the problem better than I could have said. I am not certain that any cache needs to be placed in a lamp post and even less certain that having adequate permission to place a cache on private property can ever be done without express permission.

 

Probably you are right, but insisting on express permission and at the same time declining the return of virtual caches would be the death of geocaching in my countries, including my home country. I do not have any lamp post caches and typically hide caches at roots of a tree or below a stone. The trees in privately owned forest do not look any different than the ones in public forests. Already doing the research who owns a particular area might be a nightmare.

 

I could easily live with setting up only virtual hiking caches (I do not care about containers at all). Such caches would not pose any issues as the the route leads along well established hiking trails. It is Groundspeak who does not want to publish containerless caches except Earthcaches. I'd say that they are aware of the consequences and live with the fact that so many caches do not have express permission. Of course they are not stating this expclicitly, they earn quite some money however with geocaching in Europe as well.

 

Cezanne

[+dprovan]

I think we're getting a little hung up on the trespassing issue. I agree the case isn't as clear cut as 1unhappyowner makes out, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have blinked at searching that area. It looks like a typical out-in-the-middle-of-nowhere hide that I find common in such areas. We're assuming no permission was sought or received, and that's probably correct, but it's been eight years, so it's not impossible that the CO got permission, perhaps legitimate, perhaps not, that 1unhappyowner isn't aware of.

 

What's important to me is that the searches have been doing very real and obvious damage. Even if very official and explicit permission had been granted, the damage would be inexcusable. The hide shouldn't have been that subtle. The description about how to find the cache should have been clearer. Searchers should have used better judgement in how far they were willing to go to find the cache. (That's not a slam on 250 individuals: we all go too far, and you know it.) And the CO should have shutdown the cache as soon as he saw that the landscape was being impacted.

[+Flintstone5611]

I think we're getting a little hung up on the trespassing issue. I agree the case isn't as clear cut as 1unhappyowner makes out, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have blinked at searching that area. It looks like a typical out-in-the-middle-of-nowhere hide that I find common in such areas. We're assuming no permission was sought or received, and that's probably correct, but it's been eight years, so it's not impossible that the CO got permission, perhaps legitimate, perhaps not, that 1unhappyowner isn't aware of.

 

What's important to me is that the searches have been doing very real and obvious damage. Even if very official and explicit permission had been granted, the damage would be inexcusable. The hide shouldn't have been that subtle. The description about how to find the cache should have been clearer. Searchers should have used better judgement in how far they were willing to go to find the cache. (That's not a slam on 250 individuals: we all go too far, and you know it.) And the CO should have shutdown the cache as soon as he saw that the landscape was being impacted.

 

Well put.

[+Off Grid]

Recently saw people trespassing and climbing over our rock wall at the entrance to our Private Subdivision and finally figured it out. After years and years of unsolved damage & vandalism to our entrance sign, lights, lighting system, rock wall and other rock structures (one decorative rock structure covering an irrigation valve was recently pulled apart) we went onto this website and found that one of the more active members had driven past a "Private Drive" sign and trespassed to place his illegal cache.

 

I evidently have a better GPS unit than the idiots searching yesterday because I quickly found the cache and removed it, even though I am disabled. 8 years of problems and over $1700 in damage (part of which I paid personally) solved by 2 idiots that wandered aimlessly yesterday trying to find an a cache hidden illegally on private property.

 

We were able to easily find out the cache hider's real name and address (he's not as smart as he proclaimed) and will turn both over to the local Sheriff and our attorney in an attempt to collect some of the long, ongoing expenses caused by geo-cacher damage (why would someone pull apart a nice structure and then leave it?).

 

Some out there may think this is funny, but we do not. It gives your little sport a very bad name and now 240 residents and landowners think you all are a bunch of IDIOTS because of the 300 people who trespassed and then posted it on this site. Included in that number there are a bunch of vandals who defaced the entrance to our beautiful neighborhood - SHAME ON ALL OF YOU WHO TRESPASSED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY INCLUDING THE CACHE HIDER!

Sorry to hear that but that sounds about right there's a bunch of people on here that can't read and or think its funny. We just had four on a military base with a sign that clearly said no trespassing and no one did anything but us no one thought hey that might be a bad idea.

 

I've read a few times same story thousands of dollars worth of damage and the guy almost wouldn't pay for it didn't see a problem just blows my mind

[cezanne]

What's important to me is that the searches have been doing very real and obvious damage. Even if very official and explicit permission had been granted, the damage would be inexcusable.

 

I agree (and I have mentioned that the damage is a no go for me before), but none of us knows whether damages were visible when the majority of loggers visited the cache.

If I visit a cache I will certainly voice concerns if I have any, but in case of this cache it might have happened easily that I just logged a short found it in case I were there and did not notice anything special. That was the point I was trying to make. The OP accuses all loggers of the cache of trespassing and of not reporting the cache.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited May 28, 2013 by cezanne

[4wheelin_fool]

Personally when I see a sign like that I move to the next cache. There are to many out there to get to worry about one like that. As to those who "assume permission was gotten." You are deludeing yourself to justify your actions. With the exception of public lands where the reviewer knows permission is needed and enforces it NOONE gets permission. It would be better to assume no permission given unless specifically noted in the description.

 

Well if we all felt that way I don't think very many caches would get found. In fact I doubt that you actually adhere to your own policy 100% of the time. Get off your soap box, there are lots of circumstances that allow for no permission to be obtained. People make mistakes, no need to be sanctimonious about it.

 

I don't see it as being sanctimonious. If I'm out caching and the GPS points me past a sign that says it's private I assume it's private and leave it alone.

 

If it looks like the cache is the other side of a private area (i.e. I could cross the private property to get to it, or I could go around the private property while remaining on public property) then I'd decide whether to go around the private area or abandon the search. If it looked like the cache was on private property I'd abandon the search.

 

People make mistakes but ignoring signs that land is privately owned isn't a mistake, it's a wilful act.

 

So how many lamp posts do you own or have checked the permission on?

 

Your generalizations are misleading and incorrect. Most lamp posts are on commecial property open to the public. This is not anything like that. Temporary damage from bushwhacking, and pollution from driving does is nothing like $1700 damage to a private community entrance.

 

No, the cache owner did not personally do the damage, but hiding a fake rock in a rock pile down a private road and then walking away and never checking on it, is asking for trouble.

[+Off Grid]

I think we're getting a little hung up on the trespassing issue. I agree the case isn't as clear cut as 1unhappyowner makes out, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have blinked at searching that area. It looks like a typical out-in-the-middle-of-nowhere hide that I find common in such areas. We're assuming no permission was sought or received, and that's probably correct, but it's been eight years, so it's not impossible that the CO got permission, perhaps legitimate, perhaps not, that 1unhappyowner isn't aware of.

 

What's important to me is that the searches have been doing very real and obvious damage. Even if very official and explicit permission had been granted, the damage would be inexcusable. The hide shouldn't have been that subtle. The description about how to find the cache should have been clearer. Searchers should have used better judgement in how far they were willing to go to find the cache. (That's not a slam on 250 individuals: we all go too far, and you know it.) And the CO should have shutdown the cache as soon as he saw that the landscape was being impacted.

No we're not do you want to geocache in ten years from now?

I love how you guys always say there's always another story or its not clear cut well hey maybe it is this time ever think of that. I would have blinked ten times and still would not have done this cache but I guess some people have common sense. And yeah its quite possible after 8 years that no permission was given I mean people put it on there page usually right.

 

I agree though the damage was insane ever heard of you break it you buy it. Wait wait searchers using judgement hahah

[+Off Grid]

Personally when I see a sign like that I move to the next cache. There are to many out there to get to worry about one like that. As to those who "assume permission was gotten." You are deludeing yourself to justify your actions. With the exception of public lands where the reviewer knows permission is needed and enforces it NOONE gets permission. It would be better to assume no permission given unless specifically noted in the description.

+1 agree

[+Off Grid]

Personally when I see a sign like that I move to the next cache. There are to many out there to get to worry about one like that. As to those who "assume permission was gotten." You are deludeing yourself to justify your actions. With the exception of public lands where the reviewer knows permission is needed and enforces it NOONE gets permission. It would be better to assume no permission given unless specifically noted in the description.

 

Well if we all felt that way I don't think very many caches would get found. In fact I doubt that you actually adhere to your own policy 100% of the time. Get off your soap box, there are lots of circumstances that allow for no permission to be obtained. People make mistakes, no need to be sanctimonious about it.

Actually I do adhere to my policy of no going into places with signs and bringing it to someone's attention if its bad. I wouldn't call it a mistake especially if the owners teehee in the background. That's a big mistake if you can't think or read

[+Flintstone5611]

Personally when I see a sign like that I move to

No, the cache owner did not personally do the damage, but hiding a fake rock in a rock pile down a private road and then walking away and never checking on it, is asking for trouble.

 

How do you do $1700 of damage to a rock pile??

[+Flintstone5611]

Personally when I see a sign like that I move to the next cache. There are to many out there to get to worry about one like that. As to those who "assume permission was gotten." You are deludeing yourself to justify your actions. With the exception of public lands where the reviewer knows permission is needed and enforces it NOONE gets permission. It would be better to assume no permission given unless specifically noted in the description.

 

Well if we all felt that way I don't think very many caches would get found. In fact I doubt that you actually adhere to your own policy 100% of the time. Get off your soap box, there are lots of circumstances that allow for no permission to be obtained. People make mistakes, no need to be sanctimonious about it.

Actually I do adhere to my policy of no going into places with signs and bringing it to someone's attention if its bad. I wouldn't call it a mistake especially if the owners teehee in the background. That's a big mistake if you can't think or read

 

That's a great argument if you can prove that the CO never got permission for the hide. Otherwise it is just rhetoric.

[+bflentje]

Personally when I see a sign like that I move to

No, the cache owner did not personally do the damage, but hiding a fake rock in a rock pile down a private road and then walking away and never checking on it, is asking for trouble.

 

How do you do $1700 of damage to a rock pile??

 

Yeah, I believe that people may have trespassed but I'd bet anything that the damage and the damage value is possibly an exaggeration... WHICH DOES NOT JUSTIFY TRESPASSING OR VANDALISM. I just sense a rat here somewhere.

[cezanne]

Actually I do adhere to my policy of no going into places with signs and bringing it to someone's attention if its bad.

 

For me it depends on what is written on the sign. No trespassing means that I will not trespass.

Private drive will mean that I'm not driving there, but will not be reluctant to walk there.

This is not an issue of reading, but maybe it is an US issue that some people there assume that all movements are done by car and assume that private drive then also means that the area is off-limit in general.

 

Cezanne

Edited May 28, 2013 by cezanne

[4wheelin_fool]

How do you do $1700 of damage to a rock pile??

 

The damage over the years could not be explained until now because this is a remote area and there is no reason for someone to stop along the highway - no store or public facilities at our location. We thought that animals had been in the area but animals of the nature kind do not twist lights off their mounts, cut power cords (knife, shovel?), tamper with electrical boxes and pull apart stone structures piece by piece.

 

It looks like landscaping and electrician fees averaging $200 per year. I don't think anyone cut power cords, but lights twisted off their mounts, tampering with electrical boxes, as well as tearing apart stone structures, are all things that do happen at geocaches.

Edited May 28, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Flintstone5611]

Personally when I see a sign like that I move to

No, the cache owner did not personally do the damage, but hiding a fake rock in a rock pile down a private road and then walking away and never checking on it, is asking for trouble.

 

How do you do $1700 of damage to a rock pile??

 

The damage over the years could not be explained until now because this is a remote area and there is no reason for someone to stop along the highway - no store or public facilities at our location. We thought that animals had been in the area but animals of the nature kind do not twist lights off their mounts, cut power cords (knife, shovel?), tamper with electrical boxes and pull apart stone structures piece by piece.

 

It looks like landscaping and electrician fees averaging $200 per year. I don't think anyone cut power cords, but lights twisted off their mounts, tampering with electrical boxes, as well as tearing apart stone structures, are all things that do happen at geocaches.

 

Not any of mine, lol.

[4wheelin_fool]

Personally when I see a sign like that I move to the next cache. There are to many out there to get to worry about one like that. As to those who "assume permission was gotten." You are deludeing yourself to justify your actions. With the exception of public lands where the reviewer knows permission is needed and enforces it NOONE gets permission. It would be better to assume no permission given unless specifically noted in the description.

 

Well if we all felt that way I don't think very many caches would get found. In fact I doubt that you actually adhere to your own policy 100% of the time. Get off your soap box, there are lots of circumstances that allow for no permission to be obtained. People make mistakes, no need to be sanctimonious about it.

Actually I do adhere to my policy of no going into places with signs and bringing it to someone's attention if its bad. I wouldn't call it a mistake especially if the owners teehee in the background. That's a big mistake if you can't think or read

 

It called "selective reading comprehension". While placing a cache on private property they never ask for permission, but if caught finding a cache on private property they always exclaim that they assumed permission was granted.

[+bflentje]

Personally when I see a sign like that I move to

No, the cache owner did not personally do the damage, but hiding a fake rock in a rock pile down a private road and then walking away and never checking on it, is asking for trouble.

 

How do you do $1700 of damage to a rock pile??

 

The damage over the years could not be explained until now because this is a remote area and there is no reason for someone to stop along the highway - no store or public facilities at our location. We thought that animals had been in the area but animals of the nature kind do not twist lights off their mounts, cut power cords (knife, shovel?), tamper with electrical boxes and pull apart stone structures piece by piece.

 

It looks like landscaping and electrician fees averaging $200 per year. I don't think anyone cut power cords, but lights twisted off their mounts, tampering with electrical boxes, as well as tearing apart stone structures, are all things that do happen at geocaches.

 

Not any of mine, lol.

 

Or mine.

[+kunarion]

Personally when I see a sign like that I move to the next cache. There are to many out there to get to worry about one like that. As to those who "assume permission was gotten." You are deludeing yourself to justify your actions. With the exception of public lands where the reviewer knows permission is needed and enforces it NOONE gets permission. It would be better to assume no permission given unless specifically noted in the description.

 

Well if we all felt that way I don't think very many caches would get found. In fact I doubt that you actually adhere to your own policy 100% of the time. Get off your soap box, there are lots of circumstances that allow for no permission to be obtained. People make mistakes, no need to be sanctimonious about it.

Whether or not there is “permission”, damaging property that is not yours is unacceptable. Geocaching or not.

 

Well that isn't absolutely accurate. Anytime we bushwhack we are doing damage, every time we drive to a cache we pollute.

Well that isn't the OP's point. The issue is not that people drive places. And if bushwacking is causing damage "anytime", stop that.

 

It was mentioned that the cache was not where those people were looking. Could it be that if actually was children from the subdivision just being kids and geocachers are being made the scapegoat.

I just said that.

Edited May 28, 2013 by kunarion