Trespassing and Vandalism

[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

 

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

 

That's a great argument if you can prove that the CO got permission, otherwise it's just rhetoric.

 

With the property owner complaining and paying landscapers and electricians over the years it seems rather obvious he didn't get permission.

[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.

 

Agreed.

Edited May 28, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+geodarts]

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

 

The OP claimed that the damage included the rock wall and a irrigation cover, but extended to the lights and signs. I am not sure that all of damage could be ascribed to the cache. The container was clearly identified in the hint as a "georock" hidden on the ground and the most that the logs indicate is that people searched the rock wall and climbed on it. One person's cousin must live in the area because he had seen people on the rocks. Of course it is possible that some cachers did not read this and simply began to take apart any likely object in the area.

 

In any event, this is one of the problems with placing caches on private property without permission. The property owners had no means to monitor the cache or be in contact with the CO, so any damage done to the immediate area will be blamed on the cache. I doubt that the damage could be proved as a matter of law, but if I discovered a cache was on my property I would believe that it was the cause of any other problems.

[+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.

 

That's a great argument if you can prove that the CO got permission, otherwise it's just rhetoric.

 

With the property owner complaining and paying landscapers and electricians over the years it seems rather obvious he didn't get permission.

 

Unless it is an EC or has some special arrangement with TPTB, the onus is not on the CO to prove permission only to obtain it. So...

[+redsox_mark]

Just noticed another cache across the road also archived. http://coord.info/GC147WH

 

That one is off the private drive on the other side of SR58.

[+dprovan]

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.

Well, the OP says he's been seeing (and repairing) damage for years, so I'm basing my claim on that.

 

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.

The OP accusses geocachers as a group of hurting his property, and we're guilty as charged. We can debate among ourselves which individual geocachers are responsible, but that doesn't really make any difference to the OP, and I see no reason why it should.

[cezanne]

The OP claimed that the damage included the rock wall and a irrigation cover, but extended to the lights and signs. I am not sure that all of damage could be ascribed to the cache. The container was clearly identified in the hint as a "georock" hidden on the ground and the most that the logs indicate is that people searched the rock wall and climbed on it. One person's cousin must live in the area because he had seen people on the rocks. Of course it is possible that some cachers did not read this and simply began to take apart any likely object in the area.

 

In any event, this is one of the problems with placing caches on private property without permission. The property owners had no means to monitor the cache or be in contact with the CO, so any damage done to the immediate area will be blamed on the cache. I doubt that the damage could be proved as a matter of law, but if I discovered a cache was on my property I would believe that it was the cause of any other problems.

 

Actually, for me there are two separate issues involved. The first one relates to trespassing. I do not appreciate that much the accusation of trespassing which seems somehow strange to me based on a sign "private drive" (the OP moreover accuses everyone of having driven into the road suggesting that are no people who are walking - why on earth he can know that all finders and the hider drove up to the cache?).

 

The second relates to the damages caused. Here I feel that it does not make any differences whether the property is a public one or a private one. Hideouts in or near walls or other objects that cachers might dismantle during their search can cause problems anyway and as a cache hider one needs to consider carefully whether a certain hideout is a responsible choice. In any case, damage is bad in all cases and I do not prefer damage caused to public property.

 

Cezanne

Edited May 28, 2013 by cezanne

[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.

Well, the OP says he's been seeing (and repairing) damage for years, so I'm basing my claim on that.

 

But the OP will pass the area probably many times per week. If I happen to be there a single time, the chances that I notice damages is not necessarily high when the owners take care to repair damages on a regular basis.

 

The OP accusses geocachers as a group of hurting his property, and we're guilty as charged.

 

I'm not going to discuss the fact that we cannot be sure whether the damages have been caused by geocachers. I have encountered already many damages caused by geocachers and so I do know what can happen.

What makes me angry is however the way the OP accuses all visitors of trespassing and having driven into the area. I do feel that such accusations are inappropriate.

 

I try to have in a responsible manner as geocacher, but as I said, I'm not sure that I would have not entered the private drive if I happened to be there - of course on foot. Maybe I would have acted differently if I were from the US which I'm not.

 

 

Cezanne

[+The red-haired witch]

I'm really sorry if the cache didn't have permission (or no longer had permission, as it quite possible permission was given 8 years ago by someone who no longer lives there... with 240 owners, there must be a lot of change over 8 years).

 

As for the damage, I think the OP is doing a "jump to conclusions" that I've seen before and is usually wrong :

 

There is a geocache in that area + there are dommages in that area = geocachers caused the damage.

 

How can you logically conclude that? PLease take a step back and consider the whole picture.

 

This is not an area in the middle of nowhere, it is near a road, so geocachers are certainly not the only people going through there. Actually, with less than one find/week over the history of the cache, geocachers are certainly a very small minority of the people passing through that area.

 

I could believe some rocks being moved to look for a cache (though the great majority of geocachers would put them back after looking), but not power cords being "cut with a knife or shovel" or light fixtures being destroyed. Vandalism and trespassing existed long before geocaching... and geocachers are not more commonly vandals than the rest of the population.

 

Some examples of that type of "logic" I've seen :

 

- In a local park, a cache was placed near an area were teens go to build campfires and drink. The landowner concluded the campfires and empty bottles were because of the cache and banned geocaching in the park. The partying and drinking continues.

 

- A conservation officer learns about a geocache, concludes that it caused an illegal geotrail to form, damaging the environment, and asks for the cache to be removed. The cache was visited about once a month. The trail was there at least 20 years before the cache and is used by hundreds of people every year. Removing the cache had no effect on the trail.

 

Of course the wishes of the landowners/land managers should be respected, and caches should be removed if permission is denied/not given/removed. As the OP saw, a simple request to the reviewer got the cache immediately archived.

 

But I would suggest looking at all the facts carefully before writing about criminal accusations and legal procedures. Placing a cache in an area cannot possibly make a person responsible for the actions of every person who visits that area.

 

As for the trespassing issue, as others have said, it seems to be very location dependant. Where I live, I cannot get someone arrested for walking up my driveway or stepping on my lawn. It's not illegal unless they had to break in or I tell them to get off my property and they refuse to comply. Maybe it's different where the OP lives.

[+cerberus1]

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

There's quite a few "private drives" near me. Not sure of the legal reason the signs are placed.

Mostly roads not plowed/maintained by the State or Townships (and tax dollars), but by developers, businesses, or property associations.

One, belonging to a quarry, closes down for two weeks maintenance every six years or so.

Two developments use it, saving what would normally be a three mile drive to the highway to one.

Four years ago it was closed and folks in the development had a fit, went the legal route and found the road does indeed belong to the quarry, which allows them to use it.

- They shut the heck up after that, after almost ruining a good thing.

Most are dead-end roads, some bisect two mains with a few houses on it, some with speed bumps their short distance.

The public could drive it (don't know why...), but the properties on both sides and the road are owned by private land owners.

[+The A-Team]

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).

Personally, I've never heard of such a distinction before. I was always under the impression that a road posted as private was private regardless of mode of travel. However, now that I've looked into it more closely, it does appear that such signage in my province applies only to motor vehicles. Here's a quote from our Motor Vehicle Act:

..."private road" means a private road used by the public for vehicular traffic with permission of the owner or licensee of the road.

Now, that's just for the Canadian province of British Columbia. YMMV

[1unhappyowner]

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

For all of the lawyers in the crowd: The private road still allows public access for VEHICLES, but once you pull over and park you are on private deeded property on both sides of the entrance roads. There is no pullout on the highway. THIS CACHE WAS PLACED ON A PRIVATELY OWNED DEEDED LOT. IF THE CACHE HIDER PARKED HIS CAR AND GOT OUT, ONCE HIS FEET HIT THE GROUND HE WAS TRESPASSING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

 

We do not have strict rules at our HOA but we really are unable to sympathize with vandals and trespassers, especially after all of the damage. We bought property in this development many years before the cache was hidden and many of these properties have part time residents. Several of us now live here full time - and yes the cache was hidden in view of the Neighborhood Watch sign, too! None of the officers on the HOA gave permission because we kept getting together to try to figure out who or what kept causing the damage.

 

One resident who works for an commercial electrical installer donated lights, wiring and hookups to replace the damaged lights. So if somebody would like to stop by and replace all of the damage to the stone structures, buy us some new "NO GEOCACHING" signs, and write us a check for the rest, we would be glad to quit the whining. We are not against geocaching - we are against vandalism and trespassing (injury liability?) - in fact when I wrote in the log for you to stop, I had actually found the cache without moving or damaging anything and without TRESPASSING. We want the rest of you to have fun with your sport - especially when there are 1000's of PUBLIC acres and trails right nearby. In Oregon, when you trespass and damage something, it is always a crime.

[cezanne]

For all of the lawyers in the crowd: The private road still allows public access for VEHICLES, but once you pull over and park you are on private deeded property on both sides of the entrance roads. There is no pullout on the highway. THIS CACHE WAS PLACED ON A PRIVATELY OWNED DEEDED LOT. IF THE CACHE HIDER PARKED HIS CAR AND GOT OUT, ONCE HIS FEET HIT THE GROUND HE WAS TRESPASSING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

 

I fully understand your anger about the caused damages (for you it makes no difference anyway who caused them and how many were involved).

I wonder however whether it could not be possible to walk to the cache. On the map it looks to me that one could e.g. easily walk to the cache from the the Crescent Lake cabin location. Moreover, if the road even allows public access for vehicles, then also using a bicycle would not be an issue and bicycles do not need a pull-over. Personally, I would not have been scared off to use a bicycle on a road signed "private drive", but would not have felt guilty at all when walking to the cache. But maybe I'm too naive with my European background.

 

I would not have hidden a cache there, but I guess as a simple visitor the cache, I might not have felt to do anything wrong when walking to the cache.

 

Cezanne

[Clan Riffster]

IF THE CACHE HIDER PARKED HIS CAR AND GOT OUT, ONCE HIS FEET HIT THE GROUND HE WAS TRESPASSING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. In Oregon, when you trespass and damage something, it is always a crime.

Not according to Oregon law.

State Statute 164.255:

Criminal trespass in the first degree

 

( 1 ) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass in the first degree if the person:

 

( a ) Enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling;

(not a deeded lot)

( B ) Having been denied future entry to a building pursuant to a merchants notice of trespass, reenters the building during hours when the building is open to the public with the intent to commit theft therein;

(not a deeded lot)

( c ) Enters or remains unlawfully upon railroad yards, tracks, bridges or rights of way; or

(not a deeded lot)

( d ) Enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises that have been determined to be not fit for use under ORS 453.855 (Purpose) to 453.912 (Governmental immunity from liability).

(not a deeded lot)

 

State Statute 164.245:

Criminal trespass in the second degree

 

( 1 ) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree if the person enters or remains unlawfully in a motor vehicle or in or upon premises.

(not a deeded lot)

 

State Statute 164.345

Criminal mischief in the third degree

 

( 1 ) A person commits the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree if, with intent to cause substantial inconvenience to the owner or to another person, and having no right to do so nor reasonable ground to believe that the person has such right, the person tampers or interferes with property of another.

Key words: With Intent

State Statute 164.354, Criminal mischief in the second degree, has the same 'With Intent' language, as does State Statute 164.365, Criminal mischief in the first degree. The only significant change is the amount of damage.

 

According to your state laws, if someone walks onto a plot of land, believing that they are allowed to do so, they are not trespassing. If they accidentally damage something, they have not not committed criminal mischief.

 

1unhappyowner, we get it. Someone placed a cache on a deeded lot in your subdivision. You believe they did so without permission. I'm assuming that you have personally spoken with all the residents to confirm this? If that's the case, than getting the cache archived was the proper course of action, and we, the caching community, thank you for taking care of it.

 

I think you would be better served by this incident if you would take the time to educate yourself regarding the laws in your own state, rather than slander 252 presumably innocent hobbyists of committing crimes.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Clan Riffster

[+Flintstone5611]

THIS CACHE WAS PLACED ON A PRIVATELY OWNED DEEDED LOT. IF THE CACHE HIDER PARKED HIS CAR AND GOT OUT, ONCE HIS FEET HIT THE GROUND HE WAS TRESPASSING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

 

And how was that made clear? Was there a "no trespassing" warning or a "keep off private property" to indicate your wishes? No, just the indication tha this road is not a public one.

 

We do not have strict rules at our HOA but we really are unable to sympathize with vandals and trespassers, especially after all of the damage.

 

Assuming that you can prove that the geocachers are the ones doing that, which you haven't. Which brings me to my next point.

 

In fact when I wrote in the log for you to stop, I had actually found the cache without moving or damaging anything and without TRESPASSING.

 

You don't geocache, finding a camouflaged fake rock isn't easy for everyone. And yet you were able to find the cache without moving or damaging anything and without trespassing. What makes you think that seasoned geocachers can't do the same?! I have a feeling your vandalism problem won't even slow down, but I wouldn't want to assume.

[Clan Riffster]

Edit to add: In Oregon, when you wish to declare private land off limits to the general public, there are certain requirements which must be met, according to State Statute 105.700, Prohibiting public access to private land.

 

Specifically;

 

(2) A landowner or an agent of the landowner may close the privately owned land of the landowner by posting notice as follows:

 

(a) For land through which the public has no right of way, the landowner or agent must place a notice at each outer gate and normal point of access to the land, including both sides of a body of water that crosses the land wherever the body of water intersects an outer boundary line. The notice must be placed on a post, structure or natural object in the form of a sign or a blaze of paint. If a blaze of paint is used, it must consist of at least 50 square inches of fluorescent orange paint, except that when metal fence posts are used, approximately the top six inches of the fence post must be painted. If a sign is used, the sign:

 

( A ) Must be no smaller than eight inches in height and 11 inches in width;

 

( B ) Must contain the words Closed to Entry or words to that effect in letters no less than one inch in height; and

 

( C ) Must display the name, business address and phone number, if any, of the landowner or agent of the landowner.

 

( B ) For land through which or along which the public has an unfenced right of way by means of a public road, the landowner or agent must place:

 

( A ) A conspicuous sign no closer than 30 feet from the center line of the roadway where it enters the land, containing words substantially similar to PRIVATE PROPERTY, NO TRESPASSING OFF ROAD NEXT _____ MILES; or

 

( B ) A sign or blaze of paint, as described in paragraph (a) of this subsection, no closer than 30 feet from the center line of the roadway at regular intervals of not less than one-fourth mile along the roadway where it borders the land, except that a blaze of paint may not be placed on posts where the public road enters the land.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Clan Riffster

[+The A-Team]

We do not have strict rules at our HOA but we really are unable to sympathize with vandals and trespassers, especially after all of the damage.

As has been mentioned several times, it remains to be seen whether the damage and vandalism was caused by geocachers or someone else. Since you now know exactly where the geocache was hidden, was all of the damage confined to the area immediately surrounding the cache? I'd say that a radius of about 30 feet or so would be considered that area. If some of the damage is farther away than that, especially if it's significantly farther away, it's doubtful that it was in any way related to the presence of the geocache.

 

I fully understand your frustrations. I certainly wouldn't be very happy if I was in your situation. It's just that you may be targeting the wrong culprits for some of the problems.

 

Edit to add: After some further investigation using a better satellite map, the geocache appears to be about 90 feet away from the entrance sign. That's much farther than would be affected by someone searching for the geocache. Since that sign is so distinctive and very visible from the nearby state highway, I'd say it's far more likely that non-geocachers are responsible for that damage. It's impossible for me to tell from here how far away the lighting and irrigation box are, so it's hard to make a judgment on those. Anyway, I guess we'll know for sure if it was geocachers or not if the damage and vandalism continues.

Edited May 28, 2013 by The A-Team

[+AutisticMajor]

I find it interesting - 253 finds and not one favourite point.

[+geodarts]

I had actually found the cache without moving or damaging anything and without TRESPASSING. ]

 

It appears, then, that they main problem was how people were accessing the cache rather than the cache itself. Certainly, a cache owner has to be aware of how people might access the cache and if the search would cause any damage. I would not place a cache near a rock wall out of concern that rocks might be moved, and a cache should be removed if it is causing problems at a particular location. I am not sure how this would have created problems with the sign, lighting and electrical work. Hopefully, though, you won't have future problems with this.

 

According to your state laws, if someone walks onto a plot of land, believing that they are allowed to do so, they are not trespassing. If they accidentally damage something, they have not not committed criminal mischief.

 

They may be liable for damages in a civil trespass claim since liability does not depend on whether the act resulting in the trespass was reasonable. But I agree that criminal trespass would require notice (posting the property, refusing to leave after being told to do so).

Edited May 28, 2013 by geodarts

[Mr.Yuck]

I find it interesting - 253 finds and not one favourite point.

 

Well, it was a park-n-grab. As was the little known (linked to in a post by Redsox Mark) cache across the street on the same "private land".

 

Sorry, Mark's post was off the page while I was posting. http:// http://coord.info/GC147WH was by the same CO, across the State Highway, and was also a P&G that had no favorite points (although 100 less finders). It was archived yesterday too, when a note was posted by the same irate homeowner.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Mr.Yuck

[+SwineFlew]

To the OP,

 

Its reasonable to be mad, but name callings and etc is uncalled for. If I was you, I would handle this in a very professional way.

 

Have a nice day.

 

BTW, your story got many holes and you can get sue for a number of things you did in the last few days.

[+PACSGUY]

I am a Leave No Trace trainer, well was, for Boy Scout Leaders. Cacher's are not the only issue with damage to parks and property but there are bad eggs for sure. I have seen several hedges and other landscapes severely damaged from searching for caches. I just saw one today in fact in a grocery store lot.

There are so many places to do this it just isn't necessary to use bushes and such around stores.

[+ByronForestPreserve]

Rather than being nitpicky about trespassing minutiae and who caused what damage...

 

We are sorry that this happened, Unhappylandowner, and we don't like to see this kind of thing. It gives us a bad rep, and when stuff like this gets around, it gets harder to get permission from folks to place caches. Again, WE ARE SORRY THAT THIS HAPPENED.

 

And really, folks, it's not like we have any way to determine who drove, walked, let their geodog poop on someone's front lawn while looking for this cache, pulled up a light cover, tore apart an electrical box...the point is, the cache wasn't in a good spot, and the perception of the non-cachers involved is that we can be a destructive, idiotic group. It doesn't matter who did what, because you can bet of 253 logged finds, at least some of it was from cachers. Don't claim cachers are unfairly blamed for X,Y, and Z in whatever circumstance until the majority of cachers' actions are beyond reproach and we can say with honesty Hey, cachers aren't like that!

[+coman123]

I'm surprised this thread is not locked or deleted by the mods, the very first entry was rude and defamatory totally violates the T&C of using the forums

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules specifically #2 and #4

 

It's upsetting there was damage, but Come on, lock it or delete it

 

OP should also be warned about his/her wording and contend is his/her comments

Edited May 29, 2013 by coman123

[+SwineFlew]

I'm surprised this thread is not locked or deleted by the mods, the very first entry was rude and defamatory totally violates the T&C of using the forums

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules specifically #2 and #4

 

It's upsetting there was damage, but Come on, lock it or delete it

 

OP should also be warned about his/her wording and contend is his/her comments

And on two cache pages as well.

[Clan Riffster]

And really, folks, it's not like we have any way to determine who drove, walked, let their geodog poop on someone's front lawn while looking for this cache, pulled up a light cover, tore apart an electrical box...It doesn't matter who did what, because you can bet of 253 logged finds, at least some of it was from cachers.

Generally, I'd agree with you. In most cases where damage is occurring around GZ, we, (the collective), are likely to be at fault. To suggest that random hordes of destructive kids are running about stripping foliage off of Burger King hedges is pretty silly. If GZ gets trashed, someone playing this hobby is probably to blame.

<Insert Occam argument>

But I really doubt that's the case here. Looking at the site in Google Earth shows me that the cache is over a hundred feet from the entrance sign/landscaping/etc.

 

 

I know some folks might not have great GPSr reception, but to suggest that folks are searching over a hundred feet away is a bit of a stretch. Whilst I'll concur that cachers are perfectly capable of moving rocks around, not putting them back, trampling small plants, even damaging sprinklers in their enthusiasm to score a smiley, to put forth the theory that we would use a shovel to cut buried electrical cords while searching for a cache is absurd.

 

I can't even accept the idea, in this case, that cachers inadvertently damaged the landscaping going from their cars to GZ and back, since we, (again, the collective), won't generally expend more effort than is required to access GZ, and in the case of this cache, there is a much easier route to GZ than tromping through landscaping.

 

Is it remotely possible that some of the 200+ finders moved a rock that they shouldn't have? Sure. I'll grant you that. Did cachers cause hundreds of dollars worth of damage to the distant landscaping? Sorry. I'm not buying it.

[+The A-Team]

Whilst I'll concur that cachers are perfectly capable of moving rocks around...

I'm skeptical about that part, too. Did you see the one photo posted on the cache in question? Presumably the cache is very close to that spot.

I don't know about you, but I likely wouldn't be moving those rocks on my own, inadvertently or otherwise.

[+tozainamboku]

.. when I wrote in the log for you to stop, I had actually found the cache without moving or damaging anything and without TRESPASSING.

There's the problem. You say the cache can be found without moving or damaging anything and without trespassing. Then you assume that it was geocachers who trespassed and damaged your property.

 

It certainly possible that coordinates can be inaccurate and that some finder will be led on to private property and since they are not where the cache is they proceed to search in a manner unanticipated by the cache owner. Generally cache owners should be proving information on the cache page - including hints - that finders can use if there is some question about where the cache is. Finders should know the rules and not trespass or destroy property when looking. There is some difficulty educating cachers of these rules however, and because of the number of caches on private property - at least some of which have permission but don't state it on the cache page - some finders just don't think.

 

My personal rule in a place like this is to read the cache page and hints so that I don't have go where I might not be welcome. If I don't find the cache quickly, I post a DNF and leave. Sadly however, we have seen geocachers who when they don't find something quickly start taking apart anything that can be hiding a cache or literally beating bushes to see if anything falls out.

 

If in fact there were geocachers trespassing on the property and tearing apart walls, then I blame those individuals and not the cache owner or any of the gecoachers exercised proper respect for private property when searching. I would hope that was the majority of finders. However a few bad apples can always spoil it for the rest of us and at this point even a neighboring property owner just having the impression that geocachers caused damage is enough to not just get this cache archive but probably keep the reviewers from allowing another cache nearby.

 

I find it interesting - 253 finds and not one favourite point.

That's because it wasn't hidden in the wall or the electric lights. I'm sure that if someone took the time to take apart the wall and the lights and found a cache hidden that way they would have given a favorite for the clever hide.

[4wheelin_fool]

And really, folks, it's not like we have any way to determine who drove, walked, let their geodog poop on someone's front lawn while looking for this cache, pulled up a light cover, tore apart an electrical box...It doesn't matter who did what, because you can bet of 253 logged finds, at least some of it was from cachers.

Generally, I'd agree with you. In most cases where damage is occurring around GZ, we, (the collective), are likely to be at fault. To suggest that random hordes of destructive kids are running about stripping foliage off of Burger King hedges is pretty silly. If GZ gets trashed, someone playing this hobby is probably to blame.

<Insert Occam argument>

But I really doubt that's the case here. Looking at the site in Google Earth shows me that the cache is over a hundred feet from the entrance sign/landscaping/etc.

 

 

I know some folks might not have great GPSr reception, but to suggest that folks are searching over a hundred feet away is a bit of a stretch. Whilst I'll concur that cachers are perfectly capable of moving rocks around, not putting them back, trampling small plants, even damaging sprinklers in their enthusiasm to score a smiley, to put forth the theory that we would use a shovel to cut buried electrical cords while searching for a cache is absurd.

 

I can't even accept the idea, in this case, that cachers inadvertently damaged the landscaping going from their cars to GZ and back, since we, (again, the collective), won't generally expend more effort than is required to access GZ, and in the case of this cache, there is a much easier route to GZ than tromping through landscaping.

 

Is it remotely possible that some of the 200+ finders moved a rock that they shouldn't have? Sure. I'll grant you that. Did cachers cause hundreds of dollars worth of damage to the distant landscaping? Sorry. I'm not buying it.

 

It seems more and more likely that the OP does not even live in the development, and rather has a grudge against the CO for something else.

 

However, out of the 267 logged visits, I'm guessing that at least 240 cachers did not damage anything, and the other 10 percent may have. Those boulders are heavy, but yes, they certainly can be moved, just not replaced easily. There should have never been a cache there, despite whether signage and electrical equipment was actually damaged by cachers. I have seen plenty of things disturbed at several cache sites to know that it is possible, and that denying any responsibility at a site with an irate owner will only make things worse.

[+SwineFlew]

And really, folks, it's not like we have any way to determine who drove, walked, let their geodog poop on someone's front lawn while looking for this cache, pulled up a light cover, tore apart an electrical box...It doesn't matter who did what, because you can bet of 253 logged finds, at least some of it was from cachers.

Generally, I'd agree with you. In most cases where damage is occurring around GZ, we, (the collective), are likely to be at fault. To suggest that random hordes of destructive kids are running about stripping foliage off of Burger King hedges is pretty silly. If GZ gets trashed, someone playing this hobby is probably to blame.

<Insert Occam argument>

But I really doubt that's the case here. Looking at the site in Google Earth shows me that the cache is over a hundred feet from the entrance sign/landscaping/etc.

 

 

I know some folks might not have great GPSr reception, but to suggest that folks are searching over a hundred feet away is a bit of a stretch. Whilst I'll concur that cachers are perfectly capable of moving rocks around, not putting them back, trampling small plants, even damaging sprinklers in their enthusiasm to score a smiley, to put forth the theory that we would use a shovel to cut buried electrical cords while searching for a cache is absurd.

 

I can't even accept the idea, in this case, that cachers inadvertently damaged the landscaping going from their cars to GZ and back, since we, (again, the collective), won't generally expend more effort than is required to access GZ, and in the case of this cache, there is a much easier route to GZ than tromping through landscaping.

 

Is it remotely possible that some of the 200+ finders moved a rock that they shouldn't have? Sure. I'll grant you that. Did cachers cause hundreds of dollars worth of damage to the distant landscaping? Sorry. I'm not buying it.

It seems more and more likely that the OP does not even live in the development, and rather has a grudge against the CO for something else.

 

However, out of the 267 logged visits, I'm guessing that at least 240 cachers did not damage anything, and the other 10 percent may have. Those boulders are heavy, but yes, they certainly can be moved, just not replaced easily. There should have never been a cache there, despite whether signage and electrical equipment was actually damaged by cachers. I have seen plenty of things disturbed at several cache sites to know that it is possible, and that denying any responsibility at a site with an irate owner will only make things worse.

THIS! I been waiting all day to hear that! Yes, that was on my mind all along.

[+sparklefingers]

I'm slightly confused... as the cache in questions has a clue.

 

A "Georock" hidden on ground level

 

That gives me an idea that it's not in the light or in the rock wall. that it's a small key safe thrown on the ground.

 

I know not all cachers check the hint straight away but i would assume if you're having trouble finding it that you would check the hint before pulling things a part.

[+redsox_mark]

The main reason I posted in the first place was this:

 

When I first read the OP, I had a picture in my head of a location where you clearly enter a housing development, and is obvious that visitors are not welcome. And there many posts (not just by OP) calling all the finders idiots, and saying something like this would not happen in their area etc.

 

When I look at the coordinates and the area (using google earth etc) what I see doesn't seem quite the same as that original "picture". I see a location on the side of a state road; 100 feet or so from the entrance to the housing development. I don't believe the 250+ finders were "idiots" for looking there. I am someone who abandons a search very easily if I get any feeling I shouldn't be there; but I could see myself stopping here. Many of the finders were staying at a nearby vacation rental (in walking distance); many others passing through. Not one log mentions the private road. (Interestingly, the other archived cache DOES have several logs mentioning the private road. That one is different as the cache is clearly off the private road rather than along the state road).

 

The cache related to this thread is Diamond Peaks

The one on the other side of the state road is Crescent Creek

 

That doesn't change the fact that the cache was on private property without permission. (I say "fact".. I have no reason to doubt the OP's claim). And it seems a fact that damage has been done. We will never know how much of this damage was done by geocachers, but it is reasonable to expect at least some of it was. So I understand why the homeowner is angry. And the cache was rightly archived.

 

Lastly - a personal note for full disclaimer. I live in England, but I am a dual citizen (USA and UK), and lived in the USA for 29 years and visit regularly. So I do have some feel for differences in the view of private property between the US and Europe (which became another twist in the thread).

[+OZ2CPU]

it is not illegal to type in wrong numbers in the cordinate when someone place a cache,

it is not illegal to be a fool or own a bad gps when optaining cordinates,

havoc caused to your location is offcourse NOT ok in any way

but it is the seekers who are to blame !!

they should have informed about this wrong/bad/error location

both in their online logs and to a local reviewer to get it disabled as fast as possible..

all to often people just want to find the darn thing, and move on,

dont want to get involved in problems or issues..

but they should..

you got a full list of seekers from the cache page, if they caused the damage,

you need to prove it, and then go make them pay !!

how ever if the cache location is FAR away from the vandalism

you will get a hard time to prove it had anything to do with the cache

Edited May 29, 2013 by OZ2CPU

[+OZ2CPU]

about trespassing

the rule about painting a stick in a spacial color is new to me,

we usually looked for easy to find signs with easy to read instructions,

some of the more funny signs we even took pictures,

like you will get shoot or end in jail if trespassing here,

without futher warning, like that is going to happen or legal too..

[Clan Riffster]

There should have never been a cache there...

On this, I think we all agree.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

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.

 

That's a great argument if you can prove that the CO got permission, otherwise it's just rhetoric.

 

With the property owner complaining and paying landscapers and electricians over the years it seems rather obvious he didn't get permission.

 

Unless it is an EC or has some special arrangement with TPTB, the onus is not on the CO to prove permission only to obtain it. So...

 

From the guidelines:

 

"If you have permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache listing for the benefit of the reviewer and those seeking the cache."

 

If I come across signage indicating private property (No Tresspassing, POSTED, Private Drive, etc), unless I see a note on the listing indicating permission was recieved for the hide, I move on, and drop my local reviewer a note with what I found, and they deal with the owner (asking about permission, etc).

 

[edit: typos]

Edited May 29, 2013 by BBWolf+3Pigs

[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

 

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

 

That's a great argument if you can prove that the CO got permission, otherwise it's just rhetoric.

 

With the property owner complaining and paying landscapers and electricians over the years it seems rather obvious he didn't get permission.

 

Unless it is an EC or has some special arrangement with TPTB, the onus is not on the CO to prove permission only to obtain it. So...

 

From the guidelines:

 

"If you have permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache listing for the benefit of the reviewer and those seeking the cache."

 

If I come across signage indicating private property (No Tresspassing, POSTED, Private Drive, etc), unless I see a note on the listing indicating permission was recieved for the hide, I move on, and drop my local reviewer a note with what I found, and they deal with the owner (asking about permission, etc).

 

[edit: typos]

 

That's what many people do. However Flintstone5611 goes anyhow. He then insists that "you can't prove that there isn't permission", which enables him to go on the theory that it just might have approval from the landowner.

 

Then later insists that "the onus is not on the CO to prove permission only to obtain it". So this gives him the right to go where it is obviously forbidden, and blame the CO, despite obvious signage to the contrary.

 

I cannot wrap my mind around this distorted logic, but apparently there are others do the same thing. Signage suddenly means nothing because in theory it could be fine, but nobody has to prove it, and it's not your fault.

[+redsox_mark]

I thought I'd share the streetview shots I'm looking at related to this cache. Again which do not justify the cache being there - it should not be there. But to defend the 253 "idiots" who found it.

 

So I imagine... I'm driving south on SR58. The cache description refers to a "turnout close by". Across the highway from where my GPS is pointing I see what looks like a turnout.

 

 

My GPS points across the road to a rock wall. The "private drive" sign is 100 feet or so away up by the street sign. But I'm not on that private drive.

 

 

Maybe the coordinates or google isn't accurate; but that is the evidence I have to support the motion "cachers in this area aren't necessarily idiots".

 

Now that thing that looks like a "turnout" I'm sure (now) is private property as well. But would I have known that......

[+Redfist]

I thought I'd share the streetview shots I'm looking at related to this cache. Again which do not justify the cache being there - it should not be there. But to defend the 253 "idiots" who found it.

 

So I imagine... I'm driving south on SR58. The cache description refers to a "turnout close by". Across the highway from where my GPS is pointing I see what looks like a turnout.

 

 

My GPS points across the road to a rock wall. The "private drive" sign is 100 feet or so away up by the street sign. But I'm not on that private drive.

 

 

Maybe the coordinates or google isn't accurate; but that is the evidence I have to support the motion "cachers in this area aren't necessarily idiots".

 

Now that thing that looks like a "turnout" I'm sure (now) is private property as well. But would I have known that......

 

I took the same self-guided pre-tour this morning. I can easily see how people would have assumed they weren't treading on private property. They wouldn't have to turn down the private road, etc. I didn't see any other private property signs online.

 

That being said - no-one should've dismantled parts of the wall in their search and even if they had, they should have fixed it before they left. And since the cache described it as a "georock", who in their right mind would've dismantled any lighting fixtures/etc. to find it? That's weird...

 

From what I saw on street view, I would've felt comfortable parking on the right and searching up to the wall. I wouldn't have climbed over the wall though so if it were on the other side that would've put me off.

[+The A-Team]

From what I saw on street view, I would've felt comfortable parking on the right and searching up to the wall. I wouldn't have climbed over the wall though so if it were on the other side that would've put me off.

Those screenshots of StreetView are misleading because they don't give any depth perception. They make it seem like the cache is hidden at the visible rock wall, but it isn't. It's actually at another rock wall along the side of Blue Sky Way, another 100 feet past the visible wall. If you parked at the "turnout" and headed straight for GZ, you'd have to climb over the visible wall, cross 100 feet of a private lot, then probably climb over the further wall to get to the Blue Sky Way side of the wall.

[+redsox_mark]

Thanks A-team. Then I guess I have to stop defending the finders.

 

I would have parked and walked towards the wall. Don't think I'd walk to the other road, at least not if I saw houses.

[+redsox_mark]

One bit of damage I'm almost sure was done by a cacher is:

 

"(one decorative rock structure covering an irrigation valve was recently pulled apart) "

 

As the hint was a fake rock, I can imagine someone thinking the decorative rock structure was the cache and tying to open it. I'n NOT trying to justify the damage. But it is bad luck that a fake rock was hidden near a fake rock. Or if the cache owner was aware of it, an even worse place to hide.

[+redsox_mark]

One bit of damage I'm almost sure was done by a cacher is:

 

"(one decorative rock structure covering an irrigation valve was recently pulled apart) "

 

As the hint was a fake rock, I can imagine someone thinking the decorative rock structure was the cache and tying to open it. I'n NOT trying to justify the damage. But it is bad luck that a fake rock was hidden near a fake rock. Or if the cache owner was aware of it, an even worse place to hide.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I can think of a couple caches here that were hidden up 'private drives' and were promptly archived by our reviewer as no permission was stated.

 

The fact is, damage was done and let's face it, was likely done by cachers seeking this cache. All the cachers who didn't report the damage in their logs *were* idiots and the cache owner was an idiot for not regularly inspecting the area. No matter where you hide your cache, permission or not, you should be inspecting the area regularly for impact.

 

I hope the CO is ready to write a big fat cheque.

[Clan Riffster]

One bit of damage I'm almost sure was done by a cacher is:

 

"(one decorative rock structure covering an irrigation valve was recently pulled apart) "

You may be right. My only question would be one of proximity. Looking at the overhead view, which shows the cache over a hundred feet away from the structured landscaping around the entrance sign gives me pause though. It really doesn't make sense that an irrigation valve would be way over where the cache is. Those things are generally fairly close to where the water is deployed. It doesn't make sense to have irrigation where the cache is, as there aren't a bunch of placed flora.

 

I suspect one of two things;

 

1 ) The OP has decided to vilify geocachers, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

 

2 ) The Google Earth image is inaccurate, and the cache actually was near the sign.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I'm surprised this thread is not locked or deleted by the mods, the very first entry was rude and defamatory totally violates the T&C of using the forums

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules specifically #2 and #4

 

It's upsetting there was damage, but Come on, lock it or delete it

 

OP should also be warned about his/her wording and contend is his/her comments

 

You're kidding, right? Can you imagine the OPs frustration? They have the right to be hopping mad.

[Clan Riffster]

I'm surprised this thread is not locked or deleted by the mods, the very first entry was rude and defamatory totally violates the T&C of using the forums

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules specifically #2 and #4

 

It's upsetting there was damage, but Come on, lock it or delete it

 

OP should also be warned about his/her wording and contend is his/her comments

 

You're kidding, right? Can you imagine the OPs frustration? They have the right to be hopping mad.

Everyone has the "right" to be hopping mad.

That does not give them the right to behave poorly.

[+Flintstone5611]

Unless it is an EC or has some special arrangement with TPTB, the onus is not on the CO to prove permission only to obtain it.

 

That's what many people do. However Flintstone5611 goes anyhow. He then insists that "you can't prove that there isn't permission", which enables him to go on the theory that it just might have approval from the landowner.

 

Then later insists that "the onus is not on the CO to prove permission only to obtain it". So this gives him the right to go where it is obviously forbidden, and blame the CO, despite obvious signage to the contrary.

 

I cannot wrap my mind around this distorted logic, but apparently there are others do the same thing. Signage suddenly means nothing because in theory it could be fine, but nobody has to prove it, and it's not your fault.

 

Not exactly. You see there are times when Groundspeak insists on permission, like ECs or when listings are in conservation areas or parks. I think that is brilliant! I can go in and search with the authority that I am not breaking the law. With other scenarios I have to trust that a cacher got permission as it is an honor system. If someone tells me there is a cache here, feel free to pay it a visit, then I will. If that leads to issues because of their lack of due diligence you will bet I will make it known in my log. Fortunately this has been in the minority of cases and has resulted in the overwhelming majority of my smileys being pleasant. On the occasions that I can count one one hand where proper permission was not granted or changed it was quickly rectified. I have the feeling that 8 years without an issue till now means that there are other factors at play than simply reckless caching. TPTB put the honor system in place, my following it should not be the problem.

[4wheelin_fool]

Unless it is an EC or has some special arrangement with TPTB, the onus is not on the CO to prove permission only to obtain it.

 

That's what many people do. However Flintstone5611 goes anyhow. He then insists that "you can't prove that there isn't permission", which enables him to go on the theory that it just might have approval from the landowner.

 

Then later insists that "the onus is not on the CO to prove permission only to obtain it". So this gives him the right to go where it is obviously forbidden, and blame the CO, despite obvious signage to the contrary.

 

I cannot wrap my mind around this distorted logic, but apparently there are others do the same thing. Signage suddenly means nothing because in theory it could be fine, but nobody has to prove it, and it's not your fault.

 

Not exactly. You see there are times when Groundspeak insists on permission, like ECs or when listings are in conservation areas or parks. I think that is brilliant! I can go in and search with the authority that I am not breaking the law. With other scenarios I have to trust that a cacher got permission as it is an honor system. If someone tells me there is a cache here, feel free to pay it a visit, then I will. If that leads to issues because of their lack of due diligence you will bet I will make it known in my log. Fortunately this has been in the minority of cases and has resulted in the overwhelming majority of my smileys being pleasant. On the occasions that I can count one one hand where proper permission was not granted or changed it was quickly rectified. I have the feeling that 8 years without an issue till now means that there are other factors at play than simply reckless caching. TPTB put the honor system in place, my following it should not be the problem.

 

If there is a NO TRESPASSING sign, a geocache placement does not grant any authority to disregard it. To do so may infuriate the property owner and cause needless problems for others, and other caches that follow the rules.

[+Fiver1]

Just because a fake rock covering an irrigation valve was damaged doesn't mean that a geocacher did the damage. Granted there is circumstantial evidence that might tend to make one think that. But, what about lawn equipment or off-road equipment. Isn't it possible that one of these things might have caused the damage. How about some local kids that lean toward a bit of vandalism occasionally?

 

Can we be sure based on what has been said that all the damage is the result of geocaching? I think not. I think the OP happened on a group that he could easily blame since he found a geocache but so far has offered no concrete facts to support that allegation. I don't deny that some damage might have been the fault of cachers, but to lay the whole blame on them is without merit.

 

Archiving the cache in this instance was the proper course but I'll bet that the problem doesn't go away that easily.