Geocache box relocated

[diverdad84]

A geocache located at 32 44’07” N 96 58’29” W has been moved. This cache is on a secure military installation and several people have been falsely gaining access to the installation to find this cache. This cache was located in Fuget Cemetery on the old Dallas Naval Air Station. Only family members are allowed into this area and many people have been falsely telling security they are visiting the graves of family when they were actually looking for a small green box. This cache has now been moved to 32 43’44”N 96 58’56”w. If someone on this forum could update this location on the app the box can still be played. Nobody will be allowed into the cemetery to look for this cache.

 

SFC Jeff Johnson

[+The A-Team]

Looks to be GC1PNJC.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

This appears to be the cache in question: Tempus Fugit.

 

Edited to add: Doh!

Edited May 28, 2013 by Corp Of Discovery

[+Off Grid]

Wow surprised it lasted that long but than again I'm not after all the logs and not one person thought hey maybe we shouldn't be doing this. No one I know is buried here and its kinda disrespectful to lie that you have family there just to get through to get a container. As soon as I came to the location i would have just wrote this one off.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Off Grid

[+Zeke's Uncle]

Sargent Johnson seems to be confused on the laws in the state of Texas.

 

Texas Health & Safety Code Sec. 711.041

 

ACCESS TO CEMETERY. Any person who wishes to visit a cemetery or private burial grounds for which no public ingress or egress is available shall have the right to reasonable ingress and egress for the purpose of visiting the cemetery or private burial grounds. This right of access extends only to visitation during reasonable hours.

 

The owner or owners of the lands surrounding the cemetery or private burial grounds may designate the routes of reasonable ingress and egress.

 

Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 634, § 22, eff. Sept. 1, 1993.

 

But just to be sure, I have received permission from the Dallas County Pioneer Association which is in charge of cemeteries that are not maintained by private companies or private associations.

 

Also, our reviewer was first to find back on April 11, 2009 and obviously saw nothing wrong with it.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Zeke's Uncle

[Mr.Yuck]

I don't want to sound all cynical and stuff, but this would make two black eyes in one day? I just put .00 on the end of the "seconds" in the coordinates as given by SFC Johnson, but I think they're pretty accurate, as they do put it on the side of the road outside of a gate: Google Map

 

I have to say, and I'm really not piling on, but the cache page encourages deception to gain access to the cemetery. And the first finder's log states that he was possibly the first "civillian" to ask to go to the cemetery.

 

That being said, as a retired Army Reservist, if this cache was in my area, I'd have probably whipped out my ID card and found this cache. Would I have said I'm going to the PX instead of the cemetery? I guess we'll never know.

 

EDIT: Posted after we heard from the cache owner, but he must type faster. I don't know Zeke, as I said above, you really encourage deception at the gate on the cache page. (That's just my opinion, by the way). And of course the law you quoted mentions nothing about playing a game in said cemetery.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Mr.Yuck

[+The A-Team]

But just to be sure, I have received permission from the Dallas County Pioneer Association which is in charge of cemeteries that are not maintained by private companies or private associations.

Just curious, are the guards at the gate aware of the cache? That is, if someone pulled up to the gate and said they were going to the cemetery to look for a cache (ie. told the truth), would the guards let them in?

 

It seems like you've done your due diligence for this cache, which is more than can be said for some other caches.

[JASTA 11]

The laws governing the cemetery would depend on if it was Federal Property or not.

 

Sometimes, when a base is 'deactivated' or turned over to the National Guard, portions within may remain under control of the feds.

 

Properties owned by a Reserve Component are federal land. National Guard properties belong to the respective state.

 

Maybe this is the case?

[Mr.Yuck]

The laws governing the cemetery would depend on if it was Federal Property or not.

 

Sometimes, when a base is 'deactivated' or turned over to the National Guard, portions within may remain under control of the feds.

 

Properties owned by a Reserve Component are federal land. National Guard properties belong to the respective state.

 

Maybe this is the case?

 

It is definitely currently a Texas Army National Guard facility. If in street view of the Google Maps link I posted, back up a little, and you'll see the sign. Of course who knows who could answer all the questions about any portions of the facility that may still remain under federal control.

[+NanCycle]

I have to say, and I'm really not piling on, but the cache page encourages deception to gain access to the cemetery.

you really encourage deception at the gate on the cache page.

Possibly the cache page was rewritten after this post, but I don't see anything deceptive about:

You MUST sign in with the guard with your driver's license. Just tell them that you are going to the cemetery and they will let you in.

 

And of course the law you quoted mentions nothing about playing a game in said cemetery.

The portion of the law quoted says nothing about the purpose for visiting the cemetery:

Any person who wishes to visit a cemetery or private burial grounds for which no public ingress or egress is available shall have the right to reasonable ingress and egress for the purpose of visiting the cemetery or private burial grounds.

[Mr.Yuck]

I have to say, and I'm really not piling on, but the cache page encourages deception to gain access to the cemetery.

you really encourage deception at the gate on the cache page.

Possibly the cache page was rewritten after this post, but I don't see anything deceptive about:

You MUST sign in with the guard with your driver's license. Just tell them that you are going to the cemetery and they will let you in.

 

Well I did state that deception was only my opinion.

 

"tell them that you are going to the cemetery" conveniently leaving out of course that you're going there to find a little green box for a goofy internet game, is the deception. IMO, as I say.

[JASTA 11]

It is definitely currently a Texas Army National Guard facility. If in street view of the Google Maps link I posted, back up a little, and you'll see the sign. Of course who knows who could answer all the questions about any portions of the facility that may still remain under federal control.

 

Areas under federal control will have 'US Property' signs posted around that particular section. It could be just a single building, or a larger area that's fenced off.

 

 

Fort Leonard Wood, Mo (federal property) has several pioneer cemeteries on post. Normally it's no problem for the general public to get permission at the gate by showing a drivers license and getting a temporary pass to visit the cemeteries. But during high-security conditions (like the period following 9/11) no one got on post for such a thing, period.

 

It may be that Sergeant Johnson, and whatever command he is part of, view caching on their post as an inappropriate activity.

 

Unfortunately, if they cite some sort of security concern about it, one will be hard pressed to make them change their policy despite what Texas law may state.

[Clan Riffster]

"tell them that you are going to the cemetery" conveniently leaving out of course that you're going there to find a little green box for a goofy internet game, is the deception. IMO, as I say.

Unless there are some rules or laws requiring that you explain why you are visiting a cemetery, I can't see omitting the fact that you will be participating in a hobby as particularly deceptive. In my opinion, deception speaks to intent. If I tell a gate guard that I am visiting a cemetery, then I actually do visit the cemetery, I don't see that my actions were deceptive. However, if I tell said gate guard that I am going to the cemetery to visit my Aunt Edna, and my true purpose is to participate in some hobby, then I would call that deceptive.

[+geodarts]

If I went there it would be to visit the cemetery. Finding the container would be secondary, and even if the container is outside the gate I would still want to go to the main attraction. There is even a historical marker there and Flickr pages documenting at least one visit long before the cache was placed.

 

SFC Johnson was nice enough about it. If the problem was limited to the container then perhaps an offset multi would have been appropriate. But since the problem is access, so it appears to require further discussion and negotiation. I hope the CO will pursue this and update us about what happens.

Edited May 28, 2013 by geodarts

[Mr.Yuck]

"tell them that you are going to the cemetery" conveniently leaving out of course that you're going there to find a little green box for a goofy internet game, is the deception. IMO, as I say.

Unless there are some rules or laws requiring that you explain why you are visiting a cemetery, I can't see omitting the fact that you will be participating in a hobby as particularly deceptive. In my opinion, deception speaks to intent. If I tell a gate guard that I am visiting a cemetery, then I actually do visit the cemetery, I don't see that my actions were deceptive. However, if I tell said gate guard that I am going to the cemetery to visit my Aunt Edna, and my true purpose is to participate in some hobby, then I would call that deceptive.

 

OK, OK, now if a Police Officer (CR) tells me it's not being deceptive, then I'll give in. Mr.Yuck is wrong. The cache owner did a great job of getting the permission they did, and it's a great write-up for a cache with multiple favorites points. Unfortunately though, if the Army National Guard doesn't want that cache in that Cemetery, I don't see any way around that.

 

Jasta, I'll contact you privately, but Ft. Drum, NY has 13 pioneer cemeteries, and 5 Ghost Town villages!

[+geodarts]

 

Texas Health & Safety Code Sec. 711.041

 

ACCESS TO CEMETERY. Any person who wishes to visit a cemetery or private burial grounds for which no public ingress or egress is available shall have the right to reasonable ingress and egress for the purpose of visiting the cemetery or private burial grounds. This right of access extends only to visitation during reasonable hours.

 

 

Just as a point of information, the statute's current version in Westlaw is a bit different:

 

This right of access extends only to visitation during the hours determined by the owner or owners of the lands under Subsection B or at a reasonable time as provided by Subsection C an

d only for purposes usually associated with cemetery visits.

 

I suppose that the sergeant could consider that geocaching is not a purpose usually associated with cemetery visits.

Edited May 28, 2013 by geodarts

[+dprovan]

Sounds like the dearly departed are going to be even more lonely now than they have in the past. The cache description makes the place sound sad enough as it is. Some of the log pictures make it clear maintenance has stopped and the cemetery's been completely abandoned since that historical mark, now destroyed, was put up. And now as the final nail in the coffin -- if you'll excuse the expression -- outsiders are no longer even allowed the visit. I suppose this happens to cemetery's all the time, but it's unfortunate that it had to happen to this one that actually is visited from time to time.

 

I sure hope the CO can straighten things out. My only advice is to avoid a confrontational approach. Best to get the powers that be to see the positive of the geocache and address their concerns rather than getting into a legal debate about cemetery law and whether they have to allow visits. That's not going to be a pleasant path to a solution.

[+geodarts]

My only advice is to avoid a confrontational approach. Best to get the powers that be to see the positive of the geocache and address their concerns rather than getting into a legal debate about cemetery law and whether they have to allow visits. That's not going to be a pleasant path to a solution.

 

I agree about trying to avoid a legal discussion about what constitutes visiting cemeteries for the usual purposes. The minute you get into that the discussion is usually over.

 

But I read a great article about the Pioneer Association and Frances James' work to care for old and neglected cemeteries. If they gave permission, perhaps they can help resolve the issue.

Edited May 28, 2013 by geodarts

[+GeoTrekker26]

I don't want to sound all cynical and stuff, but this would make two black eyes in one day? I just put .00 on the end of the "seconds" in the coordinates as given by SFC Johnson, but I think they're pretty accurate, as they do put it on the side of the road outside of a gate: Google Map

 

Don't you just love the all the ways coordinates can be presented? If you enter them just exactly as presented by the OP (DD MM SS) you will find it points to a bush in Fugitt Cemetery.

[+MountainWoods]

 

Texas Health & Safety Code Sec. 711.041

 

ACCESS TO CEMETERY. Any person who wishes to visit a cemetery or private burial grounds for which no public ingress or egress is available shall have the right to reasonable ingress and egress for the purpose of visiting the cemetery or private burial grounds. This right of access extends only to visitation during reasonable hours.

 

 

Just as a point of information, the statute's current version in Westlaw is a bit different:

 

This right of access extends only to visitation during the hours determined by the owner or owners of the lands under Subsection B or at a reasonable time as provided by Subsection C an

d only for purposes usually associated with cemetery visits.

 

I suppose that the sergeant could consider that geocaching is not a purpose usually associated with cemetery visits.

Why not? I've done a lot of geocache hunting in cemeteries. Ain't it a purpose usually associated with cemetery visits?

[+The A-Team]

I don't want to sound all cynical and stuff, but this would make two black eyes in one day? I just put .00 on the end of the "seconds" in the coordinates as given by SFC Johnson, but I think they're pretty accurate, as they do put it on the side of the road outside of a gate: Google Map

Don't you just love the all the ways coordinates can be presented? If you enter them just exactly as presented by the OP (DD MM SS) you will find it points to a bush in Fugitt Cemetery.

Actually, if you copy-and-paste right from the OP, it points to the same spot as the link in Mr.Yuck's post. Maybe you're looking at the first set of coordinates, which is where they originally found the cache?

[+AutisticMajor]

This cemetery can be found on the Find A Grave site under Fuget Cemetery.

 

The text under the top cemetery photo includes this:

 

The cemetery is located at the base of Air Traffic control Tower. You have to stop at the gate and be escourted (sic) in by a National Guard. 1/31/2008

[Mr.Yuck]

 

Texas Health & Safety Code Sec. 711.041

 

ACCESS TO CEMETERY. Any person who wishes to visit a cemetery or private burial grounds for which no public ingress or egress is available shall have the right to reasonable ingress and egress for the purpose of visiting the cemetery or private burial grounds. This right of access extends only to visitation during reasonable hours.

 

 

Just as a point of information, the statute's current version in Westlaw is a bit different:

 

This right of access extends only to visitation during the hours determined by the owner or owners of the lands under Subsection B or at a reasonable time as provided by Subsection C an

d only for purposes usually associated with cemetery visits.

 

I suppose that the sergeant could consider that geocaching is not a purpose usually associated with cemetery visits.

Why not? I've done a lot of geocache hunting in cemeteries. Ain't it a purpose usually associated with cemetery visits?

 

Well yeah. But keep in mind very few of them actually have permission to be there. It's one of our dirty little secrets, you know.

[+MountainWoods]

Oh well, I doubt that the residents pay a mind.

Edited May 28, 2013 by MountainWoods

[+geodarts]

Oh well, I doubt that the residents pay a mind.

 

I tend to think that they like the visit. No one has chased me out yet. Although no one has answered me when I asked how they were doing. Still, there can be some strange lines drawn about what constitutes a purpose usually associated with a cemetery visit:

 

"The purposes usually associated with cemetery visits include preserving the graves and markers, paying respects to the persons buried in the cemetery, meditating and praying, resetting headstones on graves, and conducting maintenance by mowing weeds and grass and removing vegetation; however, placing a border around the graves was not a purpose usually associated with cemetery visits." Davis v. May (Tex. App. 2003) 135 S.W.3d 747, 748.

 

Go figure.

[+MartyBartfast]

Well I guess those responsible for the cemetary have a right to deny caches there, and at least Sgt. Johnson made a significant effort to relocate the cache, seek us out, and let us know where he put it, so thanks for that.

 

I did find this comment in one of the last finders logs rather poignant:-

 

This is one of the saddest places I've been. Even the historical marker is gone. Made our way back to GZ, which is well guarded by thorns, and signed the log. Thank you for bringing us here. Hopefully your cache means these souls will not be forgotten.

 

It seems there will now be a few less people around now to remember those who are buried there

[Mr.Yuck]

Oh well, I doubt that the residents pay a mind.

 

No, they surely don't! I don't have a good feeling about saying "very few" cemetery caches have permission. I do feel very confident in saying "most do not" though, as in over 50% of them in the USA and Canada. It's probably more like 90%, but I'm covered at 51%.

 

Well I guess those responsible for the cemetary have a right to deny caches there, and at least Sgt. Johnson made a significant effort to relocate the cache, seek us out, and let us know where he put it, so thanks for that.

 

I did find this comment in one of the last finders logs rather poignant:-

 

This is one of the saddest places I've been. Even the historical marker is gone. Made our way back to GZ, which is well guarded by thorns, and signed the log. Thank you for bringing us here. Hopefully your cache means these souls will not be forgotten.

 

It seems there will now be a few less people around now to remember those who are buried there

 

I thought I saw a few logs like that, inferring that Geocachers are the only ones visiting. From the pictures I've seen posted to the cache page, the National Guard should really be doing a better job of caring for that cemetery. As mentioned by myself and Jasta11 yesterday, there are many pioneer cemeteries on land that eventually became U.S. military installations.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Mr.Yuck

[4wheelin_fool]

Sargent Johnson seems to be confused on the laws in the state of Texas.

 

Texas Health & Safety Code Sec. 711.041

 

ACCESS TO CEMETERY. Any person who wishes to visit a cemetery or private burial grounds for which no public ingress or egress is available shall have the right to reasonable ingress and egress for the purpose of visiting the cemetery or private burial grounds. This right of access extends only to visitation during reasonable hours.

 

The owner or owners of the lands surrounding the cemetery or private burial grounds may designate the routes of reasonable ingress and egress.

 

Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 634, § 22, eff. Sept. 1, 1993.

 

But just to be sure, I have received permission from the Dallas County Pioneer Association which is in charge of cemeteries that are not maintained by private companies or private associations.

 

Also, our reviewer was first to find back on April 11, 2009 and obviously saw nothing wrong with it.

 

So you obtained permission from the Dallas County Pioneer Association, but didn't ask anyone at the base?

 

I'm certain that the base commander rules about civilians entering the base has priority over a county association, and state statues. Did you tell the county association that the purpose was for geocaching?

Edited May 29, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[7rxc]

My only advice is to avoid a confrontational approach. Best to get the powers that be to see the positive of the geocache and address their concerns rather than getting into a legal debate about cemetery law and whether they have to allow visits. That's not going to be a pleasant path to a solution.

 

I agree about trying to avoid a legal discussion about what constitutes visiting cemeteries for the usual purposes. The minute you get into that the discussion is usually over.

 

But I read a great article about the Pioneer Association and Frances James' work to care for old and neglected cemeteries. If they gave permission, perhaps they can help resolve the issue.

 

Regardless of the outcome for this cache in question, it seems to me that the Pioneer Association might be a good recipient of some CITO time in general. There must be other sites and properties that they control that have caches (or not). Clean up and maintenance works, not to mention periodic inspection services would fit right in to CITO.

 

On the other hand I'm not down there, but would support a similar tasking in this area if asked.

 

In the example situation, there could be many ways to work around th OPs concerns... but it is up to the locals to do that... one would be to open the cemetery during specific times.. and I don't mean every day. But at times when people are there to supervise visitors without being an interuption to what ever else is going on.

 

The container could still be relocated away if needed. Heck, it might be possible to move the gate/fence too!

 

Just some thinking.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+Don_J]

Sounds like the dearly departed are going to be even more lonely now than they have in the past. The cache description makes the place sound sad enough as it is. Some of the log pictures make it clear maintenance has stopped and the cemetery's been completely abandoned since that historical mark, now destroyed, was put up. And now as the final nail in the coffin -- if you'll excuse the expression -- outsiders are no longer even allowed the visit. I suppose this happens to cemetery's all the time, but it's unfortunate that it had to happen to this one that actually is visited from time to time.

 

I sure hope the CO can straighten things out. My only advice is to avoid a confrontational approach. Best to get the powers that be to see the positive of the geocache and address their concerns rather than getting into a legal debate about cemetery law and whether they have to allow visits. That's not going to be a pleasant path to a solution.

 

I wonder if the good Sergent would soften his stance if the CO offered to hold a CITO event and clean the place up?

[+Don_J]

 

Texas Health & Safety Code Sec. 711.041

 

ACCESS TO CEMETERY. Any person who wishes to visit a cemetery or private burial grounds for which no public ingress or egress is available shall have the right to reasonable ingress and egress for the purpose of visiting the cemetery or private burial grounds. This right of access extends only to visitation during reasonable hours.

 

 

Just as a point of information, the statute's current version in Westlaw is a bit different:

 

This right of access extends only to visitation during the hours determined by the owner or owners of the lands under Subsection B or at a reasonable time as provided by Subsection C an

d only for purposes usually associated with cemetery visits.

 

I suppose that the sergeant could consider that geocaching is not a purpose usually associated with cemetery visits.

 

I remember a discussion here a few years ago about a small Texas Historical Society that had gone on the war path about cachers in their cemeteries. They even had the Sheriff saying that he would arrest us as trespassers. Supposedly, they were going to the State Capital to get the laws changed. Those very well may be the changes.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Don_J

[+Manville Possum]

Tennessee cemetery Laws:

46-2-105. Crimes and offenses

(a) No person shall willfully destroy, deface, or injure any monument, tomb, gravestone, or other structure placed in the cemetery, or any roadway, walk, fence or enclosure in or around the same, or injure any tree, plant or shrub therein, or hunt or shoot therein, play at any game or amusement therein, or loiter for lascivious or lewd purposes therein, or interfere, by words or actions, with any funeral procession or any religious exercises.

( A violation of this section is a Class E felony.

 

I have found several geocaches and a few benchmarks in cemeteries in Tennessee, I even have a BM listed in one in Bristol. The old geocaches are "grandfathered" and no new placements are allowed, but that still don't make them legal.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

Texas Health & Safety Code Sec. 711.041

 

ACCESS TO CEMETERY. Any person who wishes to visit a cemetery or private burial grounds for which no public ingress or egress is available shall have the right to reasonable ingress and egress for the purpose of visiting the cemetery or private burial grounds. This right of access extends only to visitation during reasonable hours.

 

 

Just as a point of information, the statute's current version in Westlaw is a bit different:

 

This right of access extends only to visitation during the hours determined by the owner or owners of the lands under Subsection B or at a reasonable time as provided by Subsection C an

d only for purposes usually associated with cemetery visits.

 

I suppose that the sergeant could consider that geocaching is not a purpose usually associated with cemetery visits.

 

I remember a discussion here a few years ago about a small Texas Historical Society that had gone on the war path about cachers in their cemeteries. They even had the Sheriff saying that he would arrest us as trespassers. Supposedly, they were going to the State Capital to get the laws changed. Those very well may be the changes.

 

 

He never disabled the listing, nor wrote any indication that it has been returned to ground zero.

 

Nor has he addressed the sergeant's concerns, or has made it clear that the base has given permission. A state law was cited which is not written or intended for this purpose. He also has not made it clear whether the Texas Historical Society has made a distinction between visiting or geocaching. South Carolina has written a law specifically making cemetery caching illegal because of situations like this. When someone raises a concern and it is ignored, it often goes another route..

Defiantly going on to a base to play a game where someone might find it disrespectful, even after the geocache has been removed, and under false pretenses is asking for trouble.

[+geodarts]

He never disabled the listing, nor wrote any indication that it has been returned to ground zero.

 

Nor has he addressed the sergeant's concerns, or has made it clear that the base has given permission. A state law was cited which is not written or intended for this purpose. He also has not made it clear whether the Texas Historical Society has made a distinction between visiting or geocaching.

 

I share some of these concerns. The statute that is quoted omits the language (going back at least to 1993) that cemetery access is "only for purposes usually associated with cemetery visits." Although I think that getting permission from the Dallas County Pioneer Association was a good idea, since they are particularly active in maintaining older cemeteries that have no other caretaker, the article I cited above also implies their authority is limited: "You can't call the city of Dallas and say, 'Who's in charge of cemeteries' because there isn't such a thing." So ultimately the CO is left with trying to work it out with the base to allow access for the purposes of geocaching. I hope he can do that -- either as the original traditional or an offset multi with the container off the base. It sounds like a spot I would like to visit as part of this game should I ever find myself in that area.

 

But until then, it should be disabled.

Edited June 3, 2013 by geodarts

[+Don_J]

 

Texas Health & Safety Code Sec. 711.041

 

ACCESS TO CEMETERY. Any person who wishes to visit a cemetery or private burial grounds for which no public ingress or egress is available shall have the right to reasonable ingress and egress for the purpose of visiting the cemetery or private burial grounds. This right of access extends only to visitation during reasonable hours.

 

 

Just as a point of information, the statute's current version in Westlaw is a bit different:

 

This right of access extends only to visitation during the hours determined by the owner or owners of the lands under Subsection B or at a reasonable time as provided by Subsection C an

d only for purposes usually associated with cemetery visits.

 

I suppose that the sergeant could consider that geocaching is not a purpose usually associated with cemetery visits.

 

I remember a discussion here a few years ago about a small Texas Historical Society that had gone on the war path about cachers in their cemeteries. They even had the Sheriff saying that he would arrest us as trespassers. Supposedly, they were going to the State Capital to get the laws changed. Those very well may be the changes.

 

 

He never disabled the listing, nor wrote any indication that it has been returned to ground zero.

 

Nor has he addressed the sergeant's concerns, or has made it clear that the base has given permission. A state law was cited which is not written or intended for this purpose. He also has not made it clear whether the Texas Historical Society has made a distinction between visiting or geocaching. South Carolina has written a law specifically making cemetery caching illegal because of situations like this. When someone raises a concern and it is ignored, it often goes another route..

Defiantly going on to a base to play a game where someone might find it disrespectful, even after the geocache has been removed, and under false pretenses is asking for trouble.

 

Well, at least not publicly. Hopefully he's doing something behind the scenes. After reading his post, my thoughts were that if your only rationalization for doing something is, "because I can", or "you can't stop me", it's probably a bad idea from the start.

 

The guidelines allow for a cache to be archived if it is having a negative impact on the environment or community, even if it does not break any other guidelines or local laws. Just because you can doesn't mean that you should. My two considerations, in order, when placing a cache: what effect will it have on the area, followed by what type of experience will it offer the geocacher. The second shouldn't over-ride the first.

 

As far as entering under false pretenses. It doesn't matter if this is true or not, nor if it was implied or encouraged in the cache description. What is important is that the sergeant thinks that cachers have been entering his base under false pretenses. That issue will have to resolved before anything else can happen.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Don_J

[Mr.Yuck]

He never disabled the listing, nor wrote any indication that it has been returned to ground zero.

 

Nor has he addressed the sergeant's concerns, or has made it clear that the base has given permission. A state law was cited which is not written or intended for this purpose. He also has not made it clear whether the Texas Historical Society has made a distinction between visiting or geocaching.

 

I share some of these concerns. The statute that is quoted omits the language (going back at least to 1993) that cemetery access is "only for purposes usually associated with cemetery visits." Although I think that getting permission from the Dallas County Pioneer Association was a good idea, since they are particularly active in maintaining older cemeteries that have no other caretaker, the article I cited above also implies their authority is limited: "You can't call the city of Dallas and say, 'Who's in charge of cemeteries' because there isn't such a thing." So ultimately the CO is left with trying to work it out with the base to allow access for the purposes of geocaching. I hope he can do that -- either as the original traditional or an offset multi with the container off the base. It sounds like a spot I would like to visit as part of this game should I ever find myself in that area.

 

But until then, it should be disabled.

 

I forgot about this thread. There's a whole aura of "I got permission from this cemetery association, and there's nothing the National Guard can do about it" here. In my perception, at least. Was the Army National Guard contacted originally, and they refused permission? Is the CO apprehensive about asking the permission of the National Guard? I'm a retired Army Reserve Sergeant, I'll talk to the friggin' guy. Actually, you probably wouldn't want that, but in a more "official" manner, perhaps The Military Association of Geocachers could. And the whole "hold a CITO event" idea is great too.

[+geodarts]

Just as one piece of added information that I hope will help the CO should he be reading this thread, the Texas Administrative Code (Funeral Service Commission) developed rules that interpret the quoted statute. Although I think that the full text of the statute is clear, the state confirms my reading of it and applies the right of access only to "a visit by any person or group of persons for the purpose of interring a person or persons in a cemetery or private burial grounds or for the purpose of paying respect to a person or persons interred in a cemetery or private burial grounds." (22 Tex. Admin. Code § 205.2.)

 

Again, I only bring this up because a discussion about Texas law may not be the best place to begin in seeking to resolve the matter with the base. I would start along the lines of how the cache is not meant to lessen any respect to the people buried here and that you have the permission of the Pioneeer Association. Bringing people to otherwise forgotten cemeteries is an important way of preserving the history and the stories of the area -- I think that is why a historical marker was once placed here and the Association (through Frances James) has spent so much time on these areas. Sadly, this cemetery seems particularly forgotten, which might be one reason for arranging for a CITO/clean up day with the base and the Association. Perhaps even a collection to replace the historical marker could be organized.

 

The burden upon the base is minimal (50 visits in four years). Some of their concerns might be alleviated if the cache description was changed to make clear when access is permitted. The Administrative Code section cited above states that 8-5 is a reasonable access period, although that should be worked out and negotiated with the owner of the surrounding property. But the starting point would be to ask how their concerns might be satisfied.

 

I think it is great that you wanted to bring people there and hope you will pursue the matter with the base.

Edited June 3, 2013 by geodarts

[AZcachemeister]

Perhaps the base is embarrassed by the condition they have allowed the cemetery to degrade to, and don't want anyone to see how disrespectful THEY are.

[+wmpastor]

 

Texas Health & Safety Code Sec. 711.041

 

ACCESS TO CEMETERY. Any person who wishes to visit a cemetery or private burial grounds for which no public ingress or egress is available shall have the right to reasonable ingress and egress for the purpose of visiting the cemetery or private burial grounds. This right of access extends only to visitation during reasonable hours.

 

 

Just as a point of information, the statute's current version in Westlaw is a bit different:

 

This right of access extends only to visitation during the hours determined by the owner or owners of the lands under Subsection B or at a reasonable time as provided by Subsection C an

d only for purposes usually associated with cemetery visits.

 

I suppose that the sergeant could consider that geocaching is not a purpose usually associated with cemetery visits.

Aw, c'mon! I visit cemeteries more for caching than any other purpose - ask anyone in the forum, and they'll tell you that geocaching is a "purpose usually associated with cemetery visits!" Playing horseshoes or having a picnic - that's another story.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

Texas Health & Safety Code Sec. 711.041

 

ACCESS TO CEMETERY. Any person who wishes to visit a cemetery or private burial grounds for which no public ingress or egress is available shall have the right to reasonable ingress and egress for the purpose of visiting the cemetery or private burial grounds. This right of access extends only to visitation during reasonable hours.

 

 

Just as a point of information, the statute's current version in Westlaw is a bit different:

 

This right of access extends only to visitation during the hours determined by the owner or owners of the lands under Subsection B or at a reasonable time as provided by Subsection C an

d only for purposes usually associated with cemetery visits.

 

I suppose that the sergeant could consider that geocaching is not a purpose usually associated with cemetery visits.

Aw, c'mon! I visit cemeteries more for caching than any other purpose - ask anyone in the forum, and they'll tell you that geocaching is a "purpose usually associated with cemetery visits!" Playing horseshoes or having a picnic - that's another story.

 

I don't have experience with visiting cemeteries all over the U.S. or anything, but I found it unusual that a very nice Cemetery in suburban Scranton, Pa. was used extensively by walkers and runners, and they even had a water/gatorade vending machine inside by the entrance! You wouldn't see something like that where I come from.

 

There is no doubt the Texas Army National Guard should be ashamed by the the state of this cemetery, and that could very well be part of the CO's apparent attitude. I guess we won't know unless he comes back. I can actually see this disrepair happening at a State National Guard facility, as opposed to a federal installation. Not that that is any excuse.

[+SwineFlew]

 

Texas Health & Safety Code Sec. 711.041

 

ACCESS TO CEMETERY. Any person who wishes to visit a cemetery or private burial grounds for which no public ingress or egress is available shall have the right to reasonable ingress and egress for the purpose of visiting the cemetery or private burial grounds. This right of access extends only to visitation during reasonable hours.

 

 

Just as a point of information, the statute's current version in Westlaw is a bit different:

 

This right of access extends only to visitation during the hours determined by the owner or owners of the lands under Subsection B or at a reasonable time as provided by Subsection C an

d only for purposes usually associated with cemetery visits.

 

I suppose that the sergeant could consider that geocaching is not a purpose usually associated with cemetery visits.

Aw, c'mon! I visit cemeteries more for caching than any other purpose - ask anyone in the forum, and they'll tell you that geocaching is a "purpose usually associated with cemetery visits!" Playing horseshoes or having a picnic - that's another story.

 

I don't have experience with visiting cemeteries all over the U.S. or anything, but I found it unusual that a very nice Cemetery in suburban Scranton, Pa. was used extensively by walkers and runners, and they even had a water/gatorade vending machine inside by the entrance! You wouldn't see something like that where I come from.

 

There is no doubt the Texas Army National Guard should be ashamed by the the state of this cemetery, and that could very well be part of the CO's apparent attitude. I guess we won't know unless he comes back. I can actually see this disrepair happening at a State National Guard facility, as opposed to a federal installation. Not that that is any excuse.

Since we all know what the state of this cemetery, time to get the local news media involve. Time to stir the pot.

Edited June 4, 2013 by SwineFlew

[4wheelin_fool]

I posted a note on the cache asking if it was returned to its spot, and whether there was permission obtained and received no answer, as well as it being deleted a month later. The owner has only indicated that it is legal to visit by referring to an outdated version of the law. It appears that the current version indicates that visiting rights does not pertain to geocaching. This is the same attitude which caused South Carolina to create a law to ban geocaching in cemeteries. I would hate to see a stubborn CO have a cache that causes more problems, but this appears to be heading in that direction...

[JASTA 11]

 

Time to Archive?

[+geodarts]

I usually don't bump old threads, but since I just received a log deletion notice today, perhaps an update is timely. I took an interest in this thread last year, in part because of the law regarding cemetery access. At the time I thought that cachers should be aware that the container had reportedly been moved and that security did not want cachers coming to the cemetery. So I did something else I normally do not do and posted this note that responded to some statements on the page:

 

Please note that the law quoted here is not the full version of section 711.041, which provides that access is limited "only for purposes usually associated with cemetery visits." This law has been interpreted rather narrowly. A forum thread [linked] discusses the issue.

 

It also appears as if the cache may no longer be at the cemetery. A base sergeant wrote: "A geocache located at 32 44’07” N 96 58’29” W has been moved. This cache is on a secure military installation and several people have been falsely gaining access to the installation to find this cache. This cache was located in Fuget Cemetery on the old Dallas Naval Air Station. Only family members are allowed into this area and many people have been falsely telling security they are visiting the graves of family when they were actually looking for a small green box. This cache has now been moved to 32 43’44”N 96 58’56”w. If someone on this forum could update this location on the app the box can still be played. Nobody will be allowed into the cemetery to look for this cache."

 

I hope that access can be worked out, but until then the cache should be disabled because it does not appear to be at the posted coordinates.

 

The log deletion notice made me curious because it has been over a year. No one has found the cache during that time and there is no indication that maintenance was done, the cache checked, and that things have been worked out with base security. It is possible that by now the base has relaxed a bit and cachers might be able to gain access, but I wonder what they will find. I hope it will be a cache and that this could serve as a reminder that problems with security can be resolved. But it also could be that the log was simply deleted.

[+The A-Team]

...

The log deletion notice made me curious because it has been over a year. No one has found the cache during that time and there is no indication that maintenance was done, the cache checked, and that things have been worked out with base security. It is possible that by now the base has relaxed a bit and cachers might be able to gain access, but I wonder what they will find. I hope it will be a cache and that this could serve as a reminder that problems with security can be resolved. But it also could be that the log was simply deleted.

If I was faced with this situation, I'd send a message to Zeke's Uncle to find out what's going on. If they don't respond, or if they do respond but give some kind of admission of non-maintenance or just tell me to stuff it, I'd file a Needs Archive. From the looks of it from here this cache still has major problems, and if the owner isn't going to deal with them, the cache needs to go away.

[+wmpastor]

I have to say, and I'm really not piling on, but the cache page encourages deception to gain access to the cemetery.

you really encourage deception at the gate on the cache page.

Possibly the cache page was rewritten after this post, but I don't see anything deceptive about:

You MUST sign in with the guard with your driver's license. Just tell them that you are going to the cemetery and they will let you in.

 

Well I did state that deception was only my opinion.

 

"tell them that you are going to the cemetery" conveniently leaving out of course that you're going there to find a little green box for a goofy internet game, is the deception. IMO, as I say.

A variation of "don't ask, don't tell"?!

[+wmpastor]

 

Texas Health & Safety Code Sec. 711.041

 

ACCESS TO CEMETERY. Any person who wishes to visit a cemetery or private burial grounds for which no public ingress or egress is available shall have the right to reasonable ingress and egress for the purpose of visiting the cemetery or private burial grounds. This right of access extends only to visitation during reasonable hours.

 

 

Just as a point of information, the statute's current version in Westlaw is a bit different:

 

This right of access extends only to visitation during the hours determined by the owner or owners of the lands under Subsection B or at a reasonable time as provided by Subsection C an

d only for purposes usually associated with cemetery visits.

 

I suppose that the sergeant could consider that geocaching is not a purpose usually associated with cemetery visits.

Aw, c'mon! I visit cemeteries more for caching than any other purpose - ask anyone in the forum, and they'll tell you that geocaching is a "purpose usually associated with cemetery visits!" Playing horseshoes or having a picnic - that's another story.

Me too. We have our proof. Case closed!

[Mr.Yuck]

I have to say, and I'm really not piling on, but the cache page encourages deception to gain access to the cemetery.

you really encourage deception at the gate on the cache page.

Possibly the cache page was rewritten after this post, but I don't see anything deceptive about:

You MUST sign in with the guard with your driver's license. Just tell them that you are going to the cemetery and they will let you in.

 

Well I did state that deception was only my opinion.

 

"tell them that you are going to the cemetery" conveniently leaving out of course that you're going there to find a little green box for a goofy internet game, is the deception. IMO, as I say.

A variation of "don't ask, don't tell"?!

 

Don't ask, don't tell, is long gone. That was a compromise the Clinton Administration made with Congress, and lasted into the Bush Administration. Strange random log deletion here. This cache hasn't been found in almost a year and a half!! Last posted log April 2013. I would suspect like no locals are even trying to access this cache anymore, and have long since given up trying.

[4wheelin_fool]

I usually don't bump old threads, but since I just received a log deletion notice today, perhaps an update is timely. I took an interest in this thread last year, in part because of the law regarding cemetery access. At the time I thought that cachers should be aware that the container had reportedly been moved and that security did not want cachers coming to the cemetery. So I did something else I normally do not do and posted this note that responded to some statements on the page:

 

Please note that the law quoted here is not the full version of section 711.041, which provides that access is limited "only for purposes usually associated with cemetery visits." This law has been interpreted rather narrowly. A forum thread [linked] discusses the issue.

 

It also appears as if the cache may no longer be at the cemetery. A base sergeant wrote: "A geocache located at 32 44’07” N 96 58’29” W has been moved. This cache is on a secure military installation and several people have been falsely gaining access to the installation to find this cache. This cache was located in Fuget Cemetery on the old Dallas Naval Air Station. Only family members are allowed into this area and many people have been falsely telling security they are visiting the graves of family when they were actually looking for a small green box. This cache has now been moved to 32 43’44”N 96 58’56”w. If someone on this forum could update this location on the app the box can still be played. Nobody will be allowed into the cemetery to look for this cache."

 

I hope that access can be worked out, but until then the cache should be disabled because it does not appear to be at the posted coordinates.

 

The log deletion notice made me curious because it has been over a year. No one has found the cache during that time and there is no indication that maintenance was done, the cache checked, and that things have been worked out with base security. It is possible that by now the base has relaxed a bit and cachers might be able to gain access, but I wonder what they will find. I hope it will be a cache and that this could serve as a reminder that problems with security can be resolved. But it also could be that the log was simply deleted.

 

I received a log deletion notice today also on the same cache. Strangely it did not contain any content, or any link to the cache, just the profile of Zekes Uncle. I don't recall exactly what I wrote, but it appears the CO is not going to post any owner maintenance notes or explanation of anything, whether it has been replaced or if there is any type of permission for anyone to be there. The cemetery has special permission for family access, not for the general public. I don't think anyone on the base is going to be very happy to find out that there are game players intentionally misleading the guard for base access to play a game.

[+fishgeek]

I have to say, and I'm really not piling on, but the cache page encourages deception to gain access to the cemetery.

you really encourage deception at the gate on the cache page.

Possibly the cache page was rewritten after this post, but I don't see anything deceptive about:

You MUST sign in with the guard with your driver's license. Just tell them that you are going to the cemetery and they will let you in.

 

Well I did state that deception was only my opinion.

 

"tell them that you are going to the cemetery" conveniently leaving out of course that you're going there to find a little green box for a goofy internet game, is the deception. IMO, as I say.

A variation of "don't ask, don't tell"?!

 

You don't have to tell them the truth, but you better not lie to them.