Jump to content

Can anyone HELP?


Recommended Posts

I would like to get some input from the community on an issue.....

 

I found a 200+ acre property that I would like to put some caches on. It houses a wildlife viewing area. The owner has given permission for several caches to be placed on a perimeter road that runs around the viewing area.

This is private property, but let me explain....

 

There is a big entrance gate, but it is never closed. There is no entry fee....you drive in, make the circle to get the caches, and leave. There is no kiosk to check into, no one to speak to, no contact has to be made with any of the employees.

 

If you want to, you can pay to go into the viewing area, rent a golf cart, and interact with the animals. There are no caches in this part because of the ban on commercial-type caches. There is a restaurant, cabins, and a campground, but again, the caches are not near those areas.

 

The owner has assured me that cachers are welcome to drive in, make the circle to get the caches, and leave. No interactions with employees, no money spent anywhere.

 

In fact, the 'business' parts of this property....the restaurant, the interior of the viewing area, the cabins and campground are taxed as such by the local county tax assessors office. The rest of the property, the part with the caches, is considered the owner's homestead and is taxed at a different rate.

Our reviewer denied my caches, saying that they were on private property. When I explained the difference between the business/homestead properties, he would not answer me.

 

I don't know about you guys, but I sure have done a lot of caches on private property with permission from the owner.

 

So I sent in an appeal to Groundspeak, and their answer was that upon further investigation, they found out that upon entering the property, it would be necessary to interact with employees to get in. Huh? I don't know where they got that information, but it is not true.....there is no one to interact with anywhere along the way.

 

They also said there are other security gates that are not accessible by cachers. Huh, again? There are no security gates....just barbed wire across a couple of dirt roads that lead to other properties.

 

I don't know where in the world they got this erroneous information, but it is absolutely not true. I responded to their email, but they have not answered me yet.

 

I am floored that they would think I'm lying about this without giving me a chance to prove that I'm telling the truth. Should I make a video that shows the drive onto the property, the road where the caches are, and the exit with no interaction with anyone? I could have the owner submit a notarized letter saying that no interaction with employees is necessary?

I have no idea how to proceed.....does anyone have a similar experience?

What to do? Thanx, everyone

Link to comment

Is there a back-story? Have there been caches here before (that were a problem)?

 

It's odd though - I know the OP has stated no cost, no interaction with any business or employees for these particular caches - but I have always wondered what the purpose of the $ attribute really is. I've found caches with that attribute (and had to pay to enter various commercially operated areas, tourist attractions, beaches, etc) and I've placed one or two with that attribute. These did require me to interact with a business and hand over cash. They got published. My one was held back for a while but because of other issues that eventually got resolved.

Link to comment

No back story at all......no caches here ever before.......the only thing I can think of is maybe there is an ego problem with the reviewer who doesn't want to admit that maybe he rushed his judgment and maybe made a mistake.......but I surely thought that Groundspeak would try to get to the truth of the whole thing.......cause I could certainly prove it if I was given a chance........

what else could it possibly be?

Link to comment

First, let me say that you should be patient with your reviewer. They work hard, and I guarantee there's no personal agenda (despite what a few folks my rant about).

 

Silly question, but it has to be asked. Did you give GS all the information you gave us as far as the difference between the pay area and the non-pay area? When did you receive the email from GS? When did you respond? I've had minimal contact with GS directly, but the contact I had took about a week for a reply. They're busy too.

 

Providing the contact information for the land owner (if he/she is okay with it) is probably a good idea. They can give GS more information in the instance that they ask for it.

 

Unfortunately, if HQ denies your placement, there's not another route to take. They have the final say. You might just have to find another place to put your caches. At least you're going about it the right way and getting permission from the land owner, I hope the reviewer keeps that in the back of their mind the next time you place a cache. Too many people don't do this the right way, and it reflects poorly on the rest of us.

Link to comment

I told them to refer to a specific cache that the reviewer and I had communicated on.......all the info was there that I've included here. They said upon further investigation, they learned that interaction with employees was necessary after driving into the gate and that additional security gates were locked.

 

I'm stumped as to how they 'learned' that, since neither statement is true. I would feel so much better if they would tell me to send a video.....or pictures or a statement from the landowner or....something. That I am at least able to answer the allegations that tend to reflect badly on me......that I have lied to them or tried to 'put one over' on the reviewer or them. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

 

It hasn't been a week since I replied to them, so I am still hopeful....but I haven't heard anything....not even....we got your reply, we'll get back to you....maybe I am hoping that one of the 'powers that be' will get wind of this thread and decide to give me a chance to prove that I'm telling the truth.......

Link to comment

Just curious-what do you expect to happen here, on the forums as a result of this discussion?

 

I'll bet there is a back story here somewhere, there usually is. There are no caches there now, but that doesn't mean there weren't any in the past. Someone may have reported the caches as being on private property, and the may have been archived. Archived caches would not show up in any searches.

 

Are the co-ords correct? They may be looking a nearby property for example.

 

But if in any case the don't get published, then there's nothing you can do. Groundspeak is a company that makes their own rules and decisions, they don't need, our opinions on if they should allow these caches or not. Honestly they might not even care, because the may have made that choice based on info that we don't have...

Link to comment

Just curious-what do you expect to happen here, on the forums as a result of this discussion?

 

I'll bet there is a back story here somewhere, there usually is. There are no caches there now, but that doesn't mean there weren't any in the past. Someone may have reported the caches as being on private property, and the may have been archived. Archived caches would not show up in any searches.

 

Are the co-ords correct? They may be looking a nearby property for example.

 

But if in any case the don't get published, then there's nothing you can do. Groundspeak is a company that makes their own rules and decisions, they don't need, our opinions on if they should allow these caches or not. Honestly they might not even care, because the may have made that choice based on info that we don't have...

Link to comment

Just curious-what do you expect to happen here, on the forums as a result of this discussion?

 

I'll bet there is a back story here somewhere, there usually is. There are no caches there now, but that doesn't mean there weren't any in the past. Someone may have reported the caches as being on private property, and the may have been archived. Archived caches would not show up in any searches.

 

Are the co-ords correct? They may be looking a nearby property for example.

 

But if in any case the don't get published, then there's nothing you can do. Groundspeak is a company that makes their own rules and decisions, they don't need, our opinions on if they should allow these caches or not. Honestly they might not even care, because the may have made that choice based on info that we don't have...

Link to comment

Just curious-what do you expect to happen here, on the forums as a result of this discussion?

 

I'll bet there is a back story here somewhere, there usually is. There are no caches there now, but that doesn't mean there weren't any in the past. Someone may have reported the caches as being on private property, and the may have been archived. Archived caches would not show up in any searches.

 

Are the co-ords correct? They may be looking a nearby property for example.

 

But if in any case the don't get published, then there's nothing you can do. Groundspeak is a company that makes their own rules and decisions, they don't need, our opinions on if they should allow these caches or not. Honestly they might not even care, because the may have made that choice based on info that we don't have...

Link to comment

I don't know if I'm expecting anything to happen.........I'm HOPING one of the Poobahs will hear about it and decide to give me a chance to let me prove that I'm telling the truth.

Or I'm hoping that someone else has had a similar experience and can tell me.......if you do XYZ, they may give you a chance to answer.

There have never been any caches in there........I've been living in this area since Geocaching started and this is virgin territory...

and yes, the coords are correct.

Edited by cybercat
Link to comment

Just curious-what do you expect to happen here, on the forums as a result of this discussion?

 

I'll bet there is a back story here somewhere, there usually is. There are no caches there now, but that doesn't mean there weren't any in the past. Someone may have reported the caches as being on private property, and the may have been archived. Archived caches would not show up in any searches.

 

Are the co-ords correct? They may be looking a nearby property for example.

 

But if in any case the don't get published, then there's nothing you can do. Groundspeak is a company that makes their own rules and decisions, they don't need, our opinions on if they should allow these caches or not. Honestly they might not even care, because the may have made that choice based on info that we don't have...

 

What's up with the empty quotes?

Link to comment

No back story at all......no caches here ever before.......the only thing I can think of is maybe there is an ego problem with the reviewer who doesn't want to admit that maybe he rushed his judgment and maybe made a mistake.......but I surely thought that Groundspeak would try to get to the truth of the whole thing.......cause I could certainly prove it if I was given a chance........

what else could it possibly be?

Posts like this one make me lose all motivation to assist a cache owner with questions.

 

The OP is advised to focus more on direct, accurate quotations rather than personal characterizations. Here's an example of a direct quotation from your reviewer:

 

The issue is not related to a fee, but to the fact this this is a commercial business. This is not like a cache in a Walmart parking lot. They don't sell things in the parking lot. But with a resort, the land IS the business, and if you're on their land, you're inside their business. We wouldn't allow a cache in a resort anymore than we would allow one inside a KOA campground, irrespective of any fees.

 

I'm staring at a Google Street View picture of the (closed) front gate to the resort, and the fence around the entire resort property. Going in that gate is like going inside the Walmart, no?

Link to comment

The OP is advised to focus more on direct, accurate quotations rather than personal characterizations. Here's an example of a direct quotation from your reviewer:

 

The issue is not related to a fee, but to the fact this this is a commercial business. This is not like a cache in a Walmart parking lot. They don't sell things in the parking lot. But with a resort, the land IS the business, and if you're on their land, you're inside their business. We wouldn't allow a cache in a resort anymore than we would allow one inside a KOA campground, irrespective of any fees.

 

I'm staring at a Google Street View picture of the (closed) front gate to the resort, and the fence around the entire resort property. Going in that gate is like going inside the Walmart, no?

Interesting. I started to think about how many times I've found caches (or attempted to find caches) located in resorts. I lost count. One, in Jamaica, actually requires a cacher to be a paying customer, or talk (lie) their way onto the secure property, or outright trespass. I failed to get that one as I tried to talk, honestly, my way in. Another in Jamaica required payment for entry. If what the OP is saying is true then this seems far more harmless than the ones I've seen. If that's the case, and all permission has been obtained, why not err on the side of allowing the caches and if people start posting that they are being harrassed and asked to pay, then shut it down?

Link to comment

What were the publication dates for the caches in Jamaica? (That is, were they published pursuant to the current interpretation of the commercial caches guideline?) As was pointed out by the OP's reviewer:

 

A cache published 9 years ago has no relevance to today's Guidelines. Please note the following:

 

"Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache. If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the geocache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated, the geocache is likely to be grandfathered and allowed to stand as is."

 

Edit to add: even if the caches were more recent, there would need to be evidence on the cache listing about needing to enter the commercial property - it is hard for the reviewer to catch this 100% of the time, especially in an area without Google Street View.

Edited by Keystone
Link to comment

What were the publication dates for the caches in Jamaica? (That is, were they published pursuant to the current interpretation of the commercial caches guideline?) As was pointed out by the OP's reviewer:

 

A cache published 9 years ago has no relevance to today's Guidelines. Please note the following:

 

"Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache. If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the geocache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated, the geocache is likely to be grandfathered and allowed to stand as is."

The caches in Jamaica may well fall before the "current interpretation" of the commercial guideline, but I've definitely seen caches published far more recently, all over the world. I've seen more than one that actually *requires* trespass on a resort, and I guess I figured that was never allowed. I'm not about to point any of them out specifically as I'm not the geo-police and have no intention of causing trouble for their respective owners. I'm well aware of the "no precedent" rule - I was merely expressing my opinion.

Link to comment

The land is NOT the business..........the businesses are separately taxed parcels by the Kendall county tax assessor. No cacher is going to set foot on any of the business properties here..........they are on the owner's homestead property at his invitation.

Josh told me that the gate is always open.......he told me it always should be and he gave me the gate code in case it was shut. If it is shut, maybe a delivery person closed it by mistake.....I would post the gate code on the cache page if the owner said it was ok because it is his intention for it to be open all the time.

Edited by cybercat
Link to comment

Edit to add: even if the caches were more recent, there would need to be evidence on the cache listing about needing to enter the commercial property - it is hard for the reviewer to catch this 100% of the time, especially in an area without Google Street View.

I know it wasn't your intent, but this just suggests the OP might have been too open and honest for his own good. It would be a shame to discourage honesty.

Link to comment

There is a big entrance gate, but it is never closed. [snip]

 

They also said there are other security gates that are not accessible by cachers. Huh, again? There are no security gates....just barbed wire across a couple of dirt roads that lead to other properties.

 

The land is NOT the business..........the businesses are separately taxed parcels by the Kendall county tax assessor. No cacher is going to set foot on any of the business properties here..........they are on the owner's homestead property at his invitation.

Josh told me that the gate is always open.......he told me it always should be and he gave me the gate code in case it was shut. If it is shut, maybe a delivery person closed it by mistake.....I would post the gate code on the cache page if the owner said it was ok because it is his intention for it to be open all the time.

Uh huh.

 

ba0b02aa-72a8-491f-bfb1-a3da794c1b81.jpg?rnd=0.2395699

Link to comment

The property owner said the gate was never supposed to be closed. Why it's closed in this picture, I don't know..........I'll go and ask him and let you know his answer tomorrow

 

It's to keep the macaws and wandering lemurs from escaping. Once you pass thru the carved wooden gates you begin to sense what it is all about. Enormous trees that provide the shade by day are transformed at night into thousands of twinkling lights that create an ambiance that is indescribable. Fire bowls, blazing torches and gentle breezes mark the evenings as the animal noises across the plains come alive. The serene pastoral environment signature is a cascading waterfall and rock lined creek. Macaws, lemurs and a wandering baby animal or two can even be seen gracing the presence of the courtyard. Lush furniture and tables invite guests to linger and enjoy all that the resort has to offer, as well as tasteful geocaches gently sprinkled throughout the landscape. We never rush you to leave so you can enjoy all that nature has provided.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

I spent more than a year trying to get a cache published within a unique facility owned by a friend of mine, to no avail.

 

Normally admission is charged but he'd waive it for anyone quoting the GC code.

 

I ended up listing it on another service (I didn't want to have to go back in there to get the container).

Edited by Keystone
Removed solicitation
Link to comment
A cache published 9 years ago has no relevance to today's Guidelines. Please note the following:

 

"Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache. If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the geocache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated, the geocache is likely to be grandfathered and allowed to stand as is."

 

Even when you report a cache that violates the guidelines, doesn't mean they will do anything about it. GC48F38 is an example, cost 20TL to enter which requires interacting with employees to get through the gates (not to mention the hordes of hawkers). The cache area is in an area not available to the general public (found this out when stopped by Security, we didn't see any signage) and still under archeological excavation.

Link to comment

Interesting. I started to think about how many times I've found caches (or attempted to find caches) located in resorts. I lost count. One, in Jamaica, actually requires a cacher to be a paying customer, or talk (lie) their way onto the secure property, or outright trespass. I failed to get that one as I tried to talk, honestly, my way in. Another in Jamaica required payment for entry. If what the OP is saying is true then this seems far more harmless than the ones I've seen. If that's the case, and all permission has been obtained, why not err on the side of allowing the caches and if people start posting that they are being harrassed and asked to pay, then shut it down? (emphasis added)

 

And this attitude is the reason why some property owners HATE the idea of geocaching. The reviewer should always error on the side of the property owners' rights.

Link to comment

Interesting. I started to think about how many times I've found caches (or attempted to find caches) located in resorts. I lost count. One, in Jamaica, actually requires a cacher to be a paying customer, or talk (lie) their way onto the secure property, or outright trespass. I failed to get that one as I tried to talk, honestly, my way in. Another in Jamaica required payment for entry. If what the OP is saying is true then this seems far more harmless than the ones I've seen. If that's the case, and all permission has been obtained, why not err on the side of allowing the caches and if people start posting that they are being harrassed and asked to pay, then shut it down? (emphasis added)

 

And this attitude is the reason why some property owners HATE the idea of geocaching. The reviewer should always error on the side of the property owners' rights.

Didn't you read it? The property owner gave permission. And in my post I even said if "all permission has been obtained" right before the bit you made bold.

Link to comment

Interesting. I started to think about how many times I've found caches (or attempted to find caches) located in resorts. I lost count. One, in Jamaica, actually requires a cacher to be a paying customer, or talk (lie) their way onto the secure property, or outright trespass. I failed to get that one as I tried to talk, honestly, my way in. Another in Jamaica required payment for entry. If what the OP is saying is true then this seems far more harmless than the ones I've seen. If that's the case, and all permission has been obtained, why not err on the side of allowing the caches and if people start posting that they are being harrassed and asked to pay, then shut it down? (emphasis added)

 

And this attitude is the reason why some property owners HATE the idea of geocaching. The reviewer should always error on the side of the property owners' rights.

Didn't you read it? The property owner gave permission. And in my post I even said if "all permission has been obtained" right before the bit you made bold.

 

Because, in this case, the information given by the CO is not ALL of the information available. As you can see from Keystone's post, there is clearly a gate that is closed and locked and there is a second gate that is closed just beyond that. Plus the fact that the description the OP gave about being able to drive around a perimeter road doesn't seem too creditable (not saying they are lying, just saying the photo evidence doesn't seem the same as what they are saying). If I was a reviewer and this came across my email, I'd probably do the same thing.

Link to comment

Interesting. I started to think about how many times I've found caches (or attempted to find caches) located in resorts. I lost count. One, in Jamaica, actually requires a cacher to be a paying customer, or talk (lie) their way onto the secure property, or outright trespass. I failed to get that one as I tried to talk, honestly, my way in. Another in Jamaica required payment for entry. If what the OP is saying is true then this seems far more harmless than the ones I've seen. If that's the case, and all permission has been obtained, why not err on the side of allowing the caches and if people start posting that they are being harrassed and asked to pay, then shut it down? (emphasis added)

 

And this attitude is the reason why some property owners HATE the idea of geocaching. The reviewer should always error on the side of the property owners' rights.

Didn't you read it? The property owner gave permission. And in my post I even said if "all permission has been obtained" right before the bit you made bold.

 

Because, in this case, the information given by the CO is not ALL of the information available. As you can see from Keystone's post, there is clearly a gate that is closed and locked and there is a second gate that is closed just beyond that. Plus the fact that the description the OP gave about being able to drive around a perimeter road doesn't seem too creditable (not saying they are lying, just saying the photo evidence doesn't seem the same as what they are saying). If I was a reviewer and this came across my email, I'd probably do the same thing.

No, you jumped on your high horse implying I had a bad (for geocaching) attitude and that reviewers should err on the side of property owners' rights. On that - the attitude part - you're just plain wrong.

 

But now that you're back pedalling, let's analyse two scenarios, to illustrate the point I was making, perhaps not as clearly as I'd have liked.

 

Scenario 1: A cache hider gets no permission from a property owner and the cache gets published. Finders have to either obtain access under false pretenses or outright trespass (one could argue the former = the latter) in order to find the cache. I think we can agree this is bad, very bad, but that this is also not the story of the OP's caches, so long as the OP could give the reviewer the property owner's details as they have suggested they would.

 

Scenario 2: A cache hider hides caches on private property with the express permission of the property owner, who is running a business on the property but promises cachers won't need to interact with the business in any way. Finders go looking for the cache but find they get bothered by the business wanting to sell them stuff - they mention this in logs, NA's, and the cache gets archived. No real harm done.

Edited by funkymunkyzone
Link to comment

No, you jumped on your high horse implying I had a bad (for geocaching) attitude and that reviewers should err on the side of property owners' rights. On that - the attitude part - you're just plain wrong.

 

But now that you're back pedalling, let's analyse two scenarios, to illustrate the point I was making, perhaps not as clearly as I'd have liked.

 

Scenario 1: A cache hider gets no permission from a property owner and the cache gets published. Finders have to either obtain access under false pretenses or outright trespass (one could argue the former = the latter) in order to find the cache. I think we can agree this is bad, very bad, but that this is also not the story of the OP's caches, so long as the OP could give the reviewer the property owner's details as they have suggested they would.

 

Scenario 2: A cache hider hides caches on private property with the express permission of the property owner, who is running a business on the property but promises cachers won't need to interact with the business in any way. Finders go looking for the cache but find they get bothered by the business wanting to sell them stuff - they mention this in logs, NA's, and the cache gets archived. No real harm done.

 

Well I'm sorry, but I don't own a horse (high or low), nor have I ever owned one. A friend of mine owns two horses and they are kind of high, but only when they are partaking in illicit drugs. And I wasn't implying you had a bad geocaching attitude, but rather that your statement was was faulty.

 

If you feel a reviewer is mistaken, just use photographs to show exactly what the area looks like and logic to defend your position.

 

What resources the reviewer and GS had available led to believe that there was a disconnect somewhere between what the CO had in their description page and what other resources were stating. So they chose to error on the side of caution.

Edited by Dr H0rrible
Link to comment

No, you jumped on your high horse implying I had a bad (for geocaching) attitude and that reviewers should err on the side of property owners' rights. On that - the attitude part - you're just plain wrong.

 

But now that you're back pedalling, let's analyse two scenarios, to illustrate the point I was making, perhaps not as clearly as I'd have liked.

 

Scenario 1: A cache hider gets no permission from a property owner and the cache gets published. Finders have to either obtain access under false pretenses or outright trespass (one could argue the former = the latter) in order to find the cache. I think we can agree this is bad, very bad, but that this is also not the story of the OP's caches, so long as the OP could give the reviewer the property owner's details as they have suggested they would.

 

Scenario 2: A cache hider hides caches on private property with the express permission of the property owner, who is running a business on the property but promises cachers won't need to interact with the business in any way. Finders go looking for the cache but find they get bothered by the business wanting to sell them stuff - they mention this in logs, NA's, and the cache gets archived. No real harm done.

 

Well I'm sorry, but I don't own a horse (high or low), nor have I ever owned one. A friend of mine owns two horses and they are kind of high, but only when they are partaking in illicit drugs. And I wasn't implying you had a bad geocaching attitude, but rather that your statement was was faulty.

 

If you feel a reviewer is mistaken, just use photographs to show exactly what the area looks like and logic to defend your position.

 

What resources the reviewer and GS had available led to believe that there was a disconnect somewhere between what the CO had in their description page and what other resources were stating. So they chose to error on the side of caution.

My statement was not faulty. I never once said that a reviewer should not err on the side of the rights of a property owner. Read it again. You seem to be trying to turn this discussion into something other than what it is. It was never about permission from a property owner.

 

"And this attitude is the reason"

Edited by funkymunkyzone
Link to comment

All the fuss hardly seems worth the effort. Seeing that picture, even if that gate was wide open I'd probably be hesitant to drive in unless I was a guest or had a resort-related reason to be in there. I don't see any signage indicating that it's open to the public 24/7 etc etc...therefore I would probably not just wander in, even for a geocache.

 

I think you ought to just move on. Perhaps place one nearby and mention some of the local attractions in the description.

Link to comment

OK, I just talked to Josh and as it turns out, the property is only open on weekends after the summer. During the summer, or on school breaks, the gate is always open. When the kiddos are in school, it is only open on the weekends. He guesses the picture was taken on one of the days that the property was not open. He said when they are open, the gate is never closed. He gave me the gate code if for some reason the gate was closed when the property is open.

The months/days that the caches are available can be posted on the cache page. So then cachers would only go looking for them on the weekends or summer, whatever the case may be.

 

There are no other gates of any type.

If you look at a birds eye view of this area you can plainly see a perimeter road that leads all around the property and the caches are nowhere near the restaurant, animals, or cabins.

Link to comment

I would be hesitant to go in here, too, except that the owner has given permission. Yes, the gates look intimidating and I think this is one of the reasons I never went in. I found out quite by accident that it is ok to go in and wander around. I was shocked to learn that this place is wide open and there is no one waiting to take your money unless you choose to go into the restaurant or rent a cabin.

Yes, I guess it seems like a lot of fuss, but Texas is so messed up as far as available land....we have no federal land and very little parkland. There is a real scarcity of quality caches because there is a scarcity of available land. Most of it is private. We are inundated with lampskirts in parking lots and a lot of it is because there are no wide open spaces to wander.

When I discovered this place I was so excited because I can envision a family bringing their kids out here, spending the day finding regular sized caches instead of film cannisters ziptied to a tree at a WalMart . You could bring a picnic lunch, wander around in nature, and let your kids run around. And the best part is, you don't have to pay a dime or encounter anyone along the way selling you stuffed animals or Tshirts.

It's what we don't have in Texas.........the ability to wander around in a park that is not crammed with people......... that makes a place like this a breath of fresh air.

Link to comment

OK, I just talked to Josh and as it turns out, the property is only open on weekends after the summer. During the summer, or on school breaks, the gate is always open. When the kiddos are in school, it is only open on the weekends. He guesses the picture was taken on one of the days that the property was not open. He said when they are open, the gate is never closed. He gave me the gate code if for some reason the gate was closed when the property is open.

The months/days that the caches are available can be posted on the cache page. So then cachers would only go looking for them on the weekends or summer, whatever the case may be.

 

There are no other gates of any type.

If you look at a birds eye view of this area you can plainly see a perimeter road that leads all around the property and the caches are nowhere near the restaurant, animals, or cabins.

 

I don't know the specific rules about this, but this statement above makes me feel that the cache shouldn't be there. Nevermind the fact that many, if not most, cachers don't read the cache page before searching, and therefor wouldn't know when it was available or not. No, I think these caches are better left unpublished.

Link to comment

yes......just note on the cache page....these caches are available 24/7 from May 31-Labor Day, weekends from Oct to May 31.

 

 

On second thought, I think I would say available from 10-7 through the summer, or something like that. I don't think it would be good to have cachers out there at night with flashlights.

Link to comment

I wish I had a dime for every time I screwed up because I didn't read the cache page. Caches are available in state parks from dawn till dusk. At night time, they close the gate. If I try to go in there when they are closed, I am met with a closed gate. Shame on me for not reading the cache page. Nobody's fault but mine.

Link to comment

I wish I had a dime for every time I screwed up because I didn't read the cache page. Caches are available in state parks from dawn till dusk. At night time, they close the gate. If I try to go in there when they are closed, I am met with a closed gate. Shame on me for not reading the cache page. Nobody's fault but mine.

 

Well, yes and no. There is no requirement to read cache pages. A CO may put information pertinent to the cache or access on the page, but GS allows for cachers to search for caches without reading the pages. My GPS isn't paperless. If I'm traveling out of the area and load a PQ into my unit, I don't read all the descriptions. Many people are in the same boat. It's up to the CO not to place caches in areas that there shouldn't be caches. This looks like one of those areas.

 

And on top of that, people will still do it. I'd hate to see your friend's property vandalized or have someone get arrested trying to access the cache because the property is closed.

 

The area sounds interesting, and I like that you're trying to place caches that aren't just another LPC. However, not everyplace can have caches. I still agree with GS on this one (although my opinion matters about the same as my muggle neighbors). Good luck, but don't expect them to change their minds.

 

Edited because I can't read good.

Edited by J the Goat
Link to comment

There is a big entrance gate, but it is never closed.

 

I am floored that they would think I'm lying about this
maybe there is an ego problem with the reviewer who doesn't want to admit that maybe he rushed his judgment and maybe made a mistake

 

as it turns out, the property is only open on weekends after the summer.

 

Whoops! It sounds much better than a Wally World parking lot, but I can see why it was not published.

Link to comment

There is a big entrance gate, but it is never closed.

 

I am floored that they would think I'm lying about this
maybe there is an ego problem with the reviewer who doesn't want to admit that maybe he rushed his judgment and maybe made a mistake

 

as it turns out, the property is only open on weekends after the summer.

 

Whoops! It sounds much better than a Wally World parking lot, but I can see why it was not published.

 

Whoops! Absolutely Whoops! on both sides here......yes, I can see why the reviewers would think it is not available to cachers since the picture they had was a closed gate. Now I am trying to clarify all of that....my fault for not questioning the property owner when he told me the gate was always open......I should have asked him if that was year-round.

This guy is not my friend......I never met him before a few weeks ago.

Just trying to give families a nice open place to wander for free.........and believe me that is a rare opportunity in Texas.

Link to comment

This guy is not my friend......I never met him before a few weeks ago.

I'm starting to wonder if the problem here is that the guy is making it look better to you than it really is. And perhaps the reveiwer and GS are recognizing a familiar pattern that you wouldn't be aware of.

 

Ah, well, nice idea.

Link to comment

I don't think so since I'm the one who approached him and asked if it was for real that anyone could come in and drive around for free without having to go into the paid areas. I explained geocaching to him and he was like, yeah sure, whatever.

I asked him about the gate and he said it's open all the time, it's never supposed to be closed. Now I guess that was my fault for not asking him about the year round thing, but I just didn't think of it at the time. My bad.

Link to comment

I'd be VERY concerned about posting the key code on this site, and any liability you may personally take if this information is used to illegally enter the property and cause any sort of damage.

 

you're absolutely right....no need to post the code anyway......just post the dates that the caches are available and the gate will be open.

Link to comment

Hi Cybercat,, long time no see, and Congratulations!

 

Just my .02 cents here but i would think you might get somewhere with PR if you supply him the information you have stated here, along with the property owner's name and contact info. I just don't see any problem, if it can be assured that there's no commercial aspect such as dealing with employees or having to pay to enter. In my opinion, the gate possibly being closed at times shouldn't enter into the picture either. Our State Parks close em in the afternoons and at night every day. ;)

Link to comment

OK, I just talked to Josh and as it turns out, the property is only open on weekends after the summer. During the summer, or on school breaks, the gate is always open. When the kiddos are in school, it is only open on the weekends. He guesses the picture was taken on one of the days that the property was not open. He said when they are open, the gate is never closed. He gave me the gate code if for some reason the gate was closed when the property is open.

The months/days that the caches are available can be posted on the cache page. So then cachers would only go looking for them on the weekends or summer, whatever the case may be.

 

There are no other gates of any type.

If you look at a birds eye view of this area you can plainly see a perimeter road that leads all around the property and the caches are nowhere near the restaurant, animals, or cabins.

 

I don't know the specific rules about this, but this statement above makes me feel that the cache shouldn't be there. Nevermind the fact that many, if not most, cachers don't read the cache page before searching, and therefor wouldn't know when it was available or not. No, I think these caches are better left unpublished.

 

I asking about something like this here awhile back that I am still considering creating. It would be a mulit cache and the location of the first stage has limited availability. It *is* open to the public (and is *not* a business) but you just have to show up at a couple of specific times of the day (and only on weekdays) to access the area. I did get a response from a reviewer that said that based on my description there wasn't a guideline violation.

 

 

Link to comment

I'd be VERY concerned about posting the key code on this site, and any liability you may personally take if this information is used to illegally enter the property and cause any sort of damage.

I learned to take no for an answer and move along when it comes to dealing with Groundspeak reviewers and moderators, and Keystone is not a bad guy that will try and help fellow geocachers get listings published. I like his and Briansnat's advise. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...