Geocaches on Private Roads

[+Stan&Ruth]

We were heading for a regular cache described as being 10 feet from the road and easy to find. When we were about to turn off from the main road to travel the road to the cache we encountered two signs saying that it was a private road. There is nothing in the cache description saying that permission has been granted to travel on the road to the cache. What's with that????

[+T.D.M.22]

We were heading for a regular cache described as being 10 feet from the road and easy to find. When we were about to turn off from the main road to travel the road to the cache we encountered two signs saying that it was a private road. There is nothing in the cache description saying that permission has been granted to travel on the road to the cache. What's with that????

 

Three things come to mind. ONE-You said it's 10 feet from the road, so why do you need to be on the road? Maybe the land around it is public. TWO, the CO has communicated to the reviewer that permission has been granted. In fact it won't let you submit it for review unless you say permission was granted. This is true for any cache,(LPC or ammo can in the woods or front yard cache, it doesn't matter) as ALL cache require permission, as per Groundspeak guidelines. THREE You don't have to find every cache. It is your responsibility to decide if finding the cache is worth the risks. Slip on ice, poison ivy, bees, snakes, cliffs, lightning, private property, these are all things you have to consider, and it's up to you to decide.

 

BOTTOM LINE: If you don't feel comfortable, don't go for it.

[+TriciaG]

The only one of those three signs I'd hesitate about is the one that says "no trespassing." The others just state it's not a public road. *shrug*

[+MountainWoods]

Skip it. I've bumped into several similar GCs where it was assumed that the CO had gotten permission; but one could tell that the CO could not have gotten permission to place the cache.

 

Either that or the CO didn't make it clear to the landowner that it wasn't just about them being there one time, but that they were doing something that would require a bunch of other folks to go there -- that is, not properly explained geocaching.

 

Seems like most (or a lot of) GC pages don't explicitly say that they got permission. Perhaps the CO at least told the reviewer that they got permission? (And/or lied?)

[+The A-Team]

I assume either the OP or someone else contacted the reviewer, because they've now disabled the cache. Apparently the cache is on a nature preserve. The reviewer asked that the description not state the cache is just off the road and that it should be accessed from the public trails, and the CO has made that change. It looks to me like the reason the cache is so close to the private road is because they shoehorned their cache into an area that already has a few caches, and that's the only spot left. I now see no problem with the cache, though there probably wasn't a need to hide the cache there at all and possibly entice cachers to drive down the posted private road.

[AZcachemeister]

Meh.

Wouldn't have slowed me down unless I came within visual range of a residence before getting to the cache location.

Even then I would probably need to see someone who appeared concerned with why I was there before I became concerned myself. In which case I would approach them and ask if they knew anything about Geocaching so I would know if a NA needed to be posted or not.

[7rxc]

Looks like the local reviewer is reviewing the situation. Cache appears to be on the roadside that is part of the local TBNR property... however the status of the road is in state of query for now. Cache is disabled by R pending resolution.

 

Was a bit of fun finding which it was. But it is in good hands for now. Shows that anything that appears to be involving PP / NT signs should be clearly documented on the CP.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+Semper Questio]

...as ALL cache require permission, as per Groundspeak guidelines....

 

And that's all fine and dandy to assume permission is granted...right up until the pissed of guy on an ATV carrying a rifle is asking what the heck you are doing on his land and does not know, or want to know, anything about any "dadgum game".

 

Yeah. It has happened to me. If I see stuff like that and the cache page does not give very clear and specific information about permission, I am not only not going after it, I'm slapping an NA on it and letting the reviewer check it out.

[+suchanana]

since the "groundwork" has been laid for disgruntled private road property owners against geocachers, perhaps the CO could post

an additional caution in Capital letters to not access cache from private road - no tresspassing, similar to

admonishments about xway access restrictions we're used to seeing...

[4wheelin_fool]

 

TWO, the CO has communicated to the reviewer that permission has been granted. In fact it won't let you submit it for review unless you say permission was granted. This is true for any cache,(LPC or ammo can in the woods or front yard cache, it doesn't matter) as ALL cache require permission, as per Groundspeak guidelines.

 

 

Really? Hey I have a nice bridge for sale in Brooklyn for ya.

 

THREE You don't have to find every cache. It is your responsibility to decide if finding the cache is worth the risks. Slip on ice, poison ivy, bees, snakes, cliffs, lightning, private property, these are all things you have to consider, and it's up to you to decide.

 

BOTTOM LINE: If you don't feel comfortable, don't go for it.

 

If it's a prime example of one that should be archived, then ignore it instead? If this was on posted private property it should be mentioned on the page, or archived. This is the type of attitude that is intended to frighten and intimidate other cachers from posting NAs, and allowing bad caches to propagate. Eventually someone gets irate and large blocks of land are suddenly off limits to geocaching. Or the neighbor gets so pissed, that it inspires them to be a cache maggot.

 

Since this one is on public land, it's fine. The CO should have written on the page to only approach it from the public access point, or made it a multi with a virtual first stage to prevent trespassing. I drive down roads like that occasionally, but its on me when I do it. Inviting 100 other people to do the same by posting it on a website is a little different.

 

 

This cache had permission?

Then what the heck happened 2 months later?

 

This cache had permission also?

Then why didn't they tell you when they put up the private property signs?

 

Whoops!!! Another one!

Edited August 1, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+T.D.M.22]

Ya ya I know...we all say we have permissi on. How many of us have permission for all of our caches. Many of you have pointed out that we cannot assume there is permission. So does that mean we have to question every single cache? Where I am, I am confident I would not face charges of trespassing in the example above. However I also would not be likely to turn around to a shotgun in my face, as our laws are a bit different in Canada. If that cache was here I would have no problem going for it. If I was American, and the threat of having a gun in my face was real then it may not be worth the risk to me.

 

But what it comes down to is that the CO did say there was permission. Maybe the CO really does have permission, or possibly is the landowner. It's not my job to wonder about that. It's one thing to post a NM or more likely a NA on a cache that has been muggled, lost due to flood, fire, new construction, tree cut down, whatever, because we know that there has been said flood, fire, removal. And until the CO chimes in, or the land owner chimes in I would have no problem find such cache, and driving on said road.

But that brings up one of my points-You don't have to find every cache.

[team tisri]

Ya ya I know...we all say we have permissi on. How many of us have permission for all of our caches. Many of you have pointed out that we cannot assume there is permission. So does that mean we have to question every single cache? Where I am, I am confident I would not face charges of trespassing in the example above. However I also would not be likely to turn around to a shotgun in my face, as our laws are a bit different in Canada. If that cache was here I would have no problem going for it. If I was American, and the threat of having a gun in my face was real then it may not be worth the risk to me.

 

But what it comes down to is that the CO did say there was permission. Maybe the CO really does have permission, or possibly is the landowner. It's not my job to wonder about that. It's one thing to post a NM or more likely a NA on a cache that has been muggled, lost due to flood, fire, new construction, tree cut down, whatever, because we know that there has been said flood, fire, removal. And until the CO chimes in, or the land owner chimes in I would have no problem find such cache, and driving on said road.

But that brings up one of my points-You don't have to find every cache.

 

Sure, only given geocaching is supposed to be something that families with children can do, that maybe unaccompanied children can do (even if someone is 13 or whatever age is required in the US) it makes more sense to highlight caches with potential permission issues than to just shrug and figure it's someone else's problem.

 

An adult might make the decision that it's not worth trespassing. A child might figure that because it's a game it's all OK and end up dealing with an angry landowner with a gun. Even if it's just someone wasting a journey out to find a cache that shouldn't be there and they make a decision not to go any further it still seems a shame to just leave things like that out there. If an NA is logged because of potential permission issues it alerts the reviewer who can check it out. It doesn't automatically mean the cache will be archived, just that there's a problem with it.

[+TriciaG]

Heck - even if there were no gun involved, I wouldn't want to deal with an angry landowner, period.

[+geodarts]

But what it comes down to is that the CO did say there was permission. Maybe the CO really does have permission, or possibly is the landowner. It's not my job to wonder about that. It's one thing to post a NM or more likely a NA on a cache that has been muggled, lost due to flood, fire, new construction, tree cut down, whatever, because we know that there has been said flood, fire, removal. And until the CO chimes in, or the land owner chimes in I would have no problem find such cache, and driving on said road.

 

In my experience when the landowner chimes in, they usually are not happy. Hopefully they are not the type to shoot, but I do know cachers who have been threatened with bodily injury. I have come across a cache behind a posted fences with a description advising people not to look for it if they are nervous about encounters with law enforcement; others behind no trespassing signs on state property; and another on posted ranch land that neither the CO or the reviewer wanted to resolve until there was an encounter with an angry property owner.

 

I sometimes have ignored no trespassing signs at an abandoned building in the name of urban exploration or art. But to drive down a maintained road that is posted for a smiley? I have no patience for that and caches behind posted property will usually get an NA log or a note to the reviewer. If it turns our that there is no problem, then no harm has been done. But yes, as a participant in this game, it is sometimes my job to wonder.

Edited August 1, 2013 by geodarts

[4wheelin_fool]

Ya ya I know...we all say we have permissi on. How many of us have permission for all of our caches. Many of you have pointed out that we cannot assume there is permission.

 

You stated that every cache has permission, and the reviewer will not publish caches without it, when clearly they do not. The 3 examples I posted show that you already know this and are purposely letting loose a stinky load of bowel movement, to say it mildly.

 

So does that mean we have to question every single cache? Where I am, I am confident I would not face charges of trespassing in the example above. However I also would not be likely to turn around to a shotgun in my face, as our laws are a bit different in Canada. If that cache was here I would have no problem going for it. If I was American, and the threat of having a gun in my face was real then it may not be worth the risk to me.

 

So because Canadians have strict gun laws, then trespassing is more prevalent and accepted? I have plenty to say about this, but I won't.

 

 

But what it comes down to is that the CO did say there was permission. Maybe the CO really does have permission, or possibly is the landowner. It's not my job to wonder about that.

The CO did not say there was any permission to drive down a road which is posted with obvious signage indicating to stay out. There should be some warning on the page in that case. Cachers DO have an obligation to warn others about serious problems.

 

It's one thing to post a NM or more likely a NA on a cache that has been muggled, lost due to flood, fire, new construction, tree cut down, whatever, because we know that there has been said flood, fire, removal. And until the CO chimes in, or the land owner chimes in I would have no problem find such cache, and driving on said road.

So a NA should never be posted on caches which are obviously on private property without permission? Says who?

 

But that brings up one of my points-You don't have to find every cache.

 

This is the meme that every cache owner repeats when it is brought to their attention that their cache may cause problems and does not conform to the guidelines. It's a form of bullying other cachers into becoming quiet about anything that is not welcome by the owner or land manager. They are inviting the world to visit this spot by posting the coordinates on a website accessible by plenty of people they have never met. Then someone raises a concern, and they are told to ignore the hide and the suddenly the situation is a private matter handled by the locals.

 

But that brings up one of my points-You don't have to hide a cache everywhere.

[+Dogmeat*]

I placed a cache recently at a set of WWII Barracks that are near by. One of them, the path is accessed by a private road. I've been going here for many years, and I know many people who have been. There's a house at the end of the road where people park, and it's never been a problem for anyone. Unless it specifically says no trespassing, I'd just say go for it. If you're not comfortable with it, okay.

 

But my case may be different because public property is accessed only through this road.