How do I report a cache placed on private property?

October 16, 2013

My husband and I haven't been geocaching in a while and today realized that there is a cache placed on our friend's private property. What is really sad is reading the log where people are writing the gate is closed and they are hopping the fence. Even at night!. Now he understands why he has had to run people off the place for 2 years. He has long horns in there and it is not safe. We viewed photos on there tonight of kids standing by the longhorns and it has us all pretty upset. I cannot believe I never knew about it. What can we do besides remove it? We do not want people still coming to look for it.

I looked on this site and could not figure out how to go about reporting it.

October 16, 2013

My husband and I haven't been geocaching in a while and today realized that there is a cache placed on our friend's private property. What is really sad is reading the log where people are writing the gate is closed and they are hopping the fence. Even at night!. Now he understands why he has had to run people off the place for 2 years. He has long horns in there and it is not safe. We viewed photos on there tonight of kids standing by the longhorns and it has us all pretty upset. I cannot believe I never knew about it. What can we do besides remove it? We do not want people still coming to look for it.

I looked on this site and could not figure out how to go about reporting it.

All you have to do is make a log to the cache that it should be archived. Explain the problem and a reviewer should remove it immediately.

7.3k · October 16, 2013

My husband and I haven't been geocaching in a while and today realized that there is a cache placed on our friend's private property. What is really sad is reading the log where people are writing the gate is closed and they are hopping the fence. Even at night!. Now he understands why he has had to run people off the place for 2 years. He has long horns in there and it is not safe. We viewed photos on there tonight of kids standing by the longhorns and it has us all pretty upset. I cannot believe I never knew about it. What can we do besides remove it? We do not want people still coming to look for it.

I looked on this site and could not figure out how to go about reporting it.

Help Center

3.8. Needs Archived Note

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=134

What is a Needs Archived note or log?

This log sends an email to the geocache owner and a local reviewer. There are several instances when using a "Needs Archived" log is appropriate. Here are some example situations that warrant a Needs Archived note.

1 - There is a law enforcement, trespassing or similar issue requiring immediate attention. Occasionally, a geocache is placed in a location that is inappropriate because of security concerns - schools, court houses, or airports among the most common.

2 - There is no immediate problem, but it is painfully evident that the geocache is missing AND the owner is missing.

When a reviewer receives a Needs Archived note he/she will usually:

Post a note to the geocache page in response to the Needs Archived log, providing the owner with an opportunity to fix the problem, and following up in a few weeks to make sure the issue has received attention from the owner. In cases where there's a legitimate maintenance need like a wet or possibly missing container, but not a trail of evidence that the owner has ignored their responsibility, it is appropriate to give the owner a fair chance to respond.

B.

3.7k · October 16, 2013

Log a Needs Archive on the cache page or you can email a reviewer. A sad situation. Rest assured, caching is not like that everywhere. We wouldn't tolerate this sort of behavior here.

6.1k · October 16, 2013

You can send a nice email to the hider from the cache page privately and ask them to remove it. Or you can post an Needs Archived note and have everyone gawk at the situation until a reviewer gets involved and archives it. The 3rd choice is to contact a Lackey and have them magically drop out of the sky and delist it. http://www.geocaching.com/contact/ But that could take a week or so. Their phone is 206-971-0544

Edited October 16, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

2.6k · October 16, 2013

You could also pull up the cache page, go to the bottom, click on the name of the reviewer that published the cache to go to their profile, and send the reviewer and email that this cache is a problem.

Considering folks are getting dangerously close to longhorns (I know they look docile, but they can really be quite dangerous) I would log the NA, email the reviwer, and email Groundspeak at contact@geocaching.com to try to get action on this as quickly as possible. I have personally had much faster response by emailing the reviewer.

3.3k · October 16, 2013

You can send a nice email to the hider from the cache page privately and ask them to remove it. Or you can post an Needs Archived note and have everyone gawk at the situation until a reviewer gets involved and archives it. The 3rd choice is to contact a Lackey and have them magically drop out of the sky and delist it. http://www.geocaching.com/contact/ But that could take a week or so. Their phone is 206-971-0544

Totally agreed. Everyone wants to throw the book at the CO & bring out the heavy artillery! Why? - there's no urgency, & the low key approach may be faster. Let's assume the CO is still active and made an honest mistake. If you or I got such an email, we'd act immediately. Perhaps it's a good cache that can be moved a short distance to public property. If there's no immediate response, then the NA post 2 days later can still be done.

7.5k · October 16, 2013

You can send a nice email to the hider from the cache page privately and ask them to remove it. Or you can post an Needs Archived note and have everyone gawk at the situation until a reviewer gets involved and archives it. The 3rd choice is to contact a Lackey and have them magically drop out of the sky and delist it. http://www.geocaching.com/contact/ But that could take a week or so. Their phone is 206-971-0544

Totally agreed. Everyone wants to throw the book at the CO & bring out the heavy artillery! Why? - there's no urgency, & the low key approach may be faster.

Nope, sorry, I totally disagree. There is definitely urgency, and the cache shouldn't be listed for a minute longer than necessary. Furthermore, a CO that would plant a cache on private property without permission doesn't deserve niceties. Around here, the fastest way to delist a cache is Needs Archived, but if you think a friendly note to the CO might be faster, feel free to take that route in addition to posting the NA. I'm not sure why it would take so long where you are, but I'm not worried about how long people will be able to gawk, anyway.

By the way, when posting the NA, make sure to say you took the cache so anyone looking at the logs knows it's not there any more. If you want to be nice, you can offer to return it to the CO. On the other hand, if you want to stress the point, you can say the property owner threw it in the trash.

9.3k · October 16, 2013

You can send a nice email to the hider from the cache page privately and ask them to remove it. Or you can post an Needs Archived note and have everyone gawk at the situation until a reviewer gets involved and archives it. The 3rd choice is to contact a Lackey and have them magically drop out of the sky and delist it. http://www.geocaching.com/contact/ But that could take a week or so. Their phone is 206-971-0544

Totally agreed. Everyone wants to throw the book at the CO & bring out the heavy artillery! Why? - there's no urgency, & the low key approach may be faster.

Nope, sorry, I totally disagree. There is definitely urgency...

Gotta side with dprovan on this one. Even if there were no dangerous critters on the property, and there were no continuing history of confrontations with the property owner, any cache on private property without the owner's explicit permission, should be immediately archived.

6.1k · October 17, 2013

I wasn't advocating any particular response, only outlying the choices, and what was possible.

2k · October 17, 2013

Ran into this situation myself today. I found a cache in a neat little spot just off the road about 30 feet. The old 24K map shows the city park (with the green shading) to the east extending to the road where I had to park to try to find the cache. I started from the park lot and ran into a fence clearly marked as the edge of the park boundary about halfway to the cache. That's when I drove west to the road and managed to find the cache. I crossed over an old rusted fence line (mostly ground level but still obvious) and when I got to GZ I could see a house about 40 feet above me (on a bluff). I made the find, made a note that I thought it was on private property and then headed back to the car. I logged a NA and the CO archived both my logs. I have no problem with the found it log (the numbers don't really matter that much to me) but s/he completely disregarded the issue at hand, that this appears to be on private property. I contacted the reviewer who published it and haven't heard back. The cache description mentions that the CO drove past here and thought it would be a neat place to hide something (and it is) but nothing about permission being granted.

2k · October 17, 2013

Update already. Apparently the CO did receive permission from the landowner. Not sure why they were so quick with the deletion of both my found it log and NA log though.

2.7k · October 17, 2013

I emailed a CO tonight about a possible permission issue. The cache is located inside a church playground. A friend is a member of the church & when asked, called a pastor, who knew nothing about the cache. The pastor seemed willing to consider permission. Time will tell on that one.

This Co has been a member for about a month with about a dozen finds, although that is no excuse for apparently not obtaining permission for the hide.

3.7k · October 17, 2013

Update already. Apparently the CO did receive permission from the landowner. Not sure why they were so quick with the deletion of both my found it log and NA log though.

If it's private property with permission, they should state that on the cache page. Perhaps the cache owner is lying?

I wouldn't necessarily rush to a Needs Archive log, would probably have posted a note in this case.

Edited October 17, 2013 by The_Incredibles_

6.1k · October 17, 2013

I emailed a CO tonight about a possible permission issue. The cache is located inside a church playground. A friend is a member of the church & when asked, called a pastor, who knew nothing about the cache. The pastor seemed willing to consider permission. Time will tell on that one.

This Co has been a member for about a month with about a dozen finds, although that is no excuse for apparently not obtaining permission for the hide.

A church playground? :blink:

Could be a sock for a pedophile who needs an excuse to hang out there. I'd think a MKH stuck under the dumpster behind Walmart would be a better spot.

October 17, 2013

Ran into this situation myself today. I found a cache in a neat little spot just off the road about 30 feet. The old 24K map shows the city park (with the green shading) to the east extending to the road where I had to park to try to find the cache. I started from the park lot and ran into a fence clearly marked as the edge of the park boundary about halfway to the cache. That's when I drove west to the road and managed to find the cache. I crossed over an old rusted fence line (mostly ground level but still obvious) and when I got to GZ I could see a house about 40 feet above me (on a bluff). I made the find, made a note that I thought it was on private property and then headed back to the car. I logged a NA and the CO archived both my logs. I have no problem with the found it log (the numbers don't really matter that much to me) but s/he completely disregarded the issue at hand, that this appears to be on private property. I contacted the reviewer who published it and haven't heard back. The cache description mentions that the CO drove past here and thought it would be a neat place to hide something (and it is) but nothing about permission being granted.

Reviewers still get the NA message regardless of the CO removing it.

14k · October 17, 2013

Update already. Apparently the CO did receive permission from the landowner. Not sure why they were so quick with the deletion of both my found it log and NA log though.

If you found the cache and signed the log the CO shouldn't have deleted your found it log. I would just let it go but am curious if the CO changed the description to indicate that permission was granted.

2k · October 17, 2013

No change in the description, although this did just occur last night (the conversation between the reviewer and the CO). I didn't feel comfortable as I could see the house almost right above me (steep hill, house on the bluff). I did use the GIS land survey to check and all the property along this road is private property. Since the CO deleted my log I'm sure they would have deleted my note as well. I just mentioned in my log that I believed it was on private property based on where I found it and what I found in the area to justify my reasons to believe so.

It's not a big deal to me about the found it log as there are more than enough caches in the area. I do have two caches on private property and make sure to state that in the description as well as provide a contact in my Reviewer note when I submitted them for publication.

9.3k · October 17, 2013

I'm enough of a curmudgeon that I would have knocked on the front door of the house and asked if they knew about the geocache on their property. Another NA might follow, depending on their answer.

2.6k · October 17, 2013

You can send a nice email to the hider from the cache page privately and ask them to remove it. Or you can post an Needs Archived note and have everyone gawk at the situation until a reviewer gets involved and archives it. The 3rd choice is to contact a Lackey and have them magically drop out of the sky and delist it. http://www.geocaching.com/contact/ But that could take a week or so. Their phone is 206-971-0544

Totally agreed. Everyone wants to throw the book at the CO & bring out the heavy artillery! Why? - there's no urgency, & the low key approach may be faster.

Nope, sorry, I totally disagree. There is definitely urgency...

Gotta side with dprovan on this one. Even if there were no dangerous critters on the property, and there were no continuing history of confrontations with the property owner, any cache on private property without the owner's explicit permission, should be immediately archived.

Yeah, clearly there is a long-running permission issue. Also, besides the dangers of getting hurt by a large animal, is the danger of gettting shot by their owner! Not only can longhorns be unpredictable and cantankerous, they are pretty valuable critters and their owners tend to be pretty protective of them.

2k · October 17, 2013

I'm enough of a curmudgeon that I would have knocked on the front door of the house and asked if they knew about the geocache on their property. Another NA might follow, depending on their answer.

I've thought about it!

6.1k · October 17, 2013

No change in the description, although this did just occur last night (the conversation between the reviewer and the CO). I didn't feel comfortable as I could see the house almost right above me (steep hill, house on the bluff). I did use the GIS land survey to check and all the property along this road is private property. Since the CO deleted my log I'm sure they would have deleted my note as well. I just mentioned in my log that I believed it was on private property based on where I found it and what I found in the area to justify my reasons to believe so.

It's not a big deal to me about the found it log as there are more than enough caches in the area. I do have two caches on private property and make sure to state that in the description as well as provide a contact in my Reviewer note when I submitted them for publication.

You certainly have a valid concern. Simply asking if there is permission should not cause a log deletion, as others may be wondering the same thing. It is rather odd that it is not mentioned in the description, and it sounds like they may not be entirely truthful about it having permission.

6.1k · October 17, 2013

Yeah, clearly there is a long-running permission issue. Also, besides the dangers of getting hurt by a large animal, is the danger of gettting shot by their owner! Not only can longhorns be unpredictable and cantankerous, they are pretty valuable critters and their owners tend to be pretty protective of them.

Some reviewers may archive it based on a single NA, but others may not.

In this case a cacher is claiming that the land belongs to their friend. The CO may not believe this, and think that they are instead rather overprotective and just making that up. They also may be proud of all of the favorite points, and think the OP is jealous. I've noticed in a few cases like this that Groundspeak will not archive unless contacted directly by the property owner. The CO could believe that the OP is bluffing, and then make up their own bluff and say they have permission. The OP has been caching for a little while now, and I'm surprised that they are not aware of the Needs Archived note which appears in a list every time they have posted a find.

A Needs Archived does not always have the same effect that you think it has, and often e-mails to a reviewer get ignored. The only other routes at that time is to contact the CO directly, or to have the property owner contact Groundspeak.

It's a shame that some people get irate at NAs and view it as a slap in the face, as it is only a log type. If they really wanted to play hardball, the land owner could get a lawyer involved and ask for property damages. The TOU of the site only protects Groundspeak from lawsuits instigated from its own players. The land owner has no involvement with reading any disclaimers on a website he may not be aware of. He may also want the name and contact address of the CO, while the only thing Groundspeak has verified is the throwaway email address. This may just be needed if there is a serious injury on the property, as the personal injury lawyer will most likely want to go after the property owner and CO as well. There would be a very high cost for legal fees even if he is found not liable. Medical fees and damages for a kid gored by a longhorn could result in millions of dollars.

October 17, 2013

I emailed a CO tonight about a possible permission issue. The cache is located inside a church playground. A friend is a member of the church & when asked, called a pastor, who knew nothing about the cache. The pastor seemed willing to consider permission. Time will tell on that one.

This Co has been a member for about a month with about a dozen finds, although that is no excuse for apparently not obtaining permission for the hide.

Reviewers here won't knowingly publish a cache near a playground.

2.2k · October 18, 2013

Now he understands why he has had to run people off the place for 2 years. He has long horns

Well, heck... I think I'd want to go have a look at that there myself!

2.6k · October 18, 2013

A Needs Archived does not always have the same effect that you think it has, and often e-mails to a reviewer get ignored. The only other routes at that time is to contact the CO directly, or to have the property owner contact Groundspeak.

Skipping past all the hypotheticals, an NA around here goes largely ignored while a direct email to the reviewer will usually get prompt action. But your last bit quoted above is something I forgot and you are absolutely correct. The land owner should shoot an email to contact@Groundspeak.com or contact@geocaching.com. From what I've seen, that will get the attention of TPTB quicker than just about anything.

That being said, even when/if this cache gets archived, they will still have folks coming on their land until everyone with this cache in their gizmo has been there or has refreshed their data and it disappears.

5k · October 18, 2013

You can send a nice email to the hider from the cache page privately and ask them to remove it. Or you can post an Needs Archived note and have everyone gawk at the situation until a reviewer gets involved and archives it. The 3rd choice is to contact a Lackey and have them magically drop out of the sky and delist it. http://www.geocaching.com/contact/ But that could take a week or so. Their phone is 206-971-0544

Totally agreed. Everyone wants to throw the book at the CO & bring out the heavy artillery! Why? - there's no urgency, & the low key approach may be faster. Let's assume the CO is still active and made an honest mistake. If you or I got such an email, we'd act immediately. Perhaps it's a good cache that can be moved a short distance to public property. If there's no immediate response, then the NA post 2 days later can still be done.

Nonsense. Private property, closed gates, fence hopping and screwing around with the cattle? I'd put it out there in a NA log for the whole world to see. I swear there are certain geocachers that think that they are entitled to whatever the hell they please all because they are paying a simple game. It's nonsense and everyone involved should be publicly shamed.

3.8k · October 18, 2013

So, whatever happened to the OP's issue?

5k · October 18, 2013

Yeah, clearly there is a long-running permission issue. Also, besides the dangers of getting hurt by a large animal, is the danger of gettting shot by their owner! Not only can longhorns be unpredictable and cantankerous, they are pretty valuable critters and their owners tend to be pretty protective of them.

Some reviewers may archive it based on a single NA, but others may not.

In this case a cacher is claiming that the land belongs to their friend. The CO may not believe this, and think that they are instead rather overprotective and just making that up. They also may be proud of all of the favorite points, and think the OP is jealous. I've noticed in a few cases like this that Groundspeak will not archive unless contacted directly by the property owner. The CO could believe that the OP is bluffing, and then make up their own bluff and say they have permission. The OP has been caching for a little while now, and I'm surprised that they are not aware of the Needs Archived note which appears in a list every time they have posted a find.

A Needs Archived does not always have the same effect that you think it has, and often e-mails to a reviewer get ignored. The only other routes at that time is to contact the CO directly, or to have the property owner contact Groundspeak.

It's a shame that some people get irate at NAs and view it as a slap in the face, as it is only a log type. If they really wanted to play hardball, the land owner could get a lawyer involved and ask for property damages. The TOU of the site only protects Groundspeak from lawsuits instigated from its own players. The land owner has no involvement with reading any disclaimers on a website he may not be aware of. He may also want the name and contact address of the CO, while the only thing Groundspeak has verified is the throwaway email address. This may just be needed if there is a serious injury on the property, as the personal injury lawyer will most likely want to go after the property owner and CO as well. There would be a very high cost for legal fees even if he is found not liable. Medical fees and damages for a kid gored by a longhorn could result in millions of dollars.

If the OP detailed what they did in their post in a NA log in my area, the cache would be archived seconds after either of my three reviewers read it. In their archival log are detailed instructions on what to do to get the cache re-reviewed and unarchived.

October 18, 2013

We have had the situation taken care of by going through the CO first. He was extremely sorry and the confusion came in because on this property there is an old family cemetery dating back to the early 1800's. He thought it would be a "cool" place to hide a cache and it really would be if it was not in the middle of my friend's property and the fact that the long horns do walk freely in there (but not on the graves). You have to walk through the farm part to get to the back where the very private old cemetery is. I do not know how he became confused. He would have to have hopped two fences to place it. Thank you all for your replies.

6.1k · October 18, 2013

Glad to hear it was resolved quickly and amicably without issue.

March 1, 2021

On 10/15/2013 at 8:47 PM, baack40 said:

All you have to do is make a log to the cache that it should be archived. Explain the problem and a reviewer should remove it immediately.

What should be done if a Needs Archived log has been filed and the cache owner immediately deleted the log and has made no effort to address the concerns?

11.2k · March 1, 2021

11 minutes ago, KestrelAerie said:

What should be done if a Needs Archived log has been filed and the cache owner immediately deleted the log and has made no effort to address the concerns?

Even if the cache owner deletes the Needs Archived log the reviewer will still see it!

4.2k · March 1, 2021

On 10/17/2013 at 2:46 PM, coachstahly said:

Update already. Apparently the CO did receive permission from the landowner. Not sure why they were so quick with the deletion of both my found it log and NA log though.

They should have mentioned on their cache page, they have permission of the owner to place a cache here.

4.2k · March 1, 2021

On 10/17/2013 at 3:32 PM, 4wheelin_fool said:

A church playground?

Could be a sock for a pedophile who needs an excuse to hang out there. I'd think a MKH stuck under the dumpster behind Walmart would be a better spot.

Unfortunately in Australia, caches in playgrounds are still allowed. I went to one playground to find a cache and did spot a suspicious man standing nearby, on or pretending to be on the phone. Children were playing and I left. The mothers seemed oblivious to this man.

1.7k · March 1, 2021

16 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Unfortunately in Australia, caches in playgrounds are still allowed. I went to one playground to find a cache and did spot a suspicious man standing nearby, on or pretending to be on the phone. Children were playing and I left. The mothers seemed oblivious to this man.

GW - Was the suspicious man you spotted *pretending* to be on his phone standing over by the playground's Funhouse Mirrors?

'Cuz if he was....

13.7k · March 1, 2021

There's no way that I could not be noticed at a playground, but the park near us has just as many lone dads as moms daily.

Funny how the acceptance of diversity still has lines drawn...

For all anyone knows "the mothers" could all be working for the kidnappers, and this is simply recreation time.

2.4k · March 1, 2021

Note that this was a bumped thread. The OP was answered over 7 years ago.

3k · March 3, 2021

On 10/18/2013 at 12:05 AM, Don_J said:

I swear there are certain geocachers that think that they are entitled to whatever the hell they please all because they are paying a simple game.

There are a lot of people that think they are entitled to whatever the hell they please. In 2021 even moreso than 2013.

I'm not surprised some of them happen to be geocachers.

2.7k · March 4, 2021

17 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

There are a lot of people that think they are entitled to whatever the hell they please. In 2021 even moreso than 2013.

I'm not surprised some of them happen to be geocachers.

That sounds about right. One only has to look at how people drive nowadays.

How do I report a cache placed on private property?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation