Is this on private property?

[+jellis]

Check this cache (GC4W8R9)on Google Earth at street level. Would you say this is on private property? There is no mention on the cache page for permission. Today I posted a NM after no response from the 2 reviewers I contacted, the COs and no change on the cache page. I was going to go to the house when I found it but it was early morning and didn't want to disturb them.

[4wheelin_fool]

It sure looks like it is.

 

There is a series around here that consists of waterproof match containers ziptied to trees in peoples front yards, between the street and the sidewalk. Although the DOT probably controls the ROW, I don't really feel that its respectful, although they have generated some 300 finds. Here is one.

[+L0ne.R]

Looks like it's PP to me. I would assume that the Reviewer had looked at streetview and asked the PP question. And I would have assumed that the answer was yes it's their private home. But I still think that info should be on the cache listing. And use of the private property attribute should have been strongly suggested by the Reviewer. I've been to private home caches where the CO put a large GC logo sign in their window, that helped aleeve most concerns. The other problem is it's listed as a small when it's a micro - one finder said "Tough getting the log out of the neck of the tiny bottle." Also, they have the tree climbing required attribute but there's no tree climbing required.

They barely have any geocaching experience - 7 finds, 6 of them found 6 days ago.

 

 

Edited January 7, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+cerberus1]

Check this cache (GC4W8R9)on Google Earth at street level. Would you say this is on private property? There is no mention on the cache page for permission. Today I posted a NM after no response from the 2 reviewers I contacted, the COs and no change on the cache page. I was going to go to the house when I found it but it was early morning and didn't want to disturb them.

This bothered you so much that, you contacted two Reviewers and the CO?

[+Walts Hunting]

You contacted two reviewers and they have looked at it. What we say makes no difference.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

The Country online plat maps would seem to indicate it is private property:

 

 

(Could it be the cache owner's property?)

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

There's also a private day care right across the street (Peek-A-Boo) - the yellow house in the street view.

 

(Edit for typo)

Edited January 7, 2014 by BBWolf+3Pigs

[+jellis]

Usually the reviewers would contact me with their results on if the COs contacted them or not and if it is on PP. But I haven't heard from either one. I contacted one and when I didn't hear from them after 2 days I contacted another one.

[+geodarts]

Private property issues and a day care center nearby? It just went to my ignore list. But hopefully contacting the CO and the reviewer will at least make the situation a little more clear. I have made mixed luck with that -- neither a CO nor a reviewer felt that a cache behind posted fences on property posted required any particular action (until there was an eventual encounter with the property owner), or for that matter I never got a response from anyone when I pointed out a cache was placed behind an "area closed for restoration" sign on public land. But sometimes it helps resolve things.

Edited January 7, 2014 by geodarts

[+jellis]

The Country online plat maps would seem to indicate it is private property:

 

 

(Could it be the cache owner's property?)

I will be in the area on Sunday so I can drive by and see if it is theirs or not. If it is I wish the COs would say so on the cache page. In front of the other houses it won't look good to see strangers poking around the tree and being near the Day Care Center.

[+Don_J]

Check this cache (GC4W8R9)on Google Earth at street level. Would you say this is on private property? There is no mention on the cache page for permission. Today I posted a NM after no response from the 2 reviewers I contacted, the COs and no change on the cache page. I was going to go to the house when I found it but it was early morning and didn't want to disturb them.

This bothered you so much that, you contacted two Reviewers and the CO?

 

She contacted two reviewers, posted a NM on the cache and started a forum thread. Despite all that concern, she still trespassed, found and the logged cache.

???

[4wheelin_fool]

I will be in the area on Sunday so I can drive by and see if it is theirs or not. If it is I wish the COs would say so on the cache page. In front of the other houses it won't look good to see strangers poking around the tree and being near the Day Care Center.

 

The owner is [removed by reviewer] who is over 65. I could not really understand her too well, but she sure sounded like she did not give permission or want it there at all, and asked for it to be removed. You can call her at [removed by reviewer] to verify. This is publically available information.

 

Sure seems to be a bit easier than contacting 2 reviewers unsuccessfully via email, or even the CO who may not give a straight answer.

Edited January 8, 2014 by BlueRajah
removed private contact information

[4wheelin_fool]

She contacted two reviewers, posted a NM on the cache and started a forum thread. Despite all that concern, she still trespassed, found and the logged cache.

???

 

If the first reviewer answered her, it would have ended there. The question would have to be answered one way or another, as ignoring someone does not solve the problem.

 

It's not necessarily trespassing if it's listed as a cache and the property owner knows about it.

[+L0ne.R]

I will be in the area on Sunday so I can drive by and see if it is theirs or not. If it is I wish the COs would say so on the cache page. In front of the other houses it won't look good to see strangers poking around the tree and being near the Day Care Center.

 

The owner is [removed by reviewer] who is over 65. I could not really understand her too well, but she sure sounded like she did not give permission or want it there at all, and asked for it to be removed. You can call her at [removed by reviewer] to verify. This is publically available information.

 

Sure seems to be a bit easier than contacting 2 reviewers unsuccessfully via email, or even the CO who may not give a straight answer.

 

Weird. The profile seems to suggest the CO is an adult, they list their occupation as Business Development. Why would an adult think it's OK to hide a cache on someone's small suburban front lawn without asking permission? Maybe they don't like this neighbour.

Edited January 8, 2014 by BlueRajah
removed private information

[+cerberus1]

She contacted two reviewers, posted a NM on the cache and started a forum thread. Despite all that concern, she still trespassed, found and the logged cache.

???

 

If the first reviewer answered her, it would have ended there. The question would have to be answered one way or another, as ignoring someone does not solve the problem.

Was there a problem? Only one other mentions PP after the OP.

One with over 16,000 and one with over 95,000 finds just mention how tough the log was to access.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

This thread brought to mind Gladys Kravitz

[4wheelin_fool]

She contacted two reviewers, posted a NM on the cache and started a forum thread. Despite all that concern, she still trespassed, found and the logged cache.

???

 

If the first reviewer answered her, it would have ended there. The question would have to be answered one way or another, as ignoring someone does not solve the problem.

Was there a problem? Only one other mentions PP after the OP.

One with over 16,000 and one with over 95,000 finds just mention how tough the log was to access.

 

Something placed in someone's yard without permission? Posted online as an public invitation for others to access? Sure sounds like a problem to me. Perhaps a 13 year old might like that excitement, but not me. When the game turns into something wholly illegitimate, there is a problem.

 

If I wasn't a geocacher and discovered that people were going onto my property to find something posted online, Id be tempted to go remove as many as I could from the neighborhood. Especially if there were logs to indicate that most of them knew better and were completely aware that it was private property without permission.

Edited January 7, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+L0ne.R]

She contacted two reviewers, posted a NM on the cache and started a forum thread. Despite all that concern, she still trespassed, found and the logged cache.

???

 

If the first reviewer answered her, it would have ended there. The question would have to be answered one way or another, as ignoring someone does not solve the problem.

Was there a problem? Only one other mentions PP after the OP.

One with over 16,000 and one with over 95,000 finds just mention how tough the log was to access.

 

Something placed in someone's yard without permission? Posted online as an public invitation for others to access? Sure sounds like a problem to me. Perhaps a 13 year old might like that excitement, but not me. When the game turns into something wholly illegitimate, there is a problem.

 

If I wasn't a geocacher and discovered that people were going onto my property to find something posted online, I'd be tempted to go remove as many as I could from the neighborhood. Especially if there were logs to indicate that most of them knew better and were completely aware that it was private property without permission.

 

+1

[+TriciaG]

That, and the neighbors. It looks like the cache might be on the side away from the property owner's house, but the neighbors nearby can look out their front windows to see different people pawing through the tree at all hours of the day and night. (It's got the 24/7 attribute.)

[GrandPotentate]

I will be in the area on Sunday so I can drive by and see if it is theirs or not. If it is I wish the COs would say so on the cache page. In front of the other houses it won't look good to see strangers poking around the tree and being near the Day Care Center.

 

The owner is [removed by reviewer] who is over 65. I could not really understand her too well, but she sure sounded like she did not give permission or want it there at all, and asked for it to be removed. You can call her at [removed by reviewer] to verify. This is publically available information.

 

Sure seems to be a bit easier than contacting 2 reviewers unsuccessfully via email, or even the CO who may not give a straight answer.

 

Make sure you log a NA

Edited January 8, 2014 by BlueRajah
removed private information

[4wheelin_fool]

That, and the neighbors. It looks like the cache might be on the side away from the property owner's house, but the neighbors nearby can look out their front windows to see different people pawing through the tree at all hours of the day and night. (It's got the 24/7 attribute.)

 

If a potential peeping tom or thief is using the site as a way to have an alibi to be somewhere they should not be, it would be a pretty good idea not to condone it. If a small child made a mistake by hiding it, then adults should not be justifying their behavior. Sometimes I cannot help but think that this site is geared towards small children. 24/7? Really?

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Curious what opinions would be if the cache was a green nano on the street sign.

[+snow_rules]

Check this cache (GC4W8R9)on Google Earth at street level. Would you say this is on private property? There is no mention on the cache page for permission. Today I posted a NM after no response from the 2 reviewers I contacted, the COs and no change on the cache page. I was going to go to the house when I found it but it was early morning and didn't want to disturb them.

This bothered you so much that, you contacted two Reviewers and the CO?

 

She contacted two reviewers, posted a NM on the cache and started a forum thread. Despite all that concern, she still trespassed, found and the logged cache.

???

 

Need to get that smiley!!

[^up]

The Country online plat maps would seem to indicate it is private property:

 

 

(Could it be the cache owner's property?)

I will be in the area on Sunday so I can drive by and see if it is theirs or not. If it is I wish the COs would say so on the cache page. In front of the other houses it won't look good to see strangers poking around the tree and being near the Day Care Center.

That isn't a property plot plan, and other than seeing who owns the property, it shouldn't be used to assume where the property lines are. Often times property lines stop at or near the sidewalk. Do agree that it would be nice to have the cache owner say where or not it is on private property or not. I have done such on my caches, but they often are adjacent utility right-of-way.

[+NeverSummer]

Check this cache (GC4W8R9)on Google Earth at street level. Would you say this is on private property? There is no mention on the cache page for permission. Today I posted a NM after no response from the 2 reviewers I contacted, the COs and no change on the cache page. I was going to go to the house when I found it but it was early morning and didn't want to disturb them.

This bothered you so much that, you contacted two Reviewers and the CO?

 

She contacted two reviewers, posted a NM on the cache and started a forum thread. Despite all that concern, she still trespassed, found and the logged cache.

???

 

Need to get that smiley!!

I thought "find" meant "find". She found the cache, yes, and discovered that it is a possible tresspass issue. Still a find, and then a NM/NA and email to owner and Reviewer.

[+Chrysalides]

Some of the responses in this thread is why I don't visit the forums any more, which is a pity, because many of the responses in this thread is why I used to spend so much time here and learned a lot.

 

Anyway, update : cache has been archived by a reviewer. http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4W8R9_pining-for-cache

Edited January 7, 2014 by Chrysalides

[+L0ne.R]

Check this cache (GC4W8R9)on Google Earth at street level. Would you say this is on private property? There is no mention on the cache page for permission. Today I posted a NM after no response from the 2 reviewers I contacted, the COs and no change on the cache page. I was going to go to the house when I found it but it was early morning and didn't want to disturb them.

This bothered you so much that, you contacted two Reviewers and the CO?

 

She contacted two reviewers, posted a NM on the cache and started a forum thread. Despite all that concern, she still trespassed, found and the logged cache.

???

 

Need to get that smiley!!

I thought "find" meant "find". She found the cache, yes, and discovered that it is a possible trespass issue. Still a find, and then a NM/NA and email to owner and Reviewer.

 

I agree. She found the cache and can confirm where it was located. She didn't armchair the NM log.

[+jellis]

Check this cache (GC4W8R9)on Google Earth at street level. Would you say this is on private property? There is no mention on the cache page for permission. Today I posted a NM after no response from the 2 reviewers I contacted, the COs and no change on the cache page. I was going to go to the house when I found it but it was early morning and didn't want to disturb them.

This bothered you so much that, you contacted two Reviewers and the CO?

 

She contacted two reviewers, posted a NM on the cache and started a forum thread. Despite all that concern, she still trespassed, found and the logged cache.

???

If I didn't how would I confirm it was there. If I didn't find it someone would maybe it's not there and somewhere else.

[+SwineFlew]

Hmmmm.... this remind me of this thread.

 

Yep... those corner lots are tricky. Its best that they archived.

 

Cache in question: http://coord.info/GC41NM6

 

You can see its a corner lot and very similar to this cache here.

Edited January 7, 2014 by SwineFlew

[+L0ne.R]

Also....the CO invited people to climb a tree on a front lawn that didn't belong to them. Quite nervy.

[4wheelin_fool]

Curious what opinions would be if the cache was a green nano on the street sign.

 

Usually it would be fine.

 

However if the homeowner who lived right there objected, then no. It's not something a rocket scientist needs to figure out. Unfortunately I've seen cases like this where the cacher threw a fit and insisted on keeping it there, directly in front of someone's house, insisting the DOTs ROW gave them more rights than the guy who lived there.

Edited January 7, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+jellis]

She contacted two reviewers, posted a NM on the cache and started a forum thread. Despite all that concern, she still trespassed, found and the logged cache.

???

 

If the first reviewer answered her, it would have ended there. The question would have to be answered one way or another, as ignoring someone does not solve the problem.

Was there a problem? Only one other mentions PP after the OP.

One with over 16,000 and one with over 95,000 finds just mention how tough the log was to access.

Many cachers fail to report problems. Shame on them for burying their heads in the sand. And so what if I am cache police? The other cacher who complained, he happens to be the Deputy District Attorney for Contra Costa. And he is a cache police too.

[+jellis]

Check this cache (GC4W8R9)on Google Earth at street level. Would you say this is on private property? There is no mention on the cache page for permission. Today I posted a NM after no response from the 2 reviewers I contacted, the COs and no change on the cache page. I was going to go to the house when I found it but it was early morning and didn't want to disturb them.

This bothered you so much that, you contacted two Reviewers and the CO?

 

She contacted two reviewers, posted a NM on the cache and started a forum thread. Despite all that concern, she still trespassed, found and the logged cache.

???

 

Need to get that smiley!!

There has been many I reported without logging the find. Example was a new cache by a new cacher. I could have been FTF but the Lock n Lock was magnetized under a US Postal Box. I could clearly see it. It was archived quickly.

[4wheelin_fool]

Post an NA without finding it and there will be those that will whine that you couldn't possibly know it was against the guidelines because you didn't find it. Find it and post an NA, and then get chastised for getting a smiley. Yes, let's shoot the messenger.

[+JBnW]

She contacted two reviewers, posted a NM on the cache and started a forum thread. Despite all that concern, she still trespassed, found and the logged cache.

???

 

If the first reviewer answered her, it would have ended there. The question would have to be answered one way or another, as ignoring someone does not solve the problem.

Was there a problem? Only one other mentions PP after the OP.

One with over 16,000 and one with over 95,000 finds just mention how tough the log was to access.

Many cachers fail to report problems. Shame on them for burying their heads in the sand. And so what if I am cache police? The other cacher who complained, he happens to be the Deputy District Attorney for Contra Costa. And he is a cache police too.

You'd think someone with 95,524 logged finds would know better by now.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

You'd think someone with 95,524 logged finds would know better by now.

Some assume permission is granted. Others prefer to PM their concerns to cache owners.

[+SwineFlew]

It makes me sad when people are turning this thread into a "who is turning a blind eye thread."

[+NeverSummer]

It makes me sad when people are turning this thread into a "who is turning a blind eye thread."

It's the flip of the same coin...

 

We are all "cache police", yet when someone uses the important and vital logging tools at our disposal (Found it, DNF, NM, NA, Note) to report an issue with a cache, some scream "Foul!"

 

I have a very hard time when I see that cache owners and cache finders can't understand that there are guidelines and laws that impact this game, and when the guidelines and/or laws are overlooked or ignored they need to be reported. It isn't the job of Lackeys or Volunteer Reviewers to handle every single cache issue that presents itself. Rather, it is all of our jobs to help this game continue according to the guidelines we all agree to when we create an account.

 

"Needs Archived" isn't a derogatory phrase. Neither is "Did Not Find". Plainly, when something is amiss, we all have a responsibility to report on that finding. Some will rise to the occasion, others will not. And therein is why those who take the time to note which caches break the guidelines or laws are doing us all a service. It's when a bomb squad, SWAT team, police, security guard, parent, property manager, private landowner, federal land manager, or whoever else is called that we see our game besmirched.

 

I prefer to log as necessary for caches and see othes doing the same. Call them "cache police", but we all agreed to the same guidelines for the game, and have a responsibility to help call attention to caches that go against the guidelines.

[+jellis]

You'd think someone with 95,524 logged finds would know better by now.

Some assume permission is granted. Others prefer to PM their concerns to cache owners.

Thank you and as in the early posts I did try to contact them and they didn't respond. I could see they logged on after my message yet nothing.

[+NeecesandNephews]

It makes me sad when people are turning this thread into a "who is turning a blind eye thread."

It's the flip of the same coin...

 

We are all "cache police", yet when someone uses the important and vital logging tools at our disposal (Found it, DNF, NM, NA, Note) to report an issue with a cache, some scream "Foul!"

 

I have a very hard time when I see that cache owners and cache finders can't understand that there are guidelines and laws that impact this game, and when the guidelines and/or laws are overlooked or ignored they need to be reported. It isn't the job of Lackeys or Volunteer Reviewers to handle every single cache issue that presents itself. Rather, it is all of our jobs to help this game continue according to the guidelines we all agree to when we create an account.

 

"Needs Archived" isn't a derogatory phrase. Neither is "Did Not Find". Plainly, when something is amiss, we all have a responsibility to report on that finding. Some will rise to the occasion, others will not. And therein is why those who take the time to note which caches break the guidelines or laws are doing us all a service. It's when a bomb squad, SWAT team, police, security guard, parent, property manager, private landowner, federal land manager, or whoever else is called that we see our game besmirched.

 

I prefer to log as necessary for caches and see othes doing the same. Call them "cache police", but we all agreed to the same guidelines for the game, and have a responsibility to help call attention to caches that go against the guidelines.

 

^^^^^

 

THIS

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

You'd think someone with 95,524 logged finds would know better by now.

Some assume permission is granted. Others prefer to PM their concerns to cache owners.

Thank you and as in the early posts I did try to contact them and they didn't respond. I could see they logged on after my message yet nothing.

This is one of those times that I can't quite understand the response to one of my posts. I'm going to assume that you took my post as judgmental. It honestly was not. I was simply stating a few facts that would negate the above assumption that everyone who found the cache but did not question permission in their found it log were less than honorable cachers.

 

*edited to add bold*

Edited January 8, 2014 by Sharks-N-Beans

[+hzoi]

Someone call for the cache police?

 

 

(Man, I'm glad I hid that one.)

[+NeecesandNephews]

Someone call for the cache police?

 

 

(Man, I'm glad I hid that one.)

 

Now THAT is funny. Especially if you know it is real and not photoshopped. Good to read you again!! I knew you would fit right in here!. Hope to get down to your neighborhood soon. Been hearing some good things about your caches!!

 

Back to the topic. What was it again???

 

 

[+briansnat]

It sure looks like it is.

 

There is a series around here that consists of waterproof match containers ziptied to trees in peoples front yards, between the street and the sidewalk. Although the DOT probably controls the ROW, I don't really feel that its respectful, although they have generated some 300 finds. Here is one.

 

Almost 300 finds on that? Amazing. Ironic that he places a cache within 15 feet of someone's front door, then warns about bothering the residents.

[4wheelin_fool]

It sure looks like it is.

 

There is a series around here that consists of waterproof match containers ziptied to trees in peoples front yards, between the street and the sidewalk. Although the DOT probably controls the ROW, I don't really feel that its respectful, although they have generated some 300 finds. Here is one.

 

Almost 300 finds on that? Amazing. Ironic that he places a cache within 15 feet of someone's front door, then warns about bothering the residents.

 

I suppose it's luck that they have lasted without trouble and with 150 finds per year. Those are mostly second homes and summer rentals with the residents accustomed to activity out front. Not many people in the winter, and never mind that the containers resemble pipe bombs.. Despite being obvious, they luckily haven't been spotted as of yet.

[+Don_J]

Check this cache (GC4W8R9)on Google Earth at street level. Would you say this is on private property? There is no mention on the cache page for permission. Today I posted a NM after no response from the 2 reviewers I contacted, the COs and no change on the cache page. I was going to go to the house when I found it but it was early morning and didn't want to disturb them.

This bothered you so much that, you contacted two Reviewers and the CO?

 

She contacted two reviewers, posted a NM on the cache and started a forum thread. Despite all that concern, she still trespassed, found and the logged cache.

???

 

Need to get that smiley!!

I thought "find" meant "find". She found the cache, yes, and discovered that it is a possible tresspass issue. Still a find, and then a NM/NA and email to owner and Reviewer.

 

If I am as concerned as she seems to be, I ask this question before going onto the property and looking for the cache.

[+Don_J]

Check this cache (GC4W8R9)on Google Earth at street level. Would you say this is on private property? There is no mention on the cache page for permission. Today I posted a NM after no response from the 2 reviewers I contacted, the COs and no change on the cache page. I was going to go to the house when I found it but it was early morning and didn't want to disturb them.

This bothered you so much that, you contacted two Reviewers and the CO?

 

She contacted two reviewers, posted a NM on the cache and started a forum thread. Despite all that concern, she still trespassed, found and the logged cache.

???

 

 

Need to get that smiley!!

I thought "find" meant "find". She found the cache, yes, and discovered that it is a possible trespass issue. Still a find, and then a NM/NA and email to owner and Reviewer.

 

I agree. She found the cache and can confirm where it was located. She didn't armchair the NM log.

 

So, if my GPSr is pointing fifty feet beyond a no trespassing sign, I should walk another fifty feet to confirm that the cache really is beyond the sign, then post a find and then a Needs Archived?

 

It's the idea of looking at a situation which you have reservations over, or simply know that it's wrong, but going on and looking for the cache anyway, then making a fuss over it afterwards that bothers me.

[+Don_J]

It makes me sad when people are turning this thread into a "who is turning a blind eye thread."

It's the flip of the same coin...

 

We are all "cache police", yet when someone uses the important and vital logging tools at our disposal (Found it, DNF, NM, NA, Note) to report an issue with a cache, some scream "Foul!"

 

I have a very hard time when I see that cache owners and cache finders can't understand that there are guidelines and laws that impact this game, and when the guidelines and/or laws are overlooked or ignored they need to be reported. It isn't the job of Lackeys or Volunteer Reviewers to handle every single cache issue that presents itself. Rather, it is all of our jobs to help this game continue according to the guidelines we all agree to when we create an account.

 

"Needs Archived" isn't a derogatory phrase. Neither is "Did Not Find". Plainly, when something is amiss, we all have a responsibility to report on that finding. Some will rise to the occasion, others will not. And therein is why those who take the time to note which caches break the guidelines or laws are doing us all a service. It's when a bomb squad, SWAT team, police, security guard, parent, property manager, private landowner, federal land manager, or whoever else is called that we see our game besmirched.

 

I prefer to log as necessary for caches and see othes doing the same. Call them "cache police", but we all agreed to the same guidelines for the game, and have a responsibility to help call attention to caches that go against the guidelines.

 

^^^^^

 

THIS

 

That's all fine and dandy. If I'm standing on the sidewalk and see that I have to walk across someone's lawn, and search their tree, I'm simply not doing it unless the cache description says "walk across my lawn and search my tree". This is my only point. If you see that a situation is obviously, or even most likely wrong, go on to the next one and report it if you feel that it is necessary. It's the idea that I have to find every cache, even if I know it's wrong that I object to. The idea that you have to continue to look for the cache just to prove that it's wrong, is just a cop out to build numbers.

[+L0ne.R]

It makes me sad when people are turning this thread into a "who is turning a blind eye thread."

It's the flip of the same coin...

 

We are all "cache police", yet when someone uses the important and vital logging tools at our disposal (Found it, DNF, NM, NA, Note) to report an issue with a cache, some scream "Foul!"

 

I have a very hard time when I see that cache owners and cache finders can't understand that there are guidelines and laws that impact this game, and when the guidelines and/or laws are overlooked or ignored they need to be reported. It isn't the job of Lackeys or Volunteer Reviewers to handle every single cache issue that presents itself. Rather, it is all of our jobs to help this game continue according to the guidelines we all agree to when we create an account.

 

"Needs Archived" isn't a derogatory phrase. Neither is "Did Not Find". Plainly, when something is amiss, we all have a responsibility to report on that finding. Some will rise to the occasion, others will not. And therein is why those who take the time to note which caches break the guidelines or laws are doing us all a service. It's when a bomb squad, SWAT team, police, security guard, parent, property manager, private landowner, federal land manager, or whoever else is called that we see our game besmirched.

 

I prefer to log as necessary for caches and see othes doing the same. Call them "cache police", but we all agreed to the same guidelines for the game, and have a responsibility to help call attention to caches that go against the guidelines.

 

^^^^^

 

THIS

 

That's all fine and dandy. If I'm standing on the sidewalk and see that I have to walk across someone's lawn, and search their tree, I'm simply not doing it unless the cache description says "walk across my lawn and search my tree". This is my only point. If you see that a situation is obviously, or even most likely wrong, go on to the next one and report it if you feel that it is necessary. It's the idea that I have to find every cache, even if I know it's wrong that I object to. The idea that you have to continue to look for the cache just to prove that it's wrong, is just a cop out to build numbers.

 

In this example, based on streetview, the tree looks like it is right next to the sidewalk so it might be possible to retrieve it without walking across the lawn. In this case, one might assume the CO owned the property, confirm that yes it is on that property, log the find, but still ask the question 'Are you inviting people onto property that you own and to climb a tree that you own? The cache listing doesn't specify. Was I lured into trespassing?' If there's no response from the cache owner, suspicions would arise.

 

Concern for future finders, the house owner (and neighbors), and the integrity of the game IMO trumps whether the person who questions the private property issue also logged the find. Driving up to a forest with an obvious 'no trespassing' sign is different then driving up to a private urban/suburban residence that doesn't have a 'Stay off my lawn' sign.

 

[Mr.Yuck]

Someone call for the cache police?

(Man, I'm glad I hid that one.)

 

I failed to visit Cache, Oklahoma when I was at Ft. Sill because it was before Geocaching existed. I'd go there for sure now, and find that Cache.

 

 

There is a series around here that consists of waterproof match containers ziptied to trees in peoples front yards, between the street and the sidewalk. Although the DOT probably controls the ROW, I don't really feel that its respectful, although they have generated some 300 finds. Here is one.

 

That is absolutely brutal there in Ocean City, New Jersey. Have the cache owner and the 300 finders of each one lost their minds? Now I've seen everything from the anything for a smiley crowd.

 

Didja call any of the homeowners?