Bringing attention to a potential problem

[+geodarts]

Suppose cachers routinely take a shortcut to a LPC past a "do not enter" sign. Archive the cache??

 

I would not delete a note that pointed out there was a "do not enter" sign and if it seemed to be a problem I would edit the cache description to warn people not to take the shortcut.

 

Even if there is no problem in getting to the cache at issue, I would edit the page (as you suggested earlier) to tell people that you should not open a door that sets off a silent security alarm. That has apparently happened and, at the least, it seems courteous to try to limit it.

 

Ignoring potential issues, as was apparently done here, rarely does anyone any good. I can think of examples where a CO has chosen to ignore no trespassing signs or a note stating that the agency got tired of cachers going into the property and the cache was moved to a different location. It doesn't seem like the best way of addressing your responsibility to this game and the people who play it.

Edited March 9, 2014 by geodarts

[+AirmetTango]

 

To me, the commercial aspect is less of an issue than the fact that this clearly appears to be a "vacation cache". The CO doesn't even live here! He's in California, fer cryin' out loud!

 

The cache was published in 2001. There was a somewhat prolific hider who's caches I've found that has quite a few active caches hidden all over the world. I suspect that this cache is grandfathered with respect to the vacation cache guideline.

 

For what it's worth, the "vacation cache" aspect of this debate appears not to be a real issue - at the bottom of the cache page, it states that "GA Cacher is the designated local dragon-keeper". Even the reviewer's Found It log explicitly thanks GA Cacher for maintaining the cache through the years.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

There sure seems to be much ado about various aspects of this cache.

 

Security:

The first seems to be that a cacher could notify security by performing certain actions. I believe this to be true whenever an area is monitored by security, and there is evidence that it has happened throughout the life of this cache. If I were performing an activity that I thought was illegal and security would not tolerate, I would be concerned. But they are aware and have not requested it to be shut down.

 

Permission:

Hotel management comes and goes. I'm OK going with the assumption that the cache had permission at inception since it has had 13 years of activity to vet the issue. I can even accept security as an extension of management and therefore rely on this early engagement as evidence that it's no big deal

Some one must have alerted security to would-be terrorists in the vicinity, because they found us in the 'belly of the dragon'. We feverishly explained the geocaching game, and volunteered to leave if he was still suspicious. But he said, 'I don't want to spoil your game'. So he left and we continued up and down the 'throat of the dragon'

 

Vacation Cache:

The maintenance plan is well documented from inception to present.

 

Deleted note:

C'mon man. If I had a note claiming the sky was falling for reasons that had already been vetted over 13 years on my page, I might just delete it also.

[+briansnat]

There is something on the cache page thats AGAINST the guideline.

 

I’m a trainer and speaker from San Diego. (www.byreferralonly.com) I am at a seminar/workshop in Buckhead from Aug 19-26, 2001. .

 

 

 

Oh thou reviewers, where are ya?

 

Unless you are Mr Peabody (I KNOW you are not Sherman) I do not think a seminar in 2001 is germane to this discussion.

 

The website address alone goes against this:

 

Solicitation and Commercial Content

 

Geocaches do not solicit for any purpose.

 

Cache listings perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is intended to be an enjoyable, family-friendly hobby, not a platform for an agenda. Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of new caches. This is considered an agenda and the listing will not be publishable.

Commercial geocaches are disallowed.

 

Cache listings perceived as commercial will not be published. A commercial cache listing has one or more of the following characteristics:

It has overtones of advertising, marketing or promotion.

It suggests or requires that the finder go inside a business, interact with employees and/or purchase a product or service.

It contains links to businesses, agencies, commercial advertisers, charities, or political or social agendas.

It contains the logo of a business or organization, including non-profit organizations.

It contains the name of a business or commercial product.

 

Thats good enough to hit the NA button.

 

 

Here the link to the guideline. https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

And plus the discussion going on in here.

 

As I wrap this up, that cache will never be published today without some serious permission taking place. If the CO is deleting logs that's warning people about whats going on, this is a serious issue here. It belong on the cache page. I dont see it as a spoiler.

 

Because the CO is deleting logs with warnings in it, the CO can get sued if anything happen. And GS too if they stand with the CO deleting the logs.

 

To me, the commercial aspect is less of an issue than the fact that this clearly appears to be a "vacation cache". The CO doesn't even live here! He's in California, fer cryin' out loud!

 

Check out the date on the cache. The cache was placed before many of the referenced guidelines were introduced and therefore grandfathered.

[+wmpastor]

the hotel is well within its rights to prosecute people continuing to flaunt the signage.

Sorry to selectively parse your post, but I agreed with much of it, and didn't see the need for excess text. However, this bit struck me as odd. What, exactly, would the hotel prosecute them for? My Georgia law knowledge is several decades old, but I don't think that flaunting signage is a criminal offense. As best I can recall, the most the hotel could do is kick the offending flaunter off their property.

I swore I wouldn't return to this aggravating train-wreck of a thread. However, without getting personal, I cannot help but ask myself why Grouchy chose his nickname....

 

I also ask again why, if using the stairs is such a felonious act, why did the hotel staff - in a post from the cache listing that I previously quoted - speak "helpfully" to cachers about using the stairs and even show them other passageways, etc??

[+wmpastor]

There sure seems to be much ado about various aspects of this cache.

 

Security:

The first seems to be that a cacher could notify security by performing certain actions. I believe this to be true whenever an area is monitored by security, and there is evidence that it has happened throughout the life of this cache. If I were performing an activity that I thought was illegal and security would not tolerate, I would be concerned. But they are aware and have not requested it to be shut down.

 

Permission:

Hotel management comes and goes. I'm OK going with the assumption that the cache had permission at inception since it has had 13 years of activity to vet the issue. I can even accept security as an extension of management and therefore rely on this early engagement as evidence that it's no big deal

Some one must have alerted security to would-be terrorists in the vicinity, because they found us in the 'belly of the dragon'. We feverishly explained the geocaching game, and volunteered to leave if he was still suspicious. But he said, 'I don't want to spoil your game'. So he left and we continued up and down the 'throat of the dragon'

 

Vacation Cache:

The maintenance plan is well documented from inception to present.

 

Deleted note:

C'mon man. If I had a note claiming the sky was falling for reasons that had already been vetted over 13 years on my page, I might just delete it also.

 

Yes, great summary. I've been trying to say the same things myself. Briansnat has weighed in and he's okay with things too. Any chance that the witch-hunt will end and the original cache-cop OP will finally quiet down??!

[+Ambrosia]

There sure seems to be much ado about various aspects of this cache.

 

Security:

The first seems to be that a cacher could notify security by performing certain actions. I believe this to be true whenever an area is monitored by security, and there is evidence that it has happened throughout the life of this cache. If I were performing an activity that I thought was illegal and security would not tolerate, I would be concerned. But they are aware and have not requested it to be shut down.

 

Permission:

Hotel management comes and goes. I'm OK going with the assumption that the cache had permission at inception since it has had 13 years of activity to vet the issue. I can even accept security as an extension of management and therefore rely on this early engagement as evidence that it's no big deal

Some one must have alerted security to would-be terrorists in the vicinity, because they found us in the 'belly of the dragon'. We feverishly explained the geocaching game, and volunteered to leave if he was still suspicious. But he said, 'I don't want to spoil your game'. So he left and we continued up and down the 'throat of the dragon'

 

Vacation Cache:

The maintenance plan is well documented from inception to present.

 

Deleted note:

C'mon man. If I had a note claiming the sky was falling for reasons that had already been vetted over 13 years on my page, I might just delete it also.

 

Yes, great summary. I've been trying to say the same things myself. Briansnat has weighed in and he's okay with things too. Any chance that the witch-hunt will end and the original cache-cop OP will finally quiet down??!

I wish that you would stop using inflammatory words like witch-hunt and cache-cop. A lot of people with different opinions than yours in this thread are trying to explain their position in a polite way, and don't deserve to be called names.

 

I also don't appreciate that you're picking and choosing which opinions to focus on. Not to pick on Brian, but he's weighed in in a way that you agree with (on one detail), and so suddenly the matter is closed?

[4wheelin_fool]

It is unknown why the hotel would place a sign up prohibiting use of a door for a stairwell, but it very well could be to prevent kids from vandalizing the spot, or to even stop it from being used as a place to smoke marijuana (and possibly among its own employees) In any case the hotel likely does not mind people going there, but any permissions may have been based on the perception that the visitor was staying at the hotel as a guest. I'm sure that if you complete the cache before 9:30 am, you might certainly feel compelled to enjoy a very nice complimentary breakfast with scrambled eggs, sausage, bagels, and juice!

[Luckless]

If I found I needed to go through a door that said it had an alarm to get a cache I'd head right to the management and tell them all about to see if it was okay to open the door. If there's a cache on their property, or requires crossing their property, then permission would have been obtained and they should be able to tell me.

[4wheelin_fool]

If I found I needed to go through a door that said it had an alarm to get a cache I'd head right to the management and tell them all about to see if it was okay to open the door. If there's a cache on their property, or requires crossing their property, then permission would have been obtained and they should be able to tell me.

 

As I said in a previous post, there is nobody in the forum, nor any reviewer or lackey for that matter, who can definitely say that the cache is fine. The only person that can do that is the property owner or the building's management. I'm sure that you can find 100 people to come in here and give their opinion saying there is no problem, but that doesn't mean much of anything.

 

Someone may get questioned, but they are not likely to get into any sort of trouble. It most likely would bring the game into a negative light when it is found that people playing an online game, and not staying at the hotel, are entering the building and creeping around the back stairwell. This type of lurking around may bring out the inner 15 year old child in many people, but other may see it as just a little creepy. Suppose the hotel's executives discover it by reading about it in the newspaper? A reporter for the Atlanta Journal could very well feature it, as it has over 100 favorites.

[+SwineFlew]

If I found I needed to go through a door that said it had an alarm to get a cache I'd head right to the management and tell them all about to see if it was okay to open the door. If there's a cache on their property, or requires crossing their property, then permission would have been obtained and they should be able to tell me.

 

As I said in a previous post, there is nobody in the forum, nor any reviewer or lackey for that matter, who can definitely say that the cache is fine. The only person that can do that is the property owner or the building's management. I'm sure that you can find 100 people to come in here and give their opinion saying there is no problem, but that doesn't mean much of anything.

 

Someone may get questioned, but they are not likely to get into any sort of trouble. It most likely would bring the game into a negative light when it is found that people playing an online game, and not staying at the hotel, are entering the building and creeping around the back stairwell. This type of lurking around may bring out the inner 15 year old child in many people, but other may see it as just a little creepy. Suppose the hotel's executives discover it by reading about it in the newspaper? A reporter for the Atlanta Journal could very well feature it, as it has over 100 favorites.

 

Yes... I agree here.

 

Because of security team got a high turn over and that alone does cause problems.

 

If it get in the newspaper, it mights come out like this:

 

Edited March 9, 2014 by SwineFlew

[+tozainamboku]

This thread has has some good discussion on how guidelines apply to older caches and whether a CO should be able to delete logs that point out potential risks involved in seeking out the cache.

 

But it is also has had moments either calling the OP a cache cop or expressing an opinion that this cache should be archived ASAP because it will give geocaching a black-eye.

 

The problem with these two issues is that the are one's likely to take this discussion into areas where the moderators are going to lock the thread.

 

While I feel the OP was in his rights to post a note describing what he saw and why he decided not to go further in searching for the cache, I'm not sure that bringing this to the forum was the right move. It may be the OP was motivated to do so when the cache owner deleted the note and did not contact him with the reason for doing so. However, anything that gets posted in this forum will inevitably bring out people who will say the cache needs to archived immediately. And that gets into debates over whether these people who have no particular knowledge of the specifics of this cache are playing the role of cache cop.

 

It has been pointed out already that the cache was placed prior to any of the guidelines brought out in the thread. Most (but not all) guidelines apply to publication of new caches going forward and not to already published caches. The term "grandfathered" is often used. In addition this cache has existed for 12 1/2 years with only one minor problem reported with security. In my experience, it is pretty common for hotels to allow emergency stairs to be used by the public, putting alarms on on exits to the street or the roof. Even if the hotel now has a policy to allow access to the stairs only in emergency, it is very likely that if someone did access the stairs they would not make a big fuss over it. The idea that the Atanta Journal-Constitution would run a big article on how a 12 year old geocache is "breaking the law" is far-fetched. If the hotel does not know about the cache and they do catch a geocacher in the stairwell, they can easily get the problem taken care of by notifying Groundspeak and having the cache archived. If the hotel knows about the cache or otherwise don't mind people in the emergency stairwell then the speculation about some horrible thing happening that will result in the bannination of geocaching in the state of Georgia is just that - speculation and not likely to occur.

[+wmpastor]

It is unknown why the hotel would place a sign up prohibiting use of a door for a stairwell, but it very well could be to prevent kids from vandalizing the spot, or to even stop it from being used as a place to smoke marijuana (and possibly among its own employees) In any case the hotel likely does not mind people going there, but any permissions may have been based on the perception that the visitor was staying at the hotel as a guest. I'm sure that if you complete the cache before 9:30 am, you might certainly feel compelled to enjoy a very nice complimentary breakfast with scrambled eggs, sausage, bagels, and juice!

Let's not forget the make-them-yourself waffles that are very common at these hotel buffet breakfasts. Yum-yum!

[+fizzymagic]

I wish that you would stop using inflammatory words like witch-hunt and cache-cop. A lot of people with different opinions than yours in this thread are trying to explain their position in a polite way, and don't deserve to be called names.

 

Name-calling is never helpful in a discussion like this one. But it is likely to happen because this is a very emotional issue, and it touches a raw nerve in the eternal old-timers vs. newbies divide. I'm sure you can remember when cache placement guidelines were not as restrictive as they are now and when people used common sense in determining what should be done about a cache.

 

I agree with toz (gasp) in part: this is an issue that did not belong in the forums. But, unlike him, I don't think the discussion here has been useful or productive. Advising the OP to handle this kind of situation via appropriate channels is the only sensible response. Calls to "leave it be" or "NA it" are both irresponsible.

 

I found the cache in question a long time ago -- long enough that I don't really recall the details other than a general impression that it was a cool hide at the time.

 

I, personally, am dismayed at the willingness of many relatively new cachers to emit an NA log at the first hint of trouble; it has happened to caches around here several times in the last few months (including an NA on one of my long-running caches just because the cacher couldn't find it). I've been caching long enough to not take it personally, but that first instinct to delete the log is a natural one.

[4wheelin_fool]

I rather doubt that a reporter would do any article on a single cache either. Rather they would visit several that others had told them had multiple favorites and include this one. Simply entering the stairwell area is not really the problem, but the fact that nearly 500 people who were not staying there accessed an area deep in the bowels without detection. Not many would really like that press. I can recall another time this same cache was brought up here, but will have to find the thread later..

[+wmpastor]

I wish that you would stop using inflammatory words like witch-hunt and cache-cop. A lot of people with different opinions than yours in this thread are trying to explain their position in a polite way, and don't deserve to be called names.

 

Name-calling is never helpful in a discussion like this one. But it is likely to happen because this is a very emotional issue, and it touches a raw nerve in the eternal old-timers vs. newbies divide. I'm sure you can remember when cache placement guidelines were not as restrictive as they are now and when people used common sense in determining what should be done about a cache.

 

I agree with toz (gasp) in part: this is an issue that did not belong in the forums. But, unlike him, I don't think the discussion here has been useful or productive. Advising the OP to handle this kind of situation via appropriate channels is the only sensible response. Calls to "leave it be" or "NA it" are both irresponsible.

 

I found the cache in question a long time ago -- long enough that I don't really recall the details other than a general impression that it was a cool hide at the time.

 

I, personally, am dismayed at the willingness of many relatively new cachers to emit an NA log at the first hint of trouble; it has happened to caches around here several times in the last few months (including an NA on one of my long-running caches just because the cacher couldn't find it). I've been caching long enough to not take it personally, but that first instinct to delete the log is a natural one.

 

 

There have been several "voice-of-reason" posts like the above, & Toz'. I call them that because they take a calm, explanatory, middle-of-the-road approach. That's helpful to everyone.

 

Yes, this is a hot-button issue. This critique of a good cache bothered me because it seemed that people unfairly wanted it archived even after hearing good reasons why all is well, & pursued the archiving goal with too much gusto. Others probably feel rules must be followed, & problems would occur otherwise.

 

Groundspeak has a review process to deal with cache issues and problems. It does make much more sense to follow that process rather than try to solve it here.

 

One value I see coming out of the thread is the review of the rules, including how the date of placement affects what rules do or do not apply - in other words, that some caches are grandfathered and (whether you like it or not) they don't need to comply with certain later rules.

Edited March 10, 2014 by wmpastor

[+wmpastor]

I rather doubt that a reporter would do any article on a single cache either. Rather they would visit several that others had told them had multiple favorites and include this one. Simply entering the stairwell area is not really the problem, but the fact that nearly 500 people who were not staying there accessed an area deep in the bowels without detection. Not many would really like that press. I can recall another time this same cache was brought up here, but will have to find the thread later..

After all of the heavy discussion in this thread, I think I'll head over to "out of context" for some lighter topics.

[+GeoBain]

I wish this wasn't in a stairwell. It sounds like a cache I need to drive up and find before it disappears.

[4wheelin_fool]

After all of the heavy discussion in this thread, I think I'll head over to "out of context" for some lighter topics.

 

Yes, the post openly calling the OP a cache cop for asking opinions and bullying him into keeping quiet was the heaviest. I don't think this cache is likely to cause problems any time soon, or have any NAs posted on it either, so there is no reason why it can't be discussed without the personal attacks.

[+wmpastor]

After all of the heavy discussion in this thread, I think I'll head over to "out of context" for some lighter topics.

 

Yes, the post openly calling the OP a cache cop for asking opinions and bullying him into keeping quiet was the heaviest. I don't think this cache is likely to cause problems any time soon, or have any NAs posted on it either, so there is no reason why it can't be discussed without the personal attacks.

Okay, you called into question my use of the term "cache cop" & I'll defend it. You won't hear personal attacks from me. I do not say things like "you dummy" to those I disagree with. "Cache cop" refers to someone who is a self-appointed rule-maker with a mission to archive caches that they decide are unacceptable, or obsesss on whether caches comply with the rules. To me that's offensive. If it doesn't apply to the OP, & he was merely asking opinions, i'm sorry for my mistake. However, he did seem to argue the "archive now" position. Didn't he say "[the CO] lives in California, for crying out loud" to throw the vacation cache issue into the stew after his other arguments for archiving were answered? It seemed to me that the underlying attitude of some is "this cache is wrong & it's gotta go."

 

There's an established process to review caches for publication and afterward. Use it. Whether or not the OP intended it, this thread has become a courtroom to judge a specific cache. That not helpful, as the veterans have stated. In my opinion, the thread has run its course. It's getting repetitive. You're free to disagree. We can rehash the issues til doomsday.

[+wmpastor]

I wish this wasn't in a stairwell. It sounds like a cache I need to drive up and find before it disappears.

Right. If that happens it would be a shame. In fact, if I were visiting that area & the hotel was in a convenient location, I might stay there. Caches near businesses can bring new customers. I've been a customer of two restauants with caches very close by.

[+Team Microdot]

"Cache cop" refers to someone who is a self-appointed rule-maker with a mission to archive caches that they decide are unacceptable, or obsesss on whether caches comply with the rules. To me that's offensive.

 

I wonder if there's a complimentary name for someone who is a self-appointed rule-maker with a mission to harass cachers they decide are behaving in an unacceptable manner, or obsess on whether cachers comply with their rules, and feel it necessary to harass and belittle them and brand them "Cache cop" for daring to think there's some value in high standards of conduct?

 

Someone who has gone to the effort to read and digest the guidelines finds a cache which might not follow them - sticks their head above the parapet and immediately gets shot down in flames by a veteran

 

To me that's offensive.

 

And we wonder why we end up with cr@ppy caches in dodgy locations which subsequently get abandoned to rot? Really?

 

There probably are cachers out there who take things to the nth degree - but I'll wager there's a larger number of well-meaning cachers who just want to see the game played well, to high standards who having been branded a "Cache cop" will, next time they see a problem - simply decide they don't need the grief walk away and leave it for someone else to clean up. Great result.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

To me, the commercial aspect is less of an issue than the fact that this clearly appears to be a "vacation cache". The CO doesn't even live here! He's in California, fer cryin' out loud!

 

The cache was published in 2001. There was a somewhat prolific hider who's caches I've found that has quite a few active caches hidden all over the world. I suspect that this cache is grandfathered with respect to the vacation cache guideline.

 

For what it's worth, the "vacation cache" aspect of this debate appears not to be a real issue - at the bottom of the cache page, it states that "GA Cacher is the designated local dragon-keeper". Even the reviewer's Found It log explicitly thanks GA Cacher for maintaining the cache through the years.

 

If you read all the logs, it looks like he had it on his watchlist, and replaced the cache and volunteered to be the local maintenance person AFTER it was archived.

 

However, it was not a real issue in the first place. Vacation caches were no problem back in 2001. I don't think anyone in this thread thinks this cache should be archived because it is known to be a vacation cache. At least I don't think they do.

 

By the way, vacation caches slip through all the time (I live near Niagara Falls, believe me, I've seen 4 or 5 people "get away" with them over the years, for example), and I've never seen one retroactively archived after the owner got busted for placing a vacation cache.

[+TriciaG]

I wonder if there's a complimentary name for someone who is a self-appointed rule-maker with a mission to harass cachers they decide are behaving in an unacceptable manner, or obsess on whether cachers comply with their rules, and feel it necessary to harass and belittle them and brand them "Cache cop" for daring to think there's some value in high standards of conduct?

A cache-cop hater? How about "cache mafia" or "cache gang banger"?

[+desmognathus]

I recently logged this cache myself and found it to be very entertaining and creative. While the permission issue did cross my mind, I was not uncomfortable

searching for this cache, which is more than I can say for many caches in public view. I did not notice a warning sign at the entrance door to the stairwell, but there definitely was one on the exit door. Other than a very strong smell of urine, I noticed no issues upon exit.

[+NeverSummer]

Are you absolutely certain that there's not another way to access it?

 

If there is, then the solution is for the CO to say in the write-up, "Don't go through the alarmed door, go around the other way."

 

No. If you follow the directions, there is only one possible way...a double door to an exit stairway. He states in his description the alarm will not sound, but someone logging it claimed otherwise.

 

Like I said, I don't like being that guy that spoils the fun...but my fun was spoiled today when I went looking for it and saw that sign. And it would have been spoiled worse if I'd been waylaid by security. Of course, now if I post a NA log, not only am I a spoiler, I'll look like a vindictive spoiler because he deleted my note!

To me, if you searched for this cache yourself and it has this issue, it is a permission problem, and deserved a NA log. You might get flamed for it, but the truth is that it is counter-intuitive when you see the sign, and the log about an alarm going off.

 

This isn't unlike coming to a cache site from a direction other than that which the cache owner used to get there, and finding a "No Tresspassing" sign. There might be something going on with this cache that the owner was unaware of, and if they haven't taken action about the log stating a silent/security alarm, then a NA is not a problematic log to use.

[+tozainamboku]

Someone who has gone to the effort to read and digest the guidelines finds a cache which might not follow them - sticks their head above the parapet and immediately gets shot down in flames by a veteran

 

To me that's offensive.

Unfortunately, the guidelines are written somewhat tersely, and lack much of the background as to when or why they were adopted in the first place. Newer cachers often extend the guidelines to caches that they were never meant to apply to in the first place, usually because they were grandfathered, and sometimes because the guideline is not an absolute rule but just a guideline that the reviewer may not think applies in a certain situation.

 

"Cache cop" often gets used when someone who has only the rudimentary understanding of the guidelines that can be gleened by reading them as they exist now on the website, starts making judgments on caches they know nothing about. While a cacher should be able to post a Needs Archive or write a note expressing concerns about a cache they have actually attempted without getting labeled as a cache cop, I think the term is appropriate when it is applied to someone in the forum who argues a particular cache must be archived.

 

And we wonder why we end up with cr@ppy caches in dodgy locations which subsequently get abandoned to rot? Really?

Of course we also get caches with 106 favorite points that many cachers have enjoyed finding over the years. The guidelines creep has made certain kinds of hides that many geocachers enjoy, harder to get approved. Whenever a new guideline is adopted there is always a tradeoff between hide creativity and dealing with problematic hides.

 

There probably are cachers out there who take things to the nth degree - but I'll wager there's a larger number of well-meaning cachers who just want to see the game played well, to high standards who having been branded a "Cache cop" will, next time they see a problem - simply decide they don't need the grief walk away and leave it for someone else to clean up. Great result.

Well meaning cachers have ways to express where they have concern over some potential problem with a cache they have attempted. This seldom includes posting about it on the global geocaching forum. Posting notes, Need Archive, or sending private messages to the reviewer are reasonable. In many cases, walking away because they are uncomfortable with a cache but unsure if the cache is compliant with guidelines or not, is also reasonable. Geocaching has not only survived, but has thrived, despite there always have been a number of questionable caches. While reviewers depend on cachers reporting problems (or even potential problems), it is not the end of the world when someone simply decides to walk away.

[+NeverSummer]

<snip>

Well meaning cachers have ways to express where they have concern over some potential problem with a cache they have attempted. This seldom includes posting about it on the global geocaching forum. Posting notes, Need Archive, or sending private messages to the reviewer are reasonable. In many cases, walking away because they are uncomfortable with a cache but unsure if the cache is compliant with guidelines or not, is also reasonable. Geocaching has not only survived, but has thrived, despite there always have been a number of questionable caches. While reviewers depend on cachers reporting problems (or even potential problems), it is not the end of the world when someone simply decides to walk away.

I think this is where we are seeing the majority of problems with the "cache cop" name calling. (see bolded) Posting a NA on this cache is an acceptible course of action, based on the context provided by the OP and the logs on the cache itself.

 

Now, if a person has a question about if their gut is telling them the "right" or acceptable thing to do, they might come to the forums to ask. Many cachers--both new and old--come here and do just that. Some do it for affirmation, some for attention, and others because the just plain old don't know the answer.

 

To hog-pile on the "cache cop" name calling is not productive in the global forums. What is productive is sticking to the facts and relating our interpretation of the guidelines. We are all, afterall, cache cops. It's how the game was designed, and how we should treat our logging of caches. When it comes to the forums, the issue suddenly becomes taboo. Next thing you know we have people tossing barbs back and forth, and the general vibe of the forums continues to degrade.

 

So, we've touched on vacation caches, property ownership, permissions, and evidence of issues with a cache that might be of concern. According to the guidelines, one is well within the realm of reason to post a NA log and let the owner and Reviewer look it over in light of the evidence and guidelines. All of this can happen without calling the OP a "cache cop" in a derogatory manner, can't it?

[+Team Microdot]

Unfortunately, the guidelines are written somewhat tersely, and lack much of the background as to when or why they were adopted in the first place. Newer cachers often extend the guidelines to caches that they were never meant to apply to in the first place, usually because they were grandfathered, and sometimes because the guideline is not an absolute rule but just a guideline that the reviewer may not think applies in a certain situation.

 

Which is why there's a safety mechanism in place in the form of volunteer reviewers who are knowledegable about such things.

 

NA just flags a potential issue up to a reviewer and if used in good faith shouldn't attract derision.

 

"Cache cop" often gets used when someone who has only the rudimentary understanding of the guidelines that can be gleened by reading them as they exist now on the website, starts making judgments on caches they know nothing about.

 

I fail to see how branding someone a "Cache cop" is helpful or educational in any way. Rather its intent is often the complete opposite.

 

While a cacher should be able to post a Needs Archive or write a note expressing concerns about a cache they have actually attempted without getting labeled as a cache cop, I think the term is appropriate when it is applied to someone in the forum who argues a particular cache must be archived.

 

Maybe. I guess that would depend on individual circumstances.

 

Of course we also get caches with 106 favorite points that many cachers have enjoyed finding over the years.

 

We do indeed - and that's certainly no perfect indicator that a cache complies perfectly with the guidelines, doesn't have any issues or that it should even have been published in the first place. I can think of a few caches which completely disregarded a number of important guidelines which had lots of favourite points - indicating I guess that those who found them enjoyed them. The tree with several large steel eye-bolts driven into it so that a film pot on a loop of string could be lowered, logged and raised again was a particularly good example.

 

The guidelines creep has made certain kinds of hides that many geocachers enjoy, harder to get approved. Whenever a new guideline is adopted there is always a tradeoff between hide creativity and dealing with problematic hides.

 

Don't see what this has to do with people who query potential cache issues being branded "Cache cop" though.

 

Well meaning cachers have ways to express where they have concern over some potential problem with a cache they have attempted. This seldom includes posting about it on the global geocaching forum. Posting notes, Need Archive, or sending private messages to the reviewer are reasonable. In many cases, walking away because they are uncomfortable with a cache but unsure if the cache is compliant with guidelines or not, is also reasonable.

 

Asking opinions of one's peer group is also reasonable.

 

Geocaching has not only survived, but has thrived, despite there always have been a number of questionable caches. While reviewers depend on cachers reporting problems (or even potential problems), it is not the end of the world when someone simply decides to walk away.

 

You're right - it's not the end of the world.

 

In those instances where issues with the cache should be addressed, or where it should actually just be archived - is it a good thing to just walk away and pretend we never saw it? To leave it there to be found by others who then go out and duplicate the same non-compliant hide because they've seen it done before and assume therefore that it's OK to repeat? I think not. Better IMHO that we step up and say something - even if we do have to suffer the slings and arrows

[+Sagefox]

All it takes is one person getting stopped by security - who finds the cache and confiscates it - to end this cache for good.

 

This is your best point.

 

Since it has not happened in 12 years that should tell you that you needn't be concerned about this cache. If that is its ultimate fate then so be it but that day doesn't need to be hastened by anyone's preemptive action beyond attempting to find the cache.

 

The frustration of not finding a cache that has tons of Fave votes and no one is giving out any clues in their logs can be maddening but when we see that folks are having fun and there is some inside joke that we are not getting we need to think it through and try again or leave it alone.

 

As to Cache Cop comments: There are times when being CC needs to be done the for greater good for the game but this is certainly not one of those caches. 107 faves, no major complaints and no current NM or NA logs means we don't need to get twisted over it.

[+J Grouchy]

All it takes is one person getting stopped by security - who finds the cache and confiscates it - to end this cache for good.

 

This is your best point.

 

Since it has not happened in 12 years that should tell you that you needn't be concerned about this cache. If that is its ultimate fate then so be it but that day doesn't need to be hastened by anyone's preemptive action beyond attempting to find the cache.

 

The frustration of not finding a cache that has tons of Fave votes and no one is giving out any clues in their logs can be maddening but when we see that folks are having fun and there is some inside joke that we are not getting we need to think it through and try again or leave it alone.

 

As to Cache Cop comments: There are times when being CC needs to be done the for greater good for the game but this is certainly not one of those caches. 107 faves, no major complaints and no current NM or NA logs means we don't need to get twisted over it.

 

The reviewer who found it does not recall seeing such signage, nor to other who found it not long ago...which leads me to believe this signage may be new. The reviewer said he cannot really do anything without a photo to go by...so perhaps if I'm in the area (I might be tomorrow?) I could swing by and snap a few.

 

Kinda makes me wonder what they would or could do if I was stopped after setting off an alarm. Is it just a matter of them asking me to leave the premises or is it something they could pursue by legal means since they have the warning signage posted at each door? Or is it nothing more than just some guy looking at the screen thinking "not another one!" and silencing the alarm?

 

As for the whole "cache cop" discussion...I really don't care. Like Team Microdot said:

In those instances where issues with the cache should be addressed' date=' or where it should actually just be archived - is it a good thing to just walk away and pretend we never saw it? To leave it there to be found by others who then go out and duplicate the same non-compliant hide because they've seen it done before and assume therefore that it's OK to repeat? I think not. Better IMHO that we step up and say something - even if we do have to suffer the slings and arrows[/quote']

 

It appears that people are going through simply because so many others have in the past. Maybe this is a recent change, but the fact that the CO deleted my note about it would indicate to me that rather than publicly address it, he just didn't want others to see it...business as usual and all that. I guess I don't like the fact that folks are going in assuming it's okay if perhaps things HAVE changed in that 12+ years. If they went Vegas-style and started checking guest access cards for anyone going to the upper level, I'd want to know that too - even if other cachers managed to slip by unseen. This game often requires stealth...but not in the sense that we should be cat-burglars eluding security or law enforcement in pursuit of a little plastic box with a notebook inside.

[4wheelin_fool]

After all of the heavy discussion in this thread, I think I'll head over to "out of context" for some lighter topics.

 

Yes, the post openly calling the OP a cache cop for asking opinions and bullying him into keeping quiet was the heaviest. I don't think this cache is likely to cause problems any time soon, or have any NAs posted on it either, so there is no reason why it can't be discussed without the personal attacks.

Okay, you called into question my use of the term "cache cop" & I'll defend it. You won't hear personal attacks from me. I do not say things like "you dummy" to those I disagree with. "Cache cop" refers to someone who is a self-appointed rule-maker with a mission to archive caches that they decide are unacceptable, or obsesss on whether caches comply with the rules. To me that's offensive. If it doesn't apply to the OP, & he was merely asking opinions, i'm sorry for my mistake. However, he did seem to argue the "archive now" position. Didn't he say "[the CO] lives in California, for crying out loud" to throw the vacation cache issue into the stew after his other arguments for archiving were answered? It seemed to me that the underlying attitude of some is "this cache is wrong & it's gotta go

 

There's an established process to review caches for publication and afterward. Use it. Whether or not the OP intended it, this thread has become a courtroom to judge a specific cache. That not helpful, as the veterans have stated. In my opinion, the thread has run its course. It's getting repetitive. You're free to disagree. We can rehash the issues til doomsday.

 

The established process is to post an NA or contact a reviewer. Usually when that happens the cacher is sometimes called a cache cop. In this case they did neither. Lets review what happened. The cacher encountered signage which indicated that entry was prohibited, which is very similar to seeing a No Trespassing sign outdoors. They posted a note asking for clarification, which was deleted. The CO made absolutely no effort to explain the situation, or showed any concern about what could occur, which is a fairly antisocial act. At that point many would have posted an NA, but they didn't. They asked here.

 

At that point the minimum that the CO could do is to confirm that entry is fine. Although the best thing would be to get permission, that is not necessary, nor even to tell the hotel about it. They could just call and ask what would happen to anyone caught in that area if that door is opened. Perhaps they could have a child who they are unable to control which insists on using that door, or a elderly relative who wants some exercise and is too stubborn to listen. Just verify the reaction and possibly provide a reason. Instead we have no communication at all which makes it worse and leaves everyone wondering about the unknown. They are also risking someone else contacting the hotel, and not being so nice about it. This is entirely a problem created by the CO and not the OP.

[4wheelin_fool]

"Cache cop"

 

The only cache cops are the reviewers and lackeys. Someone can certainly post all the NAs they want, but they do not archive anything. Using that term on fellow cachers is similar to grade school kids calling others "narks", or by people in urban areas who openly deal drugs on street corners. It should be expected that people behave as adults around here. Using the word "puritan" is more evolved than that.

[+Sagefox]

The reviewer who found it does not recall seeing such signage, nor [d]o other who found it not long ago...

 

...which leads me to believe this signage may be new.

 

Sounds like. I take it all back. Looks like 487 cache visitors may finally have proved a few too many.

 

This game often requires stealth...but not in the sense that we should be cat-burglars eluding security or law enforcement...

 

Often stealth requires eluding everyone and anyone. A better way to say this might be: not in the sense that we should cross into no trespassing (or do not enter) zones.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Knowing the CO has deleted 1 log...

How many more has the CO deleted?

 

Maybe the issue has been raised previously, but the log was deleted?

[+kunarion]

Knowing the CO has deleted 1 log...

How many more has the CO deleted?

 

Maybe the issue has been raised previously, but the log was deleted?

The issue has been raised several times, with logs remaining. GS can restore deleted logs upon request.

 

Since previous finders specifically mention another route with no alarm, concerned cachers could find that route. Even if all the escalators are "up" escalators (what a poorly designed escalator system!), it is possible to descend, with planning and effort.

 

I have no luck with "don't worry about the sign" style caches, and therefore won't press my luck when there's any ominous sign. But hotels have such doors to prevent the sneaking of persons into the hotel, not to prevent you from leaving.

Edited March 11, 2014 by kunarion

[+J Grouchy]

Knowing the CO has deleted 1 log...

How many more has the CO deleted?

 

Maybe the issue has been raised previously, but the log was deleted?

The issue has been raised several times, with logs remaining. GS can restore deleted logs upon request.

 

Since previous finders specifically mention another route with no alarm, concerned cachers could find that route. Even if all the escalators are "up" escalators (what a poorly designed escalator system!), it is possible to descend, with planning and effort.

 

I have no luck with "don't worry about the sign" style caches, and therefore won't press my luck when there's any ominous sign. But hotels have such doors to prevent the sneaking of persons into the hotel, not to prevent you from leaving.

 

Yeah...it's an urban location, so it's possible the intent is just to keep folks from using it and allowing non-guests unobserved access to upper floors. If this is the case, it's likely they just watch the cameras when the alarm is set off and when they see someone leaving they just go about their business. I will repeat, though, that this is an exit stairwell...meaning entry into the stairwell from upper levels is not prevented, but exit from the stairwell into any level above the ground level is limited or prevented by the door hardware. This is intended as a way of keeping the stairwells clear in the event of emergencies. My office building has the same setup, but without the alarm. If I decided to leave using the stairs, I wouldn't be able to access any other level except for the ground level and would be forced to descend all 15 floors unless someone from another level opened the door to the hallway for me.

 

I actually emailed the CO on Friday, but still have not received a response. He sure was quick to delete the log, but apparently can't even be bothered to respond to my direct inquiry.

[+J Grouchy]

Well...this is embarrassing...

 

http://coord.info/GLDHFPE5

 

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I still wouldn't give this one a favorite point. Aside from being inside the building, there's nothing particularly special about this cache.

 

I guess there was all this to-do about nothing.

 

This is the sign I originally saw:

 

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), I had turned the wrong direction when leaving the escalator. Of course, the CO could have cleared it all up to start with...

[+kunarion]

I guess there was all this to-do about nothing.

So this cache might still be active on New Years Day, 2015. Cool. I'll probably still be too chicken to try it. And businesses close & lock even more doors on a holiday.

[+fizzymagic]

Well...this is embarrassing...

 

It takes a big person to admit a mistake like this. I am impressed.

 

I think maybe a lesson here is that we shouldn't shoot from the hip. I don't think it was appropriate for the CO to delete the log with no explanation. OTOH, I am hoping that all those who called for an instant NA are properly chastened, though I kinda doubt it.

[4wheelin_fool]

Well...this is embarrassing...

 

It takes a big person to admit a mistake like this. I am impressed.

 

I think maybe a lesson here is that we shouldn't shoot from the hip. I don't think it was appropriate for the CO to delete the log with no explanation. OTOH, I am hoping that all those who called for an instant NA are properly chastened, though I kinda doubt it.

 

I don't think so. Deleting a note under the circumstances and not providing any type of explanation is pretty much asking for trouble, as well as more inquiry. Most people would get annoyed and not want to invest any more time if the CO has a basic communication problem. An NA would only alert someone else to inquire about it, not archive it. The attitude of implying that they should just settle down and be quiet is a bit disrespectful, as all of this could have been avoided with a simple one sentence reply or a page edit for clarification.

[+Sagefox]

Aside from being inside the building, there's nothing particularly special about this cache.

 

Is this the "Grouchy" part coming through?

[+tozainamboku]

OTOH, I am hoping that all those who called for an instant NA are properly chastened, though I kinda doubt it.

I don't think those calling for NA care at all about the actual facts in this case. What they are calling for is not to archive problem caches, but to post NA on potential problem caches. At this point they have made up their minds that whatever the facts, this cache is a potential problem waiting to happen. Even if a cacher goes through the wrong door because he misunderstood the instructions on the cache page, there are those who are convinced this will cause all kinds of problem not just for the poor sod who set off the alarm accidentally, but for geocachers everywhere. Not only do these people see potential problems, but they see consequences far more serious that are every likely to happen. When challenged, the response is alway that it is better to err on the side of caution and report all potential problems no matter how likely they are to occur or to have any reprocussions.

 

The argument is that it our duty to report any and all potential problems and let the reviewers sort it out. My guess in that most reviewers would prefer that issue aren't reported until there actually is a problem. A geocacher who is caught in the stairwell and taken to task by hotel security for being there would have far more credablity than someone seeing a sign on the wrong door. Of course, in this particular case, what the OP did was to post a note about the sign in the hope that the cache owner could clarify. There is still the issue of the CO deleting this log and not contacting the OP to determine if there was a problem with the cache. There seem to be some people who feel that this action by the CO is reason enough to archive the cache.

[+Team Microdot]

OTOH, I am hoping that all those who called for an instant NA are properly chastened, though I kinda doubt it.

I don't think those calling for NA care at all about the actual facts in this case. What they are calling for is not to archive problem caches, but to post NA on potential problem caches.

 

Which brings us back to the attitude that it doesn't matter until it matters - claim the smiley, walk away and wait for any issues to blow up in someone else's face.

 

At this point they have made up their minds that whatever the facts, this cache is a potential problem waiting to happen.

 

I assume this statement refers specifically to the cache which is the subject of this thread, rather than caches in general - although your previous statement referring to problem caches leaves me uncertain.

 

In either case, people make judgement calls based on the facts as they know them at the time - sometimes they'll be right, sometimes they'll be wrong but so long as they're acting in good faith with positive intentions I'd say it's OK either way given that nothing happens without the full attention of a very well informed reviewer. Seems like a perfectly reasonable and logical system to me.

 

Even if a cacher goes through the wrong door because he misunderstood the instructions on the cache page, there are those who are convinced this will cause all kinds of problem not just for the poor sod who set off the alarm accidentally, but for geocachers everywhere.

 

Everywhere? Not like you to exaggerate for effect

 

Not only do these people see potential problems, but they see consequences far more serious that are every likely to happen. When challenged, the response is alway that it is better to err on the side of caution and report all potential problems no matter how likely they are to occur or to have any reprocussions.

 

Are we talking about this particular cache here or generalising to all caches / situations?

 

Is it possible that when challenged a person raising a query might offer all sorts of explanations for their actions - including that they acted in good faith based on the information they were aware of and their understanding of applicable guidelines at the time - or even gut feel and the worry that they might be shot down as a cache cop by the cache mafia for asking questions / seeking guidance?

 

The argument is that it our duty to report any and all potential problems and let the reviewers sort it out. My guess in that most reviewers would prefer that issue aren't reported until there actually is a problem.

 

That doesn't fit with my experience. Reviewers I've dealt with so far have always sought to be pro-active and review / address issues before they become problems. I've found this arrangement particularly useful in that our local reviewers are happy to discuss ideas for new caches and flag up any potential issues early on so they can be avoided from the outset

 

There is still the issue of the CO deleting this log and not contacting the OP to determine if there was a problem with the cache.

There seem to be some people who feel that this action by the CO is reason enough to archive the cache.

 

That's one way of looking at it.

[+NeverSummer]

OTOH, I am hoping that all those who called for an instant NA are properly chastened, though I kinda doubt it.

I don't think those calling for NA care at all about the actual facts in this case. What they are calling for is not to archive problem caches, but to post NA on potential problem caches. At this point they have made up their minds that whatever the facts, this cache is a potential problem waiting to happen. Even if a cacher goes through the wrong door because he misunderstood the instructions on the cache page, there are those who are convinced this will cause all kinds of problem not just for the poor sod who set off the alarm accidentally, but for geocachers everywhere. Not only do these people see potential problems, but they see consequences far more serious that are every likely to happen. When challenged, the response is alway that it is better to err on the side of caution and report all potential problems no matter how likely they are to occur or to have any reprocussions.

 

The argument is that it our duty to report any and all potential problems and let the reviewers sort it out. My guess in that most reviewers would prefer that issue aren't reported until there actually is a problem. A geocacher who is caught in the stairwell and taken to task by hotel security for being there would have far more credablity than someone seeing a sign on the wrong door. Of course, in this particular case, what the OP did was to post a note about the sign in the hope that the cache owner could clarify. There is still the issue of the CO deleting this log and not contacting the OP to determine if there was a problem with the cache. There seem to be some people who feel that this action by the CO is reason enough to archive the cache.

Based on the evidence presented first, it isn't out of the question to post a NA and let the owner clarify the issue. It can be done in an agreeable way, with mutual respect and patience.

 

What happened, however, is not that. The CO deleted a note that called into question the cache location. Rather than being a kind CO, they deleted without explanation, and have not replied to direct contact. Unitl the return visit and admission of mistakes, the evidence pointed toward a NA log for this cache.

 

And, a NA is not the end of the world if people decide to treat it with patience and kindness.

 

The owner could clarify on the logs via OM log that the circumstances of the cache and location, and where a mistake may be made by seekers.

 

Now that there is a return visit with improved information, it seems that there is no reason to debate this specific cache any further, but instead take up the NA usage discussion next month when it comes along again.

 

Lessons learned? Owners should be responsive, kind, and clear. Seekers should report caches if there is evidence leading to the need for a Note, NM, or NA log. They should do so with kindness, clarity, and humility. It's really too bad that this is too much to ask, and we get these dicussions to reach loggerheads so quickly.

[+fizzymagic]

The argument is that it our duty to report any and all potential problems and let the reviewers sort it out.

 

Very insightful. I think you have captured the mindset very well. I have had a conversation in some ways similar to this with a cacher who regularly advises us in our local group to avoid certain areas because there will be (for whatever reason) an enhanced police presence. She seems to think that being stopped by the police is likely to get caching banned or something. My attitude is that since caching is not illegal, and I view the police as generally good guys, I am always happy to talk with them.

 

It's the same thing here. Part of the appeal (to me) of caching is doing slightly odd things in public places. I enjoy using my magician foo to get people to ignore me while I am doing something slightly odd (but not illegal) right in front of them.

 

I think there are many who say that we should avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and that caches that could ever somehow cause a problem should be eliminated. I disagree. That's not to say that I don't find some cache hide styles problematic to the point that I would never hide one (e.g. fake electrical equipment; fake sprinklers). But I think that if we allow caching to degrade to the point where we don't expect cachers to be responsible for their own actions and use common sense, then we have sucked a lot of fun out of the activity.

 

My guess in that most reviewers would prefer that issue aren't reported until there actually is a problem.

 

It's not a guess. It's a fact. I have heard this sentiment directly from more than one reviewer.

[+NeverSummer]

The argument is that it our duty to report any and all potential problems and let the reviewers sort it out.

 

Very insightful. I think you have captured the mindset very well. I have had a conversation in some ways similar to this with a cacher who regularly advises us in our local group to avoid certain areas because there will be (for whatever reason) an enhanced police presence. She seems to think that being stopped by the police is likely to get caching banned or something. My attitude is that since caching is not illegal, and I view the police as generally good guys, I am always happy to talk with them.

 

It's the same thing here. Part of the appeal (to me) of caching is doing slightly odd things in public places. I enjoy using my magician foo to get people to ignore me while I am doing something slightly odd (but not illegal) right in front of them.

 

I think there are many who say that we should avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and that caches that could ever somehow cause a problem should be eliminated. I disagree. That's not to say that I don't find some cache hide styles problematic to the point that I would never hide one (e.g. fake electrical equipment; fake sprinklers). But I think that if we allow caching to degrade to the point where we don't expect cachers to be responsible for their own actions and use common sense, then we have sucked a lot of fun out of the activity.

 

Woah. Boom! My head just exploded with this excellent and accurate summary of the state of the game as it was, is, and we hope it should be.

 

But, it is important to recognize that, when a cache creates a situation, or is the situation where permission, legality, etc. are in question, the cache should be "policed" just as the game was designed.

[+funkymunkyzone]

My guess in that most reviewers would prefer that issue aren't reported until there actually is a problem.

It's not a guess. It's a fact. I have heard this sentiment directly from more than one reviewer.

Indeed. I've even reported a problem (private property that needed to be crossed to access cache, property owners wishing cache to not be there) to a very experienced reviewer and got the grumpy reply "I'm not the cache police". :/

[+Walts Hunting]

If I reported every violation (particularly the buried one) I would be doing more than one a day in the areas I have been vacationing. Found two of those today out of about a dozen. Given that I am quicker with a NA log than most even I feel if it is being found and the local community is fine with it so ami.

[+NeverSummer]

My guess in that most reviewers would prefer that issue aren't reported until there actually is a problem.

It's not a guess. It's a fact. I have heard this sentiment directly from more than one reviewer.

Indeed. I've even reported a problem (private property that needed to be crossed to access cache, property owners wishing cache to not be there) to a very experienced reviewer and got the grumpy reply "I'm not the cache police". :/

But that problem is an issue that needs to be addressed. If you have an interaction with property managers, property owners, law enforcement, or the like that tells you that access is not allowed for geocaching (or any other activity, for that matter), then it should be logged with a NA and the CO and Reviewer need to address that issue. We have no idea what agreement an owner might have with a property owner, and we can only use our logs to report what we know, and what might need to be addressed about a cache or its surroundings according to the guidelines.

 

If the only way to access a cache site is through private property, and the owner has approached someone seeking the cache to say "get off my lawn", then the seeker is, in my opinion, well within the guidelines and SOP for the game to post a NA log with that specific context and evidence.

 

The comparison to the cache you mention and the cache in the OP is a comparison of apples to oranges.