Signs

May 27, 2014

When the sign says please stay on the trails how far off the trails is it okay to put a cache?

21.9k · May 27, 2014

As far away as the land manager says is OK, when you have your permission conversation.

May 27, 2014

When the sign says "Resident's Use Only" is it safe to assume the CO is a resident and you have been given permission to be there?

May 27, 2014

When the sign in the parking lot says "Patrons Only" is it okay to grab the cache and not buy anything?

2.1k · May 27, 2014

When the sign says please stay on the trails how far off the trails is it okay to put a cache?

A person should be able to reach the cache with both feet on the approved trail, or whatever the land manager says.

May 27, 2014

When the sign says please stay on the trails how far off the trails is it okay to put a cache?

A person should be able to reach the cache with both feet on the approved trail, or whatever the land manager says.

How can one find the land manager's approved route for caches that are a hundred feet or more from a trail in an arboretum or can I assume that the land manager is trying to simulate cattle trampling through the area by having a cache so far from the main trails? Should I assume the area around the cache is not that sensitive which is hopefully why they approved the location in the first place? Because, you know, signs!

7.3k · May 27, 2014

Devil's Advocate?

I'm being polite, here.

4.8k · May 27, 2014

...or can I assume...

Personally, I assume nothing. Even if permission is stated on the cache page, I still take responsibility for my own actions and obey all park rules and regulations.

Just wondering, but are you having some impulse control problems not being able to walk away from a cache that just doesn't add up or feel right?

9.2k · May 27, 2014

When the sign in the parking lot says "Patrons Only" is it okay to grab the cache and not buy anything?

You don't have to park there...

Nothing stopping you from looking in the window, and deciding you don't want to buy anything today... :rolleyes:

3.8k · May 27, 2014

If you're that concerned, don't go for them. It's simple as that.

6.1k · May 27, 2014

Those signs indicate that the cache probably does not have permission.

But go ahead and take a bite, your eyes will be opened...until you notice the cameras

May 27, 2014

To be clear I already know what a "No Tresspassing" sign means, I was seeking interpretations of what something like a "Resident's Use Only" sign actually means to us as cachers.

I am a bit surprised that no one so far has said that I should contact the reviewer or press the NM or NA when I find the arrow pointing past such a sign! Especially when so many of us are concerned about following the guidelines!

Most of these instances are issues a reviewer can't determine from just looking at a map, but we as cachers in the field should be reporting instead of posting glowing logs and favorite points! Or maybe not reporting in some of these instances because the CO has assured us they have permission, right?

I guess my frustration stems from a culture of silence to answer those pursuing such angles. For me it is extremely frustrating to spend time and effort on a cache only to be faced with such a sign or one far more serious at GZ and none of the helpful fellow cachers before you has noted any issues! But none of them saw the signs, right?

So please can anyone tell me how serious a "Please Stay on the Trails", "Resident's Use Only" or "Authorized Vehicles Only" sign is meant to be?

7.3k · May 27, 2014

I think that this topic would have been responded to better if you had lead with your last post, fendmar.

Those kind of signs can be serious. If it's private property, then the CO should have permission. If they have permission in areas that have clear no trespassing signs, etc., then it would be best if they mention that in their cache description.

If you come upon a cache like this, you could do a couple things. You can email the reviewer who published the cache, and confirm if there is permission for the cache. Or you could post a NA note.

If you do this, it's best to have some sort of clarification, like a picture of the sign for the reviewer to see.

It's possible that there is permission, or there may not be. In either case, then the reviewer will take appropriate action.

7.8k · May 27, 2014

I think that this topic would have been responded to better if you had lead with your last post, fendmar.

Those kind of signs can be serious. If it's private property, then the CO should have permission. If they have permission in areas that have clear no trespassing signs, etc., then it would be best if they mention that in their cache description.

If you come upon a cache like this, you could do a couple things. You can email the reviewer who published the cache, and confirm if there is permission for the cache. Or you could post a NA note.

If you do this, it's best to have some sort of clarification, like a picture of the sign for the reviewer to see.

It's possible that there is permission, or there may not be. In either case, then the reviewer will take appropriate action.

This entire post exactly mirrors my views.

...therefore, +1

3.7k · May 27, 2014

To be clear I already know what a "No Tresspassing" sign means, I was seeking interpretations of what something like a "Resident's Use Only" sign actually means to us as cachers.

I am a bit surprised that no one so far has said that I should contact the reviewer or press the NM or NA when I find the arrow pointing past such a sign! Especially when so many of us are concerned about following the guidelines!

Most of these instances are issues a reviewer can't determine from just looking at a map, but we as cachers in the field should be reporting instead of posting glowing logs and favorite points! Or maybe not reporting in some of these instances because the CO has assured us they have permission, right?

I guess my frustration stems from a culture of silence to answer those pursuing such angles. For me it is extremely frustrating to spend time and effort on a cache only to be faced with such a sign or one far more serious at GZ and none of the helpful fellow cachers before you has noted any issues! But none of them saw the signs, right?

So please can anyone tell me how serious a "Please Stay on the Trails", "Resident's Use Only" or "Authorized Vehicles Only" sign is meant to be?

I was taking your original question to mean that you were planning to place a cache beyond such a sign...which is maybe why you got a number of snarky responses.

As for what you should do...I already had such an issue recently and it turned out I was in the wrong place initially and the place where the cache was actually hidden wasn't a problem at all. Have you considered that perhaps the cache is in an area accessible by a trail you aren't aware of...? Or perhaps beyond a boundary in an area where leaving the trail isn't a problem?

8k · May 27, 2014

Usually when I see a sign like this and the GC code appears in small print at the bottom of the sign, I'm pretty sure where the cache is.

May 27, 2014

Usually when I see a sign like this and the GC code appears in small print at the bottom of the sign, I'm pretty sure where the cache is.

L-O-L!

May 27, 2014

Why would the CO getting permission to place a cache in an area marked "no trespassing" give me legal right to enter that area? The CO might have permission to enter but that might not have been for a cache. Granted a no trespassing sign with a GC code on it might mean that's where you look but a posted no trespassing sign has legal ramifications that a cache posting on this website won't overcome.

I've seen plenty of comments in this forum about how many caches probably do not have actual permission granted so a no trespassing sign seems pretty formidable to me.

Then, too, permission may have been granted but issues occurring or a change in property owners may have prompted the placing of a no trespassing sign later which completely negates permission granted earlier. We have seen people create an account to deal with non-permission or revoked permission caches but not everyone would do so. A no trespassing sign is a lot easier and had legal ramification for those who ignore it.

No means no and a cache published here does not negate that.

7.3k · May 27, 2014

Why would the CO getting permission to place a cache in an area marked "no trespassing" give me legal right to enter that area? The CO might have permission to enter but that might not have been for a cache. Granted a no trespassing sign with a GC code on it might mean that's where you look but a posted no trespassing sign has legal ramifications that a cache posting on this website won't overcome.

I've seen plenty of comments in this forum about how many caches probably do not have actual permission granted so a no trespassing sign seems pretty formidable to me.

Then, too, permission may have been granted but issues occurring or a change in property owners may have prompted the placing of a no trespassing sign later which completely negates permission granted earlier. We have seen people create an account to deal with non-permission or revoked permission caches but not everyone would do so. A no trespassing sign is a lot easier and had legal ramification for those who ignore it.

No means no and a cache published here does not negate that.

Well, if the CO truly did get permission for the cache to be there, then of course cachers can go into private property.

Whether or not you can trust the CO, is another issue. If you don't feel comfortable with going past private property signs even with assurances from the CO, then you should turn around and walk away.

7.5k · May 27, 2014

So please can anyone tell me how serious a "Please Stay on the Trails", "Resident's Use Only" or "Authorized Vehicles Only" sign is meant to be?

On the one hand, you have to be pretty serious to go to the trouble of putting up a sign. On the other hand, there are a few "Resident's Use Only" signs in my area that I routinely ignore.

But in any case, the seriousness of the sign doesn't change because someone put a cache in the area. Unless the description says permission for you to enter the area has been granted, then you don't have permission to enter the area. (And naturally, even if the description says you do, it may not be true.)

Me, whether I'm caching or just visiting, I tend to bend or even break the rules as long as I'm on foot. If it involves my car -- here I'm thinking of the "Authorized Vehicles Only" sign -- I almost always follow the rules.

As to reporting a problem, I normally assume there's more to the situation than I know about -- perhaps there's another way to GZ, for example, perhaps permission was carefully described to the reviewer privately -- so whether I decided to get the cache or move on, I don't report the problem to the reviewer. I'll probably note the anomaly in my log, whether it's a find or a DNF.

One exception was a cache that required climbing a tree in an area with signs that discouraged, but as I recall, didn't quite get around to forbidding, entry. Although the CO just deleted the NA and nothing else happened, I don't think he's ever forgiven me.

3.7k · May 27, 2014

When the sign says please stay on the trails how far off the trails is it okay to put a cache?

My guess is they want you to keep your feet firmly planted on the trail and have to bend over or reach up a bit to get the cache. I have one like this. It's gone missing twice. <_<

May 28, 2014

To be clear I already know what a "No Tresspassing" sign means, I was seeking interpretations of what something like a "Resident's Use Only" sign actually means to us as cachers.

I am a bit surprised that no one so far has said that I should contact the reviewer or press the NM or NA when I find the arrow pointing past such a sign! Especially when so many of us are concerned about following the guidelines!

Most of these instances are issues a reviewer can't determine from just looking at a map, but we as cachers in the field should be reporting instead of posting glowing logs and favorite points! Or maybe not reporting in some of these instances because the CO has assured us they have permission, right?

I guess my frustration stems from a culture of silence to answer those pursuing such angles. For me it is extremely frustrating to spend time and effort on a cache only to be faced with such a sign or one far more serious at GZ and none of the helpful fellow cachers before you has noted any issues! But none of them saw the signs, right?

So please can anyone tell me how serious a "Please Stay on the Trails", "Resident's Use Only" or "Authorized Vehicles Only" sign is meant to be?

I was taking your original question to mean that you were planning to place a cache beyond such a sign...which is maybe why you got a number of snarky responses.

As for what you should do...I already had such an issue recently and it turned out I was in the wrong place initially and the place where the cache was actually hidden wasn't a problem at all. Have you considered that perhaps the cache is in an area accessible by a trail you aren't aware of...? Or perhaps beyond a boundary in an area where leaving the trail isn't a problem?

Well unfortunately these signs haven't been at any single cache.

You do bring up a good point though, is it okay to knowingly or otherwise circumvent a sign because you can access the area without seeing the sign directly? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

4.8k · May 28, 2014

...is it okay to knowingly or otherwise circumvent a sign because you can access the area without seeing the sign directly?

I'm guessing that this is a rhetorical question <_<

May 28, 2014

When the sign says please stay on the trails how far off the trails is it okay to put a cache?

My guess is they want you to keep your feet firmly planted on the trail and have to bend over or reach up a bit to get the cache. I have one like this. It's gone missing twice.

Probably too close to the trail! :lol:

3.7k · May 28, 2014

When the sign says please stay on the trails how far off the trails is it okay to put a cache?

My guess is they want you to keep your feet firmly planted on the trail and have to bend over or reach up a bit to get the cache. I have one like this. It's gone missing twice.

Probably too close to the trail!

I know, right? The trouble is, people are too lazy to rehide a cache properly. "OMG, I don't have 2 seconds to rearrange some bark!" I went to change the logbook and could see the cache from 20 meters away. My next cache is going to require a 200 meter bushwack. :mad:

6.1k · May 28, 2014

...is it okay to knowingly or otherwise circumvent a sign because you can access the area without seeing the sign directly?

I'm guessing that this is a rhetorical question

I've noticed more than a few caches which instruct cachers to enter areas from a specific direction to "avoid seeing these signs". I have no idea how this is supposed to help someone out, as they still are disregarding the land owner's wishes, and if caught would likely make the entire game look bad. Saying "I was geocaching and did not notice the sign", may get one person out of trouble, but after that person looks up the cache page later its likely to make them more angry than that one person would have.

May 28, 2014

...is it okay to knowingly or otherwise circumvent a sign because you can access the area without seeing the sign directly?

I'm guessing that this is a rhetorical question

I've noticed more than a few caches which instruct cachers to enter areas from a specific direction to "avoid seeing these signs". I have no idea how this is supposed to help someone out, as they still are disregarding the land owner's wishes, and if caught would likely make the entire game look bad. Saying "I was geocaching and did not notice the sign", may get one person out of trouble, but after that person looks up the cache page later its likely to make them more angry than that one person would have.

It does seem that many would think it okay to put a cache at Fort Knox because you could air drop in, grab the cache and walk out with any signs facing the other way, you would never see a one and bag that +1!

I believe that fuzzy area on the map would get the reviewers attention and the cache wouldn't get published!

4.8k · May 28, 2014

...and if caught would likely make the entire game look bad.

I hear this thrown about quite often in various forums, and I just don't buy into it. I'm less of a "group/herd mentality" type of person, and more of a personal responsibility type.

The rest of your statement I'm in total agreement, with the following exception. As far as communities go, Geocaching is a pretty small, close knit community compared with other recreational users. I'd say we generally get an "above average" in self policing the sport. Compared with other recreational users, I don't think we have anything to apologize for.

Some of these "guilt threads" are kind of comical at times.

3.8k · May 28, 2014

To be clear I already know what a "No Tresspassing" sign means, I was seeking interpretations of what something like a "Resident's Use Only" sign actually means to us as cachers.

I am a bit surprised that no one so far has said that I should contact the reviewer or press the NM or NA when I find the arrow pointing past such a sign! Especially when so many of us are concerned about following the guidelines!

Most of these instances are issues a reviewer can't determine from just looking at a map, but we as cachers in the field should be reporting instead of posting glowing logs and favorite points! Or maybe not reporting in some of these instances because the CO has assured us they have permission, right?

I guess my frustration stems from a culture of silence to answer those pursuing such angles. For me it is extremely frustrating to spend time and effort on a cache only to be faced with such a sign or one far more serious at GZ and none of the helpful fellow cachers before you has noted any issues! But none of them saw the signs, right?

So please can anyone tell me how serious a "Please Stay on the Trails", "Resident's Use Only" or "Authorized Vehicles Only" sign is meant to be?

I was taking your original question to mean that you were planning to place a cache beyond such a sign...which is maybe why you got a number of snarky responses.

As for what you should do...I already had such an issue recently and it turned out I was in the wrong place initially and the place where the cache was actually hidden wasn't a problem at all. Have you considered that perhaps the cache is in an area accessible by a trail you aren't aware of...? Or perhaps beyond a boundary in an area where leaving the trail isn't a problem?

Well unfortunately these signs haven't been at any single cache.

You do bring up a good point though, is it okay to knowingly or otherwise circumvent a sign because you can access the area without seeing the sign directly? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Depends on local laws. Around here if there is no fence, or even certain times there is, and there are not any no trespassing signs in certain locations, it's not trespassing. That means if there's a back way without any signs, then yes it is OK- legally, not morally. Of course there's more to it, but the general idea is there.

15.3k · May 28, 2014

FWIW, I've found a number of caches where the point was (at least in part) the challenge of finding safe and legal access to the cache location. Sure, someone could approach from the wrong direction and come to the conclusion that such a cache was placed illegally.

I'm not saying that there are no illegally placed caches. I've found some of those too, and seen them archived. But appearances can be deceiving, and caches that look like they're behind NO TRESPASSING signs may be perfectly fine.

6.1k · May 28, 2014

...and if caught would likely make the entire game look bad.

I hear this thrown about quite often in various forums, and I just don't buy into it. I'm less of a "group/herd mentality" type of person, and more of a personal responsibility type.

The rest of your statement I'm in total agreement, with the following exception. As far as communities go, Geocaching is a pretty small, close knit community compared with other recreational users. I'd say we generally get an "above average" in self policing the sport. Compared with other recreational users, I don't think we have anything to apologize for.

Some of these "guilt threads" are kind of comical at times.

In a couple of months there will be a few thousand archivals of geocaches in NJ state parks. It seems that they don't trust geocachers to go more than 5 feet off trails, or to hide anything requiring a boat. Don't have any idea what prompted this, but when the hammer comes down there is very little warning. There have been mass archivals in a few other states as well, and those threads always get moved to the local forums so maybe you didnt see them. Often when cachers openly ignore signs like this, nothing happens for a while, but eventually someone notices. A negative impression is very hard to reverse. The general public is now trusted to do much more in NJ parks than Geocachers, who are treated like small children.

Edited May 28, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

2.7k · May 28, 2014

<snip> A negative impression is very hard to reverse. The general public is now trusted to do much more in NJ parks than Geocachers, who are treated like small children.

Maybe because we leave our toys scattered about in the woods? :laughing:

May 28, 2014

...and if caught would likely make the entire game look bad.

I hear this thrown about quite often in various forums, and I just don't buy into it. I'm less of a "group/herd mentality" type of person, and more of a personal responsibility type.

The rest of your statement I'm in total agreement, with the following exception. As far as communities go, Geocaching is a pretty small, close knit community compared with other recreational users. I'd say we generally get an "above average" in self policing the sport. Compared with other recreational users, I don't think we have anything to apologize for.

Some of these "guilt threads" are kind of comical at times.

In a couple of months there will be a few thousand archivals of geocaches in NJ state parks. It seems that they don't trust geocachers to go more than 5 feet off trails, or to hide anything requiring a boat. Don't have any idea what prompted this, but when the hammer comes down there is very little warning. There have been mass archivals in a few other states as well, and those threads always get moved to the local forums so maybe you didnt see them. Often when cachers openly ignore signs like this, nothing happens for a while, but eventually someone notices. A negative impression is very hard to reverse. The general public is now trusted to do much more in NJ parks than Geocachers, who are treated like small children.

Somebody probably didn't read the land manager's signs!

6.1k · May 28, 2014

...and if caught would likely make the entire game look bad.

I hear this thrown about quite often in various forums, and I just don't buy into it. I'm less of a "group/herd mentality" type of person, and more of a personal responsibility type.

The rest of your statement I'm in total agreement, with the following exception. As far as communities go, Geocaching is a pretty small, close knit community compared with other recreational users. I'd say we generally get an "above average" in self policing the sport. Compared with other recreational users, I don't think we have anything to apologize for.

Some of these "guilt threads" are kind of comical at times.

In a couple of months there will be a few thousand archivals of geocaches in NJ state parks. It seems that they don't trust geocachers to go more than 5 feet off trails, or to hide anything requiring a boat. Don't have any idea what prompted this, but when the hammer comes down there is very little warning. There have been mass archivals in a few other states as well, and those threads always get moved to the local forums so maybe you didnt see them. Often when cachers openly ignore signs like this, nothing happens for a while, but eventually someone notices. A negative impression is very hard to reverse. The general public is now trusted to do much more in NJ parks than Geocachers, who are treated like small children.

Somebody probably didn't read the land manager's signs!

There aren't any signs in the areas with new restrictions, but rather on other cache pages. It only takes one page with 100 logs of violators to give a general unsavory impression.

7.5k · May 28, 2014

I've noticed more than a few caches which instruct cachers to enter areas from a specific direction to "avoid seeing these signs". I have no idea how this is supposed to help someone out, as they still are disregarding the land owner's wishes, and if caught would likely make the entire game look bad. Saying "I was geocaching and did not notice the sign", may get one person out of trouble, but after that person looks up the cache page later its likely to make them more angry than that one person would have.

I agree with you completely, but I just want to mention that the proper response is "I did not notice the sign." It's not really relevant to your infraction that you were geocaching, so there's no reason to bring that into the conversation. That's like saying, "I was hiking and did not notice the sign." What's hiking got to do with it?

6.1k · May 28, 2014

I've noticed more than a few caches which instruct cachers to enter areas from a specific direction to "avoid seeing these signs". I have no idea how this is supposed to help someone out, as they still are disregarding the land owner's wishes, and if caught would likely make the entire game look bad. Saying "I was geocaching and did not notice the sign", may get one person out of trouble, but after that person looks up the cache page later its likely to make them more angry than that one person would have.

I agree with you completely, but I just want to mention that the proper response is "I did not notice the sign." It's not really relevant to your infraction that you were geocaching, so there's no reason to bring that into the conversation. That's like saying, "I was hiking and did not notice the sign." What's hiking got to do with it?

Most will suspect they are in violation, but go anyway and use the excuse that they were geocaching to avoid getting themselves into trouble. Yes, the proper response is to just say you didn't see the sign, but most won't stop there and act as if geocaching gives them an excuse to do whatever they should not be doing. Ive seen it multiple times in areas posted with No Trespassing signs. The assumption is that there is permission, or that the signs are old, and then to use the game as an excuse to go anyway. The guy that confronts them goes back into his house and looks up the activity and tells others what has happened, and reads all of the logs from people that should have known better.

May 28, 2014

On the one hand, you have to be pretty serious to go to the trouble of putting up a sign. On the other hand, there are a few "Resident's Use Only" signs in my area that I routinely ignore.

I am guessing because you are a resident, but would you put a cache there?

May 28, 2014

I've noticed more than a few caches which instruct cachers to enter areas from a specific direction to "avoid seeing these signs". I have no idea how this is supposed to help someone out, as they still are disregarding the land owner's wishes, and if caught would likely make the entire game look bad. Saying "I was geocaching and did not notice the sign", may get one person out of trouble, but after that person looks up the cache page later its likely to make them more angry than that one person would have.

I agree with you completely, but I just want to mention that the proper response is "I did not notice the sign." It's not really relevant to your infraction that you were geocaching, so there's no reason to bring that into the conversation. That's like saying, "I was hiking and did not notice the sign." What's hiking got to do with it?

Most will suspect they are in violation, but go anyway and use the excuse that they were geocaching to avoid getting themselves into trouble. Yes, the proper response is to just say you didn't see the sign, but most won't stop there and act as if geocaching gives them an excuse to do whatever they should not be doing. Ive seen it multiple times in areas posted with No Trespassing signs. The assumption is that there is permission, or that the signs are old, and then to use the game as an excuse to go anyway. The guy that confronts them goes back into his house and looks up the activity and tells others what has happened, and reads all of the logs from people that should have known better.

Good points!

7.5k · May 28, 2014

I agree with you completely, but I just want to mention that the proper response is "I did not notice the sign." It's not really relevant to your infraction that you were geocaching, so there's no reason to bring that into the conversation. That's like saying, "I was hiking and did not notice the sign." What's hiking got to do with it?

Most will suspect they are in violation, but go anyway and use the excuse that they were geocaching to avoid getting themselves into trouble. Yes, the proper response is to just say you didn't see the sign, but most won't stop there and act as if geocaching gives them an excuse to do whatever they should not be doing. Ive seen it multiple times in areas posted with No Trespassing signs. The assumption is that there is permission, or that the signs are old, and then to use the game as an excuse to go anyway. The guy that confronts them goes back into his house and looks up the activity and tells others what has happened, and reads all of the logs from people that should have known better.

My point was that one shouldn't drag poor geocaching into it because it can lead to that last bit, but your additional point, that one shouldn't think geocaching is an excuse to begin with, is even more important.

On the one hand, you have to be pretty serious to go to the trouble of putting up a sign. On the other hand, there are a few "Resident's Use Only" signs in my area that I routinely ignore.

I am guessing because you are a resident, but would you put a cache there?

No, actually, I'm not a resident. I just don't respect the signs' attempts to exclude everyone from walking through those neighborhoods. (It might be different if I actually thought any of the residents would care as long as I don't cause any trouble.)

But, no, I definitely wouldn't put a cache there, whether I was a resident or not. My point was that while I agree it's wrong to put a cache behind such restrictive signs, I have to admit I wouldn't always be shy about going to look for such a cache. But as I just mentioned, if I get stopped, I'm not going to tell them I'm geocaching. On the other hand, I'd definitely mention getting stopped in my log.

May 28, 2014

No means no and a cache published here does not negate that.

Well, if the CO truly did get permission for the cache to be there, then of course cachers can go into private property.

Whether or not you can trust the CO, is another issue. If you don't feel comfortable with going past private property signs even with assurances from the CO, then you should turn around and walk away.

I referred to signs that say "no trespassing" not "private property". Even if the CO says he had permission a sign saying private property would slow me down. Most caches are on private property but not marked and that's where you take the COs word - generally. When that private property is marked as such I'm inclined to take it the property owner's sign's word over the cache publishing.

Two things make me feel this way:

I know a guy who was given permission to fish a posted private, locked gate pond. He shared that key with his friends telling them it was OK. The property owner was not amused to find someone there. Permission was taken back and a new lock installed.

A cache was placed here locally by someone living several states away. I had a bad feeling about it based on the nature of the business and where the cache was physically located on the building. I passed that night and went the next day and talked with the director. She was very upset and knew nothing about the cache being placed there. She insisted I remove it. And as it turned out, there was no one local who was responsible for maintenance and the CO simply told me to keep it.

I knew the guy who took advantage of fishing permission and would have trusted him and been wrong. I don't know the people who are hiding caches - why would I blindly take their word that it is OK when there are signs saying it is not OK?

Geocaching does not override property owner rights. And if signs are posted in a legally required manner the property owner will win if he/she decides to push it in court.

May 28, 2014

On the one hand, you have to be pretty serious to go to the trouble of putting up a sign. On the other hand, there are a few "Resident's Use Only" signs in my area that I routinely ignore.

I am guessing because you are a resident, but would you put a cache there?

No, actually, I'm not a resident. I just don't respect the signs' attempts to exclude everyone from walking through those neighborhoods. (It might be different if I actually thought any of the residents would care as long as I don't cause any trouble.)

But, no, I definitely wouldn't put a cache there, whether I was a resident or not. My point was that while I agree it's wrong to put a cache behind such restrictive signs, I have to admit I wouldn't always be shy about going to look for such a cache. But as I just mentioned, if I get stopped, I'm not going to tell them I'm geocaching. On the other hand, I'd definitely mention getting stopped in my log.

Ew, a curve ball, wasn't expecting that!

Come on, everyone knows that song was running through your head, too!

So a protest of sorts. I certainly can agree with the feeling that there are far too many such signs, but since the land managers/sign owners feel the impetus to put in the signs I have to respect that, because I can't deny them whatever feelings prompted them to install a sign.

Interesting, I guess my concern maybe now becomes, short of quitting the game (Beat you to it! :anitongue: ) how can one stop from becoming a pawn in such protests? :unsure:

10.1k · May 28, 2014

I'm not saying that there are no illegally placed caches. I've found some of those too, and seen them archived. But appearances can be deceiving, and caches that look like they're behind NO TRESPASSING signs may be perfectly fine.

And, sometimes when the state buys land for wildlife refuges (formerly private hunting clubs), they do not take down the No Trespassing signs. I found a cache at one where the state sign was nailed right on top of the No Trespassing sign.

May 28, 2014

<snip> A negative impression is very hard to reverse. The general public is now trusted to do much more in NJ parks than Geocachers, who are treated like small children.

Maybe because we leave our toys scattered about in the woods?

You mean like the rotting deer stands and attendant discarded beverage containers I routinely encounter in NJ Parks and forests?

15.3k · May 29, 2014

And, sometimes when the state buys land for wildlife refuges (formerly private hunting clubs), they do not take down the No Trespassing signs. I found a cache at one where the state sign was nailed right on top of the No Trespassing sign.

Ah, yes. I had forgotten about that. We've had those around here too, when park districts and open space districts acquire formerly private property. They try to take down all the No Trespassing and Private Property signs, but they miss a few. And in some cases, they've asked geocachers for help identifying the remaining signs (since we can usually give them GPS coordinates).

May 29, 2014

Confirmed coordinates point to the gazebo in the background. To be fair I don't think the NT sign on top was there when the cache was hidden (Not there on GE.), but the rest of them were and conspicuously all around the lake. One would have to be blind to miss them. I find it hard to believe that this HOA is going to invite strangers from the internet to come chill by the lake! (Stranger things have happened I suppose!) Keep in mind this is just one example, not the only example.

May 29, 2014

I would say place it so you needn't step off the trail to get the cache or at least so you don't trod on the plant life.

2.8k · May 29, 2014

<snip> A negative impression is very hard to reverse. The general public is now trusted to do much more in NJ parks than Geocachers, who are treated like small children.

Maybe because we leave our toys scattered about in the woods?

I see far more trash and damage left my hunters, hikers and fishermen in the state parks than abandoned geocaches.

2.6k · May 29, 2014

Depends on local laws. Around here if there is no fence, or even certain times there is, and there are not any no trespassing signs in certain locations, it's not trespassing. That means if there's a back way without any signs, then yes it is OK- legally, not morally. Of course there's more to it, but the general idea is there.

In Texas a fence IS a no trespassing sign. So is a band of purple paint on a fence post (also often seen on trees or other objects).

May 29, 2014

Depends on local laws. Around here if there is no fence, or even certain times there is, and there are not any no trespassing signs in certain locations, it's not trespassing. That means if there's a back way without any signs, then yes it is OK- legally, not morally. Of course there's more to it, but the general idea is there.

In Texas a fence IS a no trespassing sign. So is a band of purple paint on a fence post (also often seen on trees or other objects).

In Maine, two silver horizontal stripes painted on a tree is considered a No Trespassing sign also.

11.6k · May 29, 2014

Here's an cool discussion of "No Trespassing" signs: http://forums.officer.com/t21840/

Link posted because I like the lyrics from that Topic:

"The sign says

anyone caught trespassing

will be shot on sight.

So I climbed on the fence

and I yelled to the house,

"Hey! What gives you the right?

To put up a fence to keep me out

and to"

BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!

Signs

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment