Vicious Muggles

[team tisri]

It really doesn't matter whether the city or nearby property owner owns it. If the property owner doesn't want it there, its disrespectful to place a cache there. The city is not going to give any kind of permission, especially if the property owner complains about it.

 

Yes this is true, was not saying anything otherwise: I was just replying to the ownership of the road and right of way in my county. Placing a cache on any property where it is not wanted IS disrespectful as <4wheelin fool> stated. I think we got king of "off topic" lol.

 

It also appears that a UK reviewer resigned over this same issue recently. A nearby property owner requested geocachers to avoid using the ROW to access a cache, and Groundspeak agreed, but the reviewer insisted it was against the law to deny someone access to the ROW. I dunno, if a geocache is annoying a nearby property owner that much, you really should not force them to accept it. If a polite request is ignored, then this is what could trigger them to get vicious.

 

The thing is in the UK people have a legal entitlement to walk on a right of way. The owner of the land crossed by the right-of-way has no more right to stop people walking along it than you have to stop people walking along the sidewalk outside your house or from driving down your street. If the annoyed landowner did anything to restrict access along the right-of-way there would be legal issues for them to contend with.

 

If caches are denied or archived just because someone vaguely nearby decides they don't like it there then sooner or later caches all over the place are going to disappear. What proportion of the population do you suppose would be happy for random people to show up in their neighbourhood at whatever time of day or night they fancied, fumble around in dark corners looking for stuff, only to clear off again?

[4wheelin_fool]

It really doesn't matter whether the city or nearby property owner owns it. If the property owner doesn't want it there, its disrespectful to place a cache there. The city is not going to give any kind of permission, especially if the property owner complains about it.

 

Yes this is true, was not saying anything otherwise: I was just replying to the ownership of the road and right of way in my county. Placing a cache on any property where it is not wanted IS disrespectful as <4wheelin fool> stated. I think we got king of "off topic" lol.

 

It also appears that a UK reviewer resigned over this same issue recently. A nearby property owner requested geocachers to avoid using the ROW to access a cache, and Groundspeak agreed, but the reviewer insisted it was against the law to deny someone access to the ROW. I dunno, if a geocache is annoying a nearby property owner that much, you really should not force them to accept it. If a polite request is ignored, then this is what could trigger them to get vicious.

 

The thing is in the UK people have a legal entitlement to walk on a right of way. The owner of the land crossed by the right-of-way has no more right to stop people walking along it than you have to stop people walking along the sidewalk outside your house or from driving down your street. If the annoyed landowner did anything to restrict access along the right-of-way there would be legal issues for them to contend with.

 

Well, he certainly did by building a brick wall and there is nobody stopping him. This has nothing to do with the legal system, if someone living nearby does not want a geocache and it's associated traffic, it should not be there. I'm sure that legally it was fine. I'm also sure that making a request to not use the ROW was legal also. "The nearby landowner has requested for geocachers to not use the ROW, although use is legal". If they had forcibly tried to stop someone, it would be a different story, although the brick wall indicates that the authorities and the residents are not that concerned about it.

 

If caches are denied or archived just because someone vaguely nearby decides they don't like it there then sooner or later caches all over the place are going to disappear. What proportion of the population do you suppose would be happy for random people to show up in their neighbourhood at whatever time of day or night they fancied, fumble around in dark corners looking for stuff, only to clear off again?

 

They already get archived, and have been for quite a long time. There is absolutely no reason to obnoxiously force the game upon people who are living nearby. I've noticed ones around here archived by both Reviewers and Lackeys for that reason, as well as COs. They get published and subsequently removed if there is a problem. Using a geocache to promote an agenda of property use rights is not what most want. What it comes down to is that either some people like to try legally annoying someone with their geocache, or they really don't care who it bothers. It's either due to an unhealthy obsession with the game, or antisocial behavior. They may enjoy conflict and want to share the experience with other unsuspecting geocachers. I don't care if someone asks very nicely, or is threatening to remove every passerby's genitalia with a broken pint glass, if it is causing a problem then it should be gone. Go play in the woods.

[+GeoBain]

For me it comes down to do you want to be right but give geocaching a negative image or just concede the spot and place the cache somewhere it is welcomed? Even if grounspeek chose to ignore such requests, there is nothing stopping the neighbor or anyone else who didn't want that cache there from just taking it and tossing it in the trash.

 

If the cache is not welcomed, it's probably better that it not be there.

[+Team Dredd]

If the cache is not welcomed, it's probably better that it not be there.

 

Definitely

[4wheelin_fool]

If the cache is not welcomed, it's probably better that it not be there.

 

Definitely

 

I live near a green area which is open to the public, and have a ROW out front. Now if a geocache appeared near the property line, as a geocacher I would probably ask Groundspeak to get it removed. I could ask the CO, but I don't really want my address being known. I thought about a geocache on the property, but geocachers aren't that social and tend to sneak in and make the find without introducing themselves.

 

Now if I wasn't a cacher, it would likely be a different scenario. I don't know what geocachers expect, but placing an object outside of someone's house and inviting strangers is a little odd.

 

Hey dear, did you see those people out front?

 

Yeah, what's going on?

 

They.were playing a hide and seek game posted to the internet, looking for a pill container.

 

Really? Why on earth here?

 

I don't know

 

Well how long will it be there? A few days, a week?

 

They said several months or possibly years.

 

What? I don't want that. Why on earth didn't they ask us, or tell us?

 

I don't know..

 

Who do they think they are, to come into our neighborhood and invite all these people just outside of our house?

 

Then they contact Groundspeak and get told what, exactly?

 

Sorry, we can't do anything as it is legal to be there. Now what do you think might happen after that? Following the legal chain of events they may ask the local government to redefine and clarify the use of ROWs, or ask for a ban. The easiest thing would be to take it. If it got replaced, they likely would keep on taking it. If they believe that all geocachers are rude and antisocial, they may move on to other hides to keep them busy, or just for fun.

 

It seems to be some form of entitleism that has gradually developed to have geocachers fall under the delusion that this is acceptable behavior. Perhaps in a group people will just follow the others. The guy that lives there deserves respect. Once respect goes out the window, everything else follows..

[+Team Dredd]

I don't know what geocachers expect, but placing an object outside of someone's house and inviting strangers is a little odd.

 

Granted we are not the most experienced cachers in the world, but I enjoy placing and maintaining caches as much as MrsDredd enjoys finding them. We have 26 placed caches and only one is close someone's house, its across the street from someone who caches and they know about it and were ok with me putting it there.

 

Hiding a cache outside a stranger's house without permission is odd. In my line of work I see so many people that do things simply without thinking it through first, not with any direct intent or malice. But then a lot of people simply don't care and do it anyway.

 

We don't mind having to use some stealth when finding a cache, it's actually pretty fun sometimes. However, neither of us like feeling as if we are "sneaking" around near peoples houses or feel like we are doing something that will invite a home owner or property owner to call the police or confront us, so when we come upon a cache hidden like that we usually think better of it and go on to the next one. We haven't found to many like that around here, but we made a trip to Savannah Georgia a while back, kind of a mix of checking out the historical areas and grabbing some caches. We went to several locations where a container was in an area we didn't feel comfortable sneaking around in and bypassed them. One was even inside a fenced in lot with a locked gate, but the cache page let us know there was a way around the fence to go in and get it, so I guess it was ok???? Yeah that was a "bypass" and move on, how to those get approved anyway? they wouldn't around here. We did find a some really cool caches around there though, some were a bit different that's for sure.

 

Granted the right of way here is public, but there are way to many spots (including right of ways if that is your thing) that are worthy of a cache, no need to place one where you know it may invite confrontation or upset someone who owns the property next to it. Placers should think of how they would like it if strangers kept parking in front of their house and then poking around in the hedges in their front yard. If I did not know about caching and that saw someone doing that I would confront them. Not nasty and insulting, but I wouldn't like it. Some people don't care, but then others are like us and are pretty private people

[4wheelin_fool]

Backyard caching. So people stop on the shoulder and wander into someone's backyard, poking around in their pine tree. There's no sidewalk, so how do you expect the homeowner to react?

The nearby property owner appears to have encroached on the highway right-of-way.

Or are geocachers encroaching on his privacy? Should he have to tell his daughter to keep her blinds closed because users of the ROW will sneak around in their backyard? There is a difference between walking next to the road to go somewhere and poking around someone's property.

I felt kind of creepy doing this one, like I was peeping into some ones house. Surprised they haven't noticed and called the cops! TFTC

[team tisri]

It really doesn't matter whether the city or nearby property owner owns it. If the property owner doesn't want it there, its disrespectful to place a cache there. The city is not going to give any kind of permission, especially if the property owner complains about it.

 

Yes this is true, was not saying anything otherwise: I was just replying to the ownership of the road and right of way in my county. Placing a cache on any property where it is not wanted IS disrespectful as <4wheelin fool> stated. I think we got king of "off topic" lol.

 

It also appears that a UK reviewer resigned over this same issue recently. A nearby property owner requested geocachers to avoid using the ROW to access a cache, and Groundspeak agreed, but the reviewer insisted it was against the law to deny someone access to the ROW. I dunno, if a geocache is annoying a nearby property owner that much, you really should not force them to accept it. If a polite request is ignored, then this is what could trigger them to get vicious.

 

The thing is in the UK people have a legal entitlement to walk on a right of way. The owner of the land crossed by the right-of-way has no more right to stop people walking along it than you have to stop people walking along the sidewalk outside your house or from driving down your street. If the annoyed landowner did anything to restrict access along the right-of-way there would be legal issues for them to contend with.

 

Well, he certainly did by building a brick wall and there is nobody stopping him. This has nothing to do with the legal system, if someone living nearby does not want a geocache and it's associated traffic, it should not be there. I'm sure that legally it was fine. I'm also sure that making a request to not use the ROW was legal also. "The nearby landowner has requested for geocachers to not use the ROW, although use is legal". If they had forcibly tried to stop someone, it would be a different story, although the brick wall indicates that the authorities and the residents are not that concerned about it.

 

If it's brought to the relevant body's attention I imagine something will be done about it.

 

It's against the law to shoot at your neighbours as they walk past your house but if you started doing it anyway it would still be a while before anything was done about it. The fact you managed to shoot half a dozen of them with no apparent consequence wouldn't mean the SWAT team wasn't on its way to stop you.

 

Groundspeak appears to take the stance that it complies with reasonable requests from landowners. "Please don't walk on the path you have a legal right to walk on" isn't a reasonable request. It's no more reasonable than me demanding people avoid driving down the road outside my house because, well, I'd really rather they didn't.

 

If caches are denied or archived just because someone vaguely nearby decides they don't like it there then sooner or later caches all over the place are going to disappear. What proportion of the population do you suppose would be happy for random people to show up in their neighbourhood at whatever time of day or night they fancied, fumble around in dark corners looking for stuff, only to clear off again?

 

They already get archived, and have been for quite a long time. There is absolutely no reason to obnoxiously force the game upon people who are living nearby. I've noticed ones around here archived by both Reviewers and Lackeys for that reason, as well as COs. They get published and subsequently removed if there is a problem. Using a geocache to promote an agenda of property use rights is not what most want. What it comes down to is that either some people like to try legally annoying someone with their geocache, or they really don't care who it bothers. It's either due to an unhealthy obsession with the game, or antisocial behavior. They may enjoy conflict and want to share the experience with other unsuspecting geocachers. I don't care if someone asks very nicely, or is threatening to remove every passerby's genitalia with a broken pint glass, if it is causing a problem then it should be gone. Go play in the woods.

 

The trouble with this line of thinking is that it constantly seeks the lowest common denominator. Someone is unhappy about something, their legal right to prevent it is zero, but let's all roll over and give them exactly what they want anyway. If the right of way leads to the woods then "go play in the woods" is just what people are trying to do. It's eminently reasonable to "go play in the woods", and the fact the landowner might prefer people didn't (legally) walk across his land doesn't mean people shouldn't "go play in the woods" just because he'd really rather they didn't.

 

I can just see the development of this approach - someone has a hunting camp on a forest road in 250,000 acres of state woodland, a cache is hidden 20 miles away from their hunting camp but - shock horror - people drive along the forest road to get to the cache and it annoys the guy with the hunting camp. Maybe all those caches should be archived as well.

[team tisri]

For me it comes down to do you want to be right but give geocaching a negative image or just concede the spot and place the cache somewhere it is welcomed? Even if grounspeek chose to ignore such requests, there is nothing stopping the neighbor or anyone else who didn't want that cache there from just taking it and tossing it in the trash.

 

If the cache is not welcomed, it's probably better that it not be there.

 

OK, so if I decide I'd really rather there weren't any caches along the riverside walk near my house because strangers park outside my house to go and find them, then they should all be archived in case I take the hump and go chuck them all in the river?

 

At some point we have to accept that people have a right to walk on a right of way (that's why it's called "right of way").

[+313JTG]

I believe this extends outside of this game but today's world has too many people with a false sense of entitlement. Whatever happened to "this land is your land, this land is my land"? Now everyone is worried about protecting their land. Most of the time these people don't even own the land. Instead, they want to be vigilantes. Ever read any of those stories about the police investigating caches that were reported? I'm sure most of you have, almost always the person who reported it does most of the talking. In fact you can find up to five quotes from those people. They want to be the hero for their 15 minutes of fame when in reality they are just wasting the time of our resources that could be saving someone's life.

 

Sadly most people just lack common sense when placing caches. Don't put a cache on a guard rail on the side of a busy road with limited parking space. Don't place a cache five yards from someone's mailbox in a tree that's on the border of their property unless you get permission. If there's any chance for controversy, play it safe. Won't completely eliminate the nasty muggle but it'll certainly improve the game's reputation.

[+GeoBain]

For me it comes down to do you want to be right but give geocaching a negative image or just concede the spot and place the cache somewhere it is welcomed? Even if grounspeek chose to ignore such requests, there is nothing stopping the neighbor or anyone else who didn't want that cache there from just taking it and tossing it in the trash.

 

If the cache is not welcomed, it's probably better that it not be there.

 

OK, so if I decide I'd really rather there weren't any caches along the riverside walk near my house because strangers park outside my house to go and find them, then they should all be archived in case I take the hump and go chuck them all in the river?

 

At some point we have to accept that people have a right to walk on a right of way (that's why it's called "right of way").

 

I guess you could request archival on the basis that they may get tossed in the river, but that is not what I said at all. In fact, I doubt Groundspeak would honor that request.

 

But let's say that I wanted to place a cache on my own property. And let's say I lived on a cul de sac. I am totally within my rights to have a cache on my own property. I don't think anyone would question that.

 

But do you really think it would be good for the game to bring a lot of unwanted traffic into my quiet little neighborhood.

 

I could go ahead and place the cache and say screw the neighbors. Nothing is stopping me. But I, personally, think I would look for a more suitable location.

[team tisri]

For me it comes down to do you want to be right but give geocaching a negative image or just concede the spot and place the cache somewhere it is welcomed? Even if grounspeek chose to ignore such requests, there is nothing stopping the neighbor or anyone else who didn't want that cache there from just taking it and tossing it in the trash.

 

If the cache is not welcomed, it's probably better that it not be there.

 

OK, so if I decide I'd really rather there weren't any caches along the riverside walk near my house because strangers park outside my house to go and find them, then they should all be archived in case I take the hump and go chuck them all in the river?

 

At some point we have to accept that people have a right to walk on a right of way (that's why it's called "right of way").

 

I guess you could request archival on the basis that they may get tossed in the river, but that is not what I said at all. In fact, I doubt Groundspeak would honor that request.

 

But let's say that I wanted to place a cache on my own property. And let's say I lived on a cul de sac. I am totally within my rights to have a cache on my own property. I don't think anyone would question that.

 

But do you really think it would be good for the game to bring a lot of unwanted traffic into my quiet little neighborhood.

 

I could go ahead and place the cache and say screw the neighbors. Nothing is stopping me. But I, personally, think I would look for a more suitable location.

 

In which case I can only assume you missed the point regarding the right of way. The cache wasn't placed on the right of way, it was placed on someone else's land. The land was accessible using the right of way (and as has already been mentioned many times, it's called "right of way" for a reason). The issue appears to be that the owner of the land crossed by the right of way disliked people exercising their right to use that right of way.

 

So asking people not to use the right of way is not a reasonable request, any more than it's a reasonable request to ask people not to park outside my house because I want to park there.

 

If we start arguing that placing a cache somewhere that might be accessed using a perfectly legal right of way is causing problems we're on a slippery slope to archiving caches all over the place because of a few vigilante types out there.

 

Bringing lots of people at random times of day and night into a cul-de-sac isn't really the same situation but, for what it's worth, I'd like to see it made compulsory to make it very clear in the cache text which house contains the cache when people do hide caches in their front yard. As a rule if I see a cache is on private property I just ignore it simply because I don't want to be dealing with angry neighbours if I'm rooting around in their front yard for something that's actually in the adjacent front yard. The key difference between this and the right-of-way issue is that people looking in an adjacent front yard would be trespassing, while people walking on the right of way have a legal right to use it.

[+L0ne.R]

Another example....the guy with a RoW on his property that connects a block of houses to the school, thinks the kids are a nuisance and goes to the principal demanding that he tell the kids and their parents that they can no longer use that RoW to get to the school. Subsequently the principal sends a note to the parents officially stating that their children should not access the school via that section of the RoW. I expect the principal and property owner would be reported to RoW authorities.

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Another example....the guy with a RoW on his property that connects a block of houses to the school, thinks the kids are a nuisance and goes to the principal demanding that he tell the kids and their parents that they can no longer use that RoW to get to the school. Subsequently the principal sends a note to the parents officially stating that their children should not access the school via that section of the RoW. I expect the principal and property owner would be reported to RoW authorities.

 

 

And what if the principal doesn't send that note. Legal or not, the kids are going to continue to, from the perspective of the guy with the RoW on his property, be a nuisance and guess who he is going to blame? Initially he might have been annoyed with the kids, but he'd turn his anger toward the school.

 

In the the context of geocaching, someone living close to where a cache has been placed might initially be annoyed a few geocachers but over time they're going to turn their anger toward the game of geocaching. Is that the impression that we want to give the general public about geocaching?

[team tisri]

Another example....the guy with a RoW on his property that connects a block of houses to the school, thinks the kids are a nuisance and goes to the principal demanding that he tell the kids and their parents that they can no longer use that RoW to get to the school. Subsequently the principal sends a note to the parents officially stating that their children should not access the school via that section of the RoW. I expect the principal and property owner would be reported to RoW authorities.

 

 

And what if the principal doesn't send that note. Legal or not, the kids are going to continue to, from the perspective of the guy with the RoW on his property, be a nuisance and guess who he is going to blame? Initially he might have been annoyed with the kids, but he'd turn his anger toward the school.

 

In the the context of geocaching, someone living close to where a cache has been placed might initially be annoyed a few geocachers but over time they're going to turn their anger toward the game of geocaching. Is that the impression that we want to give the general public about geocaching?

 

The flip side is whether we want to restrict the game based on the most extreme behaviour of a few people who happen to dislike what we're doing.

 

We could use a comparable example about all sorts of things. If the odd redneck in a pickup gets annoyed at the presence of cyclists on the roads, should cyclists stay off the road so as not to "provoke" the rednecks? If a few people don't like small children running around in the park, should parents keep their children home so anger isn't turned against parents in general?

 

ETA: In the example of the school the guy whose land is crossed by the ROW might find the kids a nuisance but his only option is to deal with it. His anger, misguided as it is, can be directed wherever he wants to direct it and there's precisely nothing he can legally do about it. Why should he turn his anger towards anyone except himself - he has no more cause to be angry than I have to be angry at the kids who walk to their school along the path outside my house.

 

There's a time to be considerate for sure, but there's also a time to tell people (literally or metaphorically) to deal with things they don't happen to like.

Edited July 20, 2014 by team tisri

[4wheelin_fool]

The trouble with this line of thinking is that it constantly seeks the lowest common denominator. Someone is unhappy about something, their legal right to prevent it is zero, but let's all roll over and give them exactly what they want anyway. If the right of way leads to the woods then "go play in the woods" is just what people are trying to do. It's eminently reasonable to "go play in the woods", and the fact the landowner might prefer people didn't (legally) walk across his land doesn't mean people shouldn't "go play in the woods" just because he'd really rather they didn't.

 

 

Its not about rolling over and giving in to them, its about respecting the guy's home. If you ask people what was most valuable to them, most would answer either their house, or the occupants in it. Anything that threatens their peace or state of mind is going to come under attack. Nobody wants to be kept awake due to people playing a game, or worried that those same game players could actually be peeping tom's, or thieves. Weighing people concerns about their home against people obsessed with playing a hide and seek game, the homeowner is going to win, one way or another. That is the guy who will not roll over and give in. I cannot imagine any place that is so important to get to, or any geocache that is so incredible that it requires walking through or along someone's yard. The homeowner versus the obsessed hide and seek player who lives 50km away?

 

This isn't even about stopping anyone, but simply passing along a request. It sure smells like an agenda to encourage traffic in an area where there hasn't been in a long time. Places like this on maps are often called "paper roads" because they don't exist, except on paper. It may be legal to use them, but using the game as an instrument to promote the ramblers cause is definitely an agenda. So nobody uses a path for more than 20 years, then suddenly a horde of people show up to say that they need access to find a film pot? Sounds like intentional trouble. If they do this, then they can leave the geocache out of it, and if there are legal problems, they should be settled before hiding anything.

 

 

I can just see the development of this approach - someone has a hunting camp on a forest road in 250,000 acres of state woodland, a cache is hidden 20 miles away from their hunting camp but - shock horror - people drive along the forest road to get to the cache and it annoys the guy with the hunting camp. Maybe all those caches should be archived as well.

 

That scenario is a bit farfetched and I cant see it happening. This is about proximity to homesteads.

 

The flip side is whether we want to restrict the game based on the most extreme behaviour of a few people who happen to dislike what we're doing.

 

We could use a comparable example about all sorts of things. If the odd redneck in a pickup gets annoyed at the presence of cyclists on the roads, should cyclists stay off the road so as not to "provoke" the rednecks? If a few people don't like small children running around in the park, should parents keep their children home so anger isn't turned against parents in general?

 

ETA: In the example of the school the guy whose land is crossed by the ROW might find the kids a nuisance but his only option is to deal with it. His anger, misguided as it is, can be directed wherever he wants to direct it and there's precisely nothing he can legally do about it. Why should he turn his anger towards anyone except himself - he has no more cause to be angry than I have to be angry at the kids who walk to their school along the path outside my house.

 

There's a time to be considerate for sure, but there's also a time to tell people (literally or metaphorically) to deal with things they don't happen to like.

 

Those scenarios are a bit farfetched and I cant see them happening. This is about proximity to homesteads.

Edited July 20, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+GeoBain]

The key difference between this and the right-of-way issue is that people looking in an adjacent front yard would be trespassing, while people walking on the right of way have a legal right to use it.

 

I think you missed my point. My point is that if the cache is not welcome it probably should not be there.

 

If I placed the cache on my own property and people accessed it legally by parking in front of my house and looking for it, it is no difference than the ROW issue. BOTH are completely legal. Both have the proper permission granted. No one is breaking any law to look for either cache. But if it is causing problems with the neighbors, you have a few options.

 

Do nothing. You are within your right to place that cache.

 

Or archive it yourself in order to preserve the peace.

 

You could also make adjustments to the listing such as making it a puzzle, multi, moving it to an area that encourages people to seek it from a different direction.

 

If Groundspeak receives a formal complaint, they have a few options as well.

 

Do nothing. The cache is legal. No trespassing issues. Maybe they determine that it really is a lot to do about nothing.

 

Or they can archive the cache because it makes geocaching and their company look bad when caches are placed in locations that cause problems.

 

If they do archive the cache, you are still within your rights to leave it and list it somewhere else. But at the end of the day, this is their site and they can list or archive any geocache they wish and don't really have to give any justification for it.

[+GeoBain]

Its not about rolling over and giving in to them, its about respecting the guy's home. If you ask people what was most valuable to them, most would answer either their house, or the occupants in it. Anything that threatens their peace or state of mind is going to come under attack. Nobody wants to be kept awake due to people playing a game, or worried that those same game players could actually be peeping tom's, or thieves. Weighing people concerns about their home against people obsessed with playing a hide and seek game, the homeowner is going to win, one way or another. That is the guy who will not roll over and give in. I cannot imagine any place that is so important to get to, or any geocache that is so incredible that it requires walking through or along someone's yard. The homeowner versus the obsessed hide and seek player who lives 50km away?

 

+1

 

There was a thread a few years back about someone who lived out in the sticks going bonkers because of a cache placed just down from his house. The cache was placed on the side of the road, in the ROW. It wasn't even like it was on the corner of the guy's property or anything. Legally, there was nothing the guy could do.

 

However, this guy was not accustomed to people snooping around in the area and got into a shouting match with a couple of finders, if I remember correctly. I believe the CO archived the cache rather than subject future finders to this type of behavior.

 

He didn't HAVE to archive it. But it was the correct course of action out of respect to the homeowner and to future finders.

[4wheelin_fool]

Its not about rolling over and giving in to them, its about respecting the guy's home. If you ask people what was most valuable to them, most would answer either their house, or the occupants in it. Anything that threatens their peace or state of mind is going to come under attack. Nobody wants to be kept awake due to people playing a game, or worried that those same game players could actually be peeping tom's, or thieves. Weighing people concerns about their home against people obsessed with playing a hide and seek game, the homeowner is going to win, one way or another. That is the guy who will not roll over and give in. I cannot imagine any place that is so important to get to, or any geocache that is so incredible that it requires walking through or along someone's yard. The homeowner versus the obsessed hide and seek player who lives 50km away?

 

+1

 

There was a thread a few years back about someone who lived out in the sticks going bonkers because of a cache placed just down from his house. The cache was placed on the side of the road, in the ROW. It wasn't even like it was on the corner of the guy's property or anything. Legally, there was nothing the guy could do.

 

However, this guy was not accustomed to people snooping around in the area and got into a shouting match with a couple of finders, if I remember correctly. I believe the CO archived the cache rather than subject future finders to this type of behavior.

 

He didn't HAVE to archive it. But it was the correct course of action out of respect to the homeowner and to future finders.

 

If someone started leaving film pots in homeless camps and refused to write anything about respecting the people living nearby, I'd say that there was something else going on. There are plenty of things that are perfectly legal, but most don't do, such as drive by an accident scene and taunt the victims, or fart loudly in church. The game certainly can be used as a tool to harass people legally, but that should not be tolerated.

[team tisri]

The trouble with this line of thinking is that it constantly seeks the lowest common denominator. Someone is unhappy about something, their legal right to prevent it is zero, but let's all roll over and give them exactly what they want anyway. If the right of way leads to the woods then "go play in the woods" is just what people are trying to do. It's eminently reasonable to "go play in the woods", and the fact the landowner might prefer people didn't (legally) walk across his land doesn't mean people shouldn't "go play in the woods" just because he'd really rather they didn't.

 

 

Its not about rolling over and giving in to them, its about respecting the guy's home. If you ask people what was most valuable to them, most would answer either their house, or the occupants in it. Anything that threatens their peace or state of mind is going to come under attack. Nobody wants to be kept awake due to people playing a game, or worried that those same game players could actually be peeping tom's, or thieves. Weighing people concerns about their home against people obsessed with playing a hide and seek game, the homeowner is going to win, one way or another. That is the guy who will not roll over and give in. I cannot imagine any place that is so important to get to, or any geocache that is so incredible that it requires walking through or along someone's yard. The homeowner versus the obsessed hide and seek player who lives 50km away?

 

This isn't even about stopping anyone, but simply passing along a request. It sure smells like an agenda to encourage traffic in an area where there hasn't been in a long time. Places like this on maps are often called "paper roads" because they don't exist, except on paper. It may be legal to use them, but using the game as an instrument to promote the ramblers cause is definitely an agenda. So nobody uses a path for more than 20 years, then suddenly a horde of people show up to say that they need access to find a film pot? Sounds like intentional trouble. If they do this, then they can leave the geocache out of it, and if there are legal problems, they should be settled before hiding anything.

 

 

I can just see the development of this approach - someone has a hunting camp on a forest road in 250,000 acres of state woodland, a cache is hidden 20 miles away from their hunting camp but - shock horror - people drive along the forest road to get to the cache and it annoys the guy with the hunting camp. Maybe all those caches should be archived as well.

 

That scenario is a bit farfetched and I cant see it happening. This is about proximity to homesteads.

 

The flip side is whether we want to restrict the game based on the most extreme behaviour of a few people who happen to dislike what we're doing.

 

We could use a comparable example about all sorts of things. If the odd redneck in a pickup gets annoyed at the presence of cyclists on the roads, should cyclists stay off the road so as not to "provoke" the rednecks? If a few people don't like small children running around in the park, should parents keep their children home so anger isn't turned against parents in general?

 

ETA: In the example of the school the guy whose land is crossed by the ROW might find the kids a nuisance but his only option is to deal with it. His anger, misguided as it is, can be directed wherever he wants to direct it and there's precisely nothing he can legally do about it. Why should he turn his anger towards anyone except himself - he has no more cause to be angry than I have to be angry at the kids who walk to their school along the path outside my house.

 

There's a time to be considerate for sure, but there's also a time to tell people (literally or metaphorically) to deal with things they don't happen to like.

 

Those scenarios are a bit farfetched and I cant see them happening. This is about proximity to homesteads.

 

You don't seem to understand the concept of the right of way. If the guy didn't want people walking past his home he shouldn't have bought a home with a right of way right next to it. The scenarios really aren't any different to the guy who doesn't want people walking along the right of way. He has no right to stop people walking along it - that's why it's called a right of way.

 

What we're talking about is virtually identical to a person who lives vaguely near something they don't happen to like complaining about people walking past their house to get to it. At the end of my road is a newsagent that's open until late but if I tried to stop people from walking past my house to get to the newsagent because their presence troubled me - I don't know if they're trying to spy on me, or checking whether I've got anything worth stealing as they walk past my house - I'd (quite rightly) be mocked into silence.

 

Still, the kerfuffle caused by this particular cache has certainly ignited a lot of interest in the right of way, so the landowner in question is likely to have people walking back and forth along it just to make a point, with or without a film pot at the end of their walk.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

You don't seem to understand the concept of the right of way. If the guy didn't want people walking past his home he shouldn't have bought a home with a right of way right next to it. The scenarios really aren't any different to the guy who doesn't want people walking along the right of way. He has no right to stop people walking along it - that's why it's called a right of way.

 

That's absolutely correct. He has no right to stop people from walking on it.

 

However any issues like this should be straightened out before the cache is published. If it becomes discovered after publication, then geocachers who are visiting the location have a right to know about it. What is unusually odd in this case is that the reviewer did not want to let anyone know about it, even after Groundspeak asked him to, and somehow believed it was against the law.

 

I found a unused public right of way last week on the way to a cache. It was in between a restaurant/catering business and someone's house. The nearby homeowner appeared to have built a shed over part of it. Completely overgrown, there was a city sign with 1960s font indicating the path. Now if the homeowner came out and asked what I was doing, or told me to leave, the answer could be based on how he asked it, and what mood I was in. There also could be a factor of how polite I was, based on whether he or I was armed. I possibly may have ignored him, or even pretended I was deaf or didn't speak English. There is a pretty good chance that I might tell him something that he wont like. Now if this conversation did take place, I would have certainly mentioned it in the log, and I think it should be printed on the page. Its rather odd that some people would like to hide this conflict from unsuspecting finders. I don't think there are many people that enjoy surprises like that.

 

What we're talking about is virtually identical to a person who lives vaguely near something they don't happen to like complaining about people walking past their house to get to it. At the end of my road is a newsagent that's open until late but if I tried to stop people from walking past my house to get to the newsagent because their presence troubled me - I don't know if they're trying to spy on me, or checking whether I've got anything worth stealing as they walk past my house - I'd (quite rightly) be mocked into silence.

Lets explore my understanding of right of way. Here you have compared a film pot to a business. A guy's livelihood on how he feeds his family, is somehow similar to a film can or even an ammo box? A person walking down a paved public road is similar to going though someone's property? Another post seems to have compared a film pot to a school. Kids walking to school out of necessity are similar to adults playing a hide and seek game at their own leisure. I don't know if you seem to understand the concept of what is happening at all. I don't think twisting the facts and playing metaphors has anything to do with reality. It's rather difficult to archive a school.

 

Still, the kerfuffle caused by this particular cache has certainly ignited a lot of interest in the right of way, so the landowner in question is likely to have people walking back and forth along it just to make a point, with or without a film pot at the end of their walk.

 

Yeah, that sure sounds like an agenda. Its always better to do this before the cache gets published, and not by springing it on unsuspecting geocachers, or believing that they will do it for you.

[4wheelin_fool]

Here's a recent one. Someone with no finds in the state has reported that the nearby homeowner has taken the cache because of perceived damage by geocachers. It's definitely on public land, but right behind his backyard. He should have contacted the cache owner, and if that didn't work, contact the reviewer. After that, its Groundspeak. I don't know how they would handle this, but the cache owner probably could have replaced it and set up a video camera to catch the homeowner taking it, and filed charges if it was removed again. The homeowner is assuming there is cachers doing damage to the area, but probably without any evidence, although there is a good chance they may have damaged something. This could have been a big legal fight about geocachers doing damage, and theft by locals, but you know what? It was archived, because it's only a game.

[+Team Dredd]

This response is in reference to the repeated mention of charging someone with theft for taking a cache in different topics. I am ONLY pointing this out to Florida and am not disputing anything or arguing with anyone specifically.

 

I have read several posts in different threads that mention someone stealing a cache container should be charged with criminal theft. This would not be done in the state of Florida, and I imagine it is the same in most states. A geocache is considered abandoned property if it is left on the right of way here; regardless of whether it is a game piece or not. Its just like your trash when it is put out by the road, when your trash is piled out by the roadway for the trash service to pick up anyone can nose through it and take what ever they want because it is abandoned (one good reason to always shred or burn any credit card bills etc). I do not condone taking a cache, we have a few on the ROW but not at someone's house, but there is no criminal recourse that can be done by the CO. The same thing as when someone takes a geo-coin and then boasts about how they are keeping it in their collection. The geo-coin was put out to travel thus abandoned somewhere by the owner, and once that happens keeping it is simply a sorry thing to do, not a criminal thing to do. Just like taking a container.

 

Once again I am talking about ROW here in Florida, I have no idea about the UK, China, Canada or anywhere else. I am not talking about a CO who has a cache on his own property, or a cache on some other type of private property with permission, each scenario is different and would be approached differently. There may be lots of "what ifs" to this, like municipal ordinances that deal with the ROW etc. etc. etc. If a CO could find a police officer new enough or confused enough to write a report for theft of a cache from the ROW here, and then a supervisor to approve it, it would abruptly dead end at the State Attorney's Office anyway as a "decline to prosecute"

[+GeoBain]

I have read several posts in different threads that mention someone stealing a cache container should be charged with criminal theft. This would not be done in the state of Florida, and I imagine it is the same in most states.

 

That used to be the consensus around here too until someone was actually arrested for stealing caches. He was caught in the act. I believe the outcome was a slap on the wrist as long as he promised not to do it again. But he did get in a heap of trouble.

 

So, yes, there are some jurisdictions that will prosecute cache thieves.

 

** Edited to add these links: Cache maggot arrested

 

Outcome of arrest

Edited July 21, 2014 by GeoBain

[+Team Dredd]

I have read several posts in different threads that mention someone stealing a cache container should be charged with criminal theft. This would not be done in the state of Florida, and I imagine it is the same in most states.

 

That used to be the consensus around here too until someone was actually arrested for stealing caches. He was caught in the act. I believe the outcome was a slap on the wrist as long as he promised not to do it again. But he did get in a heap of trouble.

 

So, yes, there are some jurisdictions that will prosecute cache thieves.

 

** Edited to add these links: Cache maggot arrested

 

Outcome of arrest

 

Glad to see his sorry behind got caught and humiliated! This was apparently in New York, not Florida it looks like, and not on the ROW either, but hey he got busted! So cool that one of these cache thieves got popped. Although we have had a few caches come up missing I am only aware of one of ours that was repeatedly done and I believe it was deliberate. A commemorative cache to my best fiend who got killed on a motorcycle. As soon as we would replace it it would disappear. I was wondering if someone was reading the logs so we replaced it a couple times without posting a log that it was replaced and then I would check on it on the way to and from work and it would stay until either someone posted a find or several days went by. We ended up moving it a few hundred feet to the other side of the area and marking it a premium cache; it is still there. Cache thieves exist for what ever cheap thrill they get.

 

We try real hard to avoid muggles seeing what we are doing but sometimes it just happens. We have also talked after leaving a cache and we both wonder if the muggle will do something to the cache. We have decided not to grab caches sometimes if the muggle traffic is to heavy or if a muggle or group of them are really eyeballng us.

[4wheelin_fool]

I have read several posts in different threads that mention someone stealing a cache container should be charged with criminal theft. This would not be done in the state of Florida, and I imagine it is the same in most states.

 

That used to be the consensus around here too until someone was actually arrested for stealing caches. He was caught in the act. I believe the outcome was a slap on the wrist as long as he promised not to do it again. But he did get in a heap of trouble.

 

So, yes, there are some jurisdictions that will prosecute cache thieves.

 

** Edited to add these links: Cache maggot arrested

 

Outcome of arrest

 

Glad to see his sorry behind got caught and humiliated! This was apparently in New York, not Florida it looks like, and not on the ROW either, but hey he got busted! So cool that one of these cache thieves got popped. Although we have had a few caches come up missing I am only aware of one of ours that was repeatedly done and I believe it was deliberate. A commemorative cache to my best fiend who got killed on a motorcycle. As soon as we would replace it it would disappear. I was wondering if someone was reading the logs so we replaced it a couple times without posting a log that it was replaced and then I would check on it on the way to and from work and it would stay until either someone posted a find or several days went by. We ended up moving it a few hundred feet to the other side of the area and marking it a premium cache; it is still there. Cache thieves exist for what ever cheap thrill they get.

 

We try real hard to avoid muggles seeing what we are doing but sometimes it just happens. We have also talked after leaving a cache and we both wonder if the muggle will do something to the cache. We have decided not to grab caches sometimes if the muggle traffic is to heavy or if a muggle or group of them are really eyeballng us.

 

ROW legalities depend on each state. Most laws written defining abandoned property on ROWs as trash are with "bandit signs" in mind, not geocaches. It could be argued that they are not abandoned at all.

 

I also don't know what this has to do with coins at all. Whether or not they are found on ROWs, the owner can be tracked and a complaint filed about possession of stolen property if the amount is significant. EBay will remove listings if they are reported as stolen.

[+hzoi]

Whatever happened to "this land is your land, this land is my land"?

 

Quoting a pinko activist is no way to get decent, God-fearing people on your side.

[+geodarts]

Whatever happened to "this land is your land, this land is my land"?

 

Quoting a pinko activist is no way to get decent, God-fearing people on your side.

 

Maybe that is why my side did not win (although like the Spanish republicans, we did have the best music). But leaving that question aside . . . I always appreciate some of the verses they rarely sing in school:

 

As I was walking, I saw a sign there;

And on the sign said "No Trespassing";

But on the other side, it didn't say nothing;

This land is made for you and me.

 

Still, using that as a basis for placing a cache would lead to vicious muggles.

Edited July 26, 2014 by geodarts

[+hzoi]

Whatever happened to "this land is your land, this land is my land"?

 

Quoting a pinko activist is no way to get decent, God-fearing people on your side.

 

Maybe that is why my side did not win (although like the Spanish republicans, we did have the best music). But leaving that question aside . . . I always appreciate some of the verses they rarely sing in school:

 

As I was walking, I saw a sign there;

And on the sign said "No Trespassing";

But on the other side, it didn't say nothing;

This land is made for you and me.

 

Still, using that as a basis for placing a cache would lead to vicious muggles.

Oh, it's very much a protest song when you get into all the lyrics. Some of the best ones are the ones that fly juuuuust under the radar.

[4wheelin_fool]

The idea of any public land was considered communist before the creation of national parks, as most public areas only existed due to the generosity of wealthy beneficiaries. Ironically those same pinkos supply the grease that keeps the capitalist machine running smooth, and without them it would seize up, and would be just as bad as the other extreme of complete communism as most of the Marxist planks have already been installed in the country anyhow. You can put any label on it that you please, but trespassing is simply disrespect, which is exactly why muggles may get vicious.

Edited July 28, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+mountainman38]

Four of us were looking for a cache about 20 feet off the road. There was a fence around a small pond and the only houses were on another street across the pond about 200 yards away. After awhile I noticed that a car that recently left one of the houses had circled around and was stopped about 100 feet away. Uh oh. We kept looking for the cache, and pretty soon the car slowly advanced toward us. At least 3 cell phone cameras were pointed our way. As they got closer, I made an attempt to talk to them, but no luck. They looked as if they had just found a group of axe murderers. I pulled out my phone and started to take their pictures and that made them mad. Oh well. I found the cache and we slowly left. They turned around and followed us until I pulled over and waited for them. They stopped and, after a short time, turned around and left. We put the axes back in the trunk and left.

 

There should really be a "LIKE" button that I could hit for posts like this!

[+jwmoe1973]

"That's interesting.

In most States in the US, there's a thing called right-of-way.

Property owners usually own (and pay taxes for) to the public road. The right-of-way is for road crews and utility workers, not public acc. ess.

Can't tell how many hides we've seen dropped directly in front of no trespassing/posted signs, like the CO thought he has a right to be there, when it was simply the only/nearest tree the owner could hang it 10' from the road."

 

That seems strange to me here in Florida, at least this county. Unless it is in a private housing area or gated community where the roads are not maintained by the government, the county owns a certain amount of land from the centerline of the road. The default distance in this county is 30 feet from the centerline (I have worked for this county over 20 years). Of course there are exceptions but the right of way here does not belong to the peoperty owner. If the property owner "owned" the right of way, which would include the sidewak and drains, they could do what ever they wanted to it; not to mention could be held liable for anything that went bad. Also thouh, our property borders stop prior to reaching sidewaks and such our surveys and tax asessments so we are paying for acres we really don't own.

 

Lots of variance in local ordinances. Here in my little corner of Michigan it often depends on the county, city or even township. In the city proper, the property owner pays for, and is liable, for the right of way. To include maintenance and repair of the sidewalks. Further out my way (5 miles), the township owns the easement up to the edge of the private property. The last two feet of my concrete driveway is gravel and actually owned by the township. Just a mile or two further east and the county takes over ownership oe easements and right of ways...

[+Heimdall5008]

I only had one really bad experience with muggels here in Germany to date.

 

I was searching for a cache behind some thick bushes some meters from a field road/trail. So I did not hear that two middle-aged women came along the way. But they did see or hear me. One started to blow in a whistle and the other accused me that I wanted to rape them (during bright daylight on a relativly busy road...). They also did not belive me that I was collecting chestnuts (also I had a small bag full of them that I had collected while searching for the cache...).

 

The only solution I saw was to just walk away. They screamed a bit after me but then walked on in the other direction. A really strange situation...

[+michellepluseight]

The discussion of ROW reminds me of a neighbor of mine who doesn't think people should be allowed to walk past her house, at all. She claims that, when people walk on the sidewalk past her house, it sets off her burglar alarm. At first I told my kids to just walk on the other side of the street. But then she started insisting that they couldn't visit their friends who lived next door, or across the street from her. They'd be walking up the sidewalk to their friend's house across the street, and she'd come out yelling at them to "leave [the friend's grandmother] alone!" One time they came to see if the friends next door could play, and were asked to wait on the porch for a moment, and this neighbor came out and started yelling at them to stop "bothering those people!" I gave up. Crazy people are going to be crazy, and there's no point in trying to accommodate them.

 

I've also noticed that some people think that public spaces are only for "certain" people. I was at a park day with my kids, and one of the moms was extremely concerned about a *man* being at a very large and popular park. "He has no business being here!"

[+Mn-treker]

I have seen a lot of talk about ROW. But very little understanding about it by many.

Just because a right of way may exist does not mean that it is trespassable ROW.

Some times the ROW is for utilities and road. Who owns the land on a ROW?

In many cases the property owner that abuts the ROW owns the land.

A governing entity may own the ROW but not the land.

The ROW laws may differ all over. In the big city the ROW for a sidewalk is owned by the city.

But the homeowner may own the land. The homeowner must allow trespass on the sidewalk.

But must also pay for upkeep of the sidewalk, big screw job there!

I live in the country and own both sides of the road that live on. I own the land that the road is on.

The township owns the ROW for road and utilities only. I must pay proprty tax for the land that the road is on.

The public may drive on the road but not the area that you would call the ditch. No ATV , no Snowmobile allowed on this ROW. I have the right of arrest! So before you start saying the public owns the ROW

think again. The public does not own the ROW. The governing agencies do and they determine how

the ROW is used. No sidewalk, the homeowner may be in charge. Or they may not. do not assume

you have trespass rights. Only in public spaces do you have trespass rights. That ROW you are on may be

private property as well. You John Q Public do not have the right to do as you please on the ROW.

Check before you think of hiding a geocache, it might just be ilegal to place it there.

Some places are now baning hides in signs because of that atitude of I John Q Public own it.

No you don't!

[4wheelin_fool]

Here is one:

 

http://coord.info/GC5BTQJ

 

It's probably on the ROW, but on privately owned property. The party that owns the lot likely is unaware of the cache, although the homeowner directly across the street is disturbed about people wandering around like mental patients. Should the cache be forced upon the neighborhood?

[4wheelin_fool]

I have seen a lot of talk about ROW. But very little understanding about it by many.

Just because a right of way may exist does not mean that it is trespassable ROW.

Some times the ROW is for utilities and road. Who owns the land on a ROW?

In many cases the property owner that abuts the ROW owns the land.

A governing entity may own the ROW but not the land.

The ROW laws may differ all over. In the big city the ROW for a sidewalk is owned by the city.

But the homeowner may own the land. The homeowner must allow trespass on the sidewalk.

But must also pay for upkeep of the sidewalk, big screw job there!

I live in the country and own both sides of the road that live on. I own the land that the road is on.

The township owns the ROW for road and utilities only. I must pay proprty tax for the land that the road is on.

The public may drive on the road but not the area that you would call the ditch. No ATV , no Snowmobile allowed on this ROW. I have the right of arrest! So before you start saying the public owns the ROW

think again. The public does not own the ROW. The governing agencies do and they determine how

the ROW is used. No sidewalk, the homeowner may be in charge. Or they may not. do not assume

you have trespass rights. Only in public spaces do you have trespass rights. That ROW you are on may be

private property as well. You John Q Public do not have the right to do as you please on the ROW.

Check before you think of hiding a geocache, it might just be ilegal to place it there.

Some places are now baning hides in signs because of that atitude of I John Q Public own it.

No you don't!

+1

 

Walking by someone's house is a bit different than hiding something and extending a public invitation for a steady stream of visitors who might arrive at any time of the day.

[+wmpastor]

Here is one:

 

http://coord.info/GC5BTQJ

 

It's probably on the ROW, but on privately owned property. The party that owns the lot likely is unaware of the cache, although the homeowner directly across the street is disturbed about people wandering around like mental patients. Should the cache be forced upon the neighborhood?

 

Tough call. I've seen areas like this and personally wouldn't place a cache there because of the muggle issue.

 

This cache is located in a a good-sized wooded area across the street from some McMansions.

 

People buy McMansions to get away from "people wandering around like mental patients," or in this case, like people in need of using the woods as a bathroom, which is what the homeowner thought was going on.

[4wheelin_fool]

Here is one:

 

http://coord.info/GC5BTQJ

 

It's probably on the ROW, but on privately owned property. The party that owns the lot likely is unaware of the cache, although the homeowner directly across the street is disturbed about people wandering around like mental patients. Should the cache be forced upon the neighborhood?

 

Tough call. I've seen areas like this and personally wouldn't place a cache there because of the muggle issue.

 

This cache is located in a a good-sized wooded area across the street from some McMansions.

 

People buy McMansions to get away from "people wandering around like mental patients," or in this case, like people in need of using the woods as a bathroom, which is what the homeowner thought was going on.

 

If geocachers don't care about annoying people, then the result is often that the people may go out of their way to annoy geocachers. Why not go after all of the others, if a characteristic of the geocachers is to be apathetic to the people that live there? I can recall at one time when all geocaches were deep in the woods.

[+NanCycle]

I have seen a lot of talk about ROW. But very little understanding about it by many.

Just because a right of way may exist does not mean that it is trespassable ROW.

Some times the ROW is for utilities and road. Who owns the land on a ROW?

In many cases the property owner that abuts the ROW owns the land.

A governing entity may own the ROW but not the land.

The ROW laws may differ all over. In the big city the ROW for a sidewalk is owned by the city.

But the homeowner may own the land. The homeowner must allow trespass on the sidewalk.

But must also pay for upkeep of the sidewalk, big screw job there!

I live in the country and own both sides of the road that live on. I own the land that the road is on.

The township owns the ROW for road and utilities only. I must pay proprty tax for the land that the road is on.

The public may drive on the road but not the area that you would call the ditch. No ATV , no Snowmobile allowed on this ROW. I have the right of arrest! So before you start saying the public owns the ROW

think again. The public does not own the ROW. The governing agencies do and they determine how

the ROW is used. No sidewalk, the homeowner may be in charge. Or they may not. do not assume

you have trespass rights. Only in public spaces do you have trespass rights. That ROW you are on may be

private property as well. You John Q Public do not have the right to do as you please on the ROW.

Check before you think of hiding a geocache, it might just be ilegal to place it there.

Some places are now baning hides in signs because of that atitude of I John Q Public own it.

No you don't!

 

Thanks for posting this information; I learned a lot that I didn't know about ROWs.

 

(Though your tone seems to be quite angry--or maybe that's just my interpretation.)

[+Mn-treker]

No anger intended here I just run into so many people who think they have a right to trespass.

Here in Minnesota the ROW rules can be different all over. As my example of city sidewalk.

Then when you get to a state highway, oops the rule changes. No side walk and I might be able to

snowmobile but not ATV. County road? oops another difference. Township road? oops again

Point is that we need to check before a hide. I see a new hide near me.

At the end of a pedestrian pathway bridge. The icon is in some ones back yard. The easment is very tight,

only as wide as the path is. House on both sides, yard right up to the path. and intersection of the bridge.

The hide is some place on or under the bridge. Very bad coords,! very bad choice to place it.

posibility of trespass issue here. Home owners own right up to the bridge. This hide is a clear case of

I can hide here because I think I own the ROW. What ROW? there is no ROW.

The only way to access it is from the other side of the bridge and go under but not along side.

I hope it is under or on top and not in the side. It has been found at the bridge and finders say good

coords. But I don't believe it, when I looked coords had me 30 feet from the bridge.

Others had same thing. When I next try I plan on getting good coords to see.

I do not like getting neighbors after me due to CO poor choice of hide.

This CO has also had bad coords at other hides 40 plus feet off.

When you have Row issues you need to have very good coords.

[+Team Dredd]

I have seen a lot of talk about ROW. But very little understanding about it by many.

Just because a right of way may exist does not mean that it is trespassable ROW.

Some times the ROW is for utilities and road. Who owns the land on a ROW?

In many cases the property owner that abuts the ROW owns the land.

A governing entity may own the ROW but not the land.

The ROW laws may differ all over. In the big city the ROW for a sidewalk is owned by the city.

But the homeowner may own the land. The homeowner must allow trespass on the sidewalk.

But must also pay for upkeep of the sidewalk, big screw job there!

I live in the country and own both sides of the road that live on. I own the land that the road is on.

The township owns the ROW for road and utilities only. I must pay proprty tax for the land that the road is on.

The public may drive on the road but not the area that you would call the ditch. No ATV , no Snowmobile allowed on this ROW. I have the right of arrest! So before you start saying the public owns the ROW

think again. The public does not own the ROW. The governing agencies do and they determine how

the ROW is used. No sidewalk, the homeowner may be in charge. Or they may not. do not assume

you have trespass rights. Only in public spaces do you have trespass rights. That ROW you are on may be

private property as well. You John Q Public do not have the right to do as you please on the ROW.

Check before you think of hiding a geocache, it might just be ilegal to place it there.

Some places are now baning hides in signs because of that atitude of I John Q Public own it.

No you don't!

 

Thanks for posting this information; I learned a lot that I didn't know about ROWs.

 

(Though your tone seems to be quite angry--or maybe that's just my interpretation.)

 

After reading some of these posts I would suggest checking state laws and local or county right of ways. Apparently Florida and my county are different than a lot of other places. I would be upset if I had to pay taxes on, and be responsible or liable for a ROW. Our property lines stop at the ditch line (or similar in sub divisions) and I am not responsible or liable for the ROW. I have a few caches on the ROW but they are not in front of someone's home, and if there is a home around none of our caches are i a position to cause a cacher to have to nose around in front of a home. But then we have no caches in sub-divisions either.

 

One thing I agree with is the point brought out about the type of ROW. I am a bit off the road and there is a power pole on my property for electric and phone. In this case the utility companies have a ROW to the power pole, but the property is strictly owned by us. They have to drive in through my driveway to get to the pole and Florida Statutes awards them that ROW that I cannot deliberately block. They can come on my property for maintenance and even tree trimming. If someone were to try to place a cache there it would be a problem.

[+GrayHawk613]

Yeah. A few years back a cacher got shot.

 

I wanna say it was Arizona or NM. The shooting was on public land and the shooter went to jail. The story is here somewhere...

OMG

[+hzoi]

Yeah. A few years back a cacher got shot.

 

I wanna say it was Arizona or NM. The shooting was on public land and the shooter went to jail. The story is here somewhere...

OMG

 

It was in California in July 2011. Discussion thread here.

 

Someone reported getting shot at in 2012 while hunting a cache near Snyder, Oklahoma, about 25 miles west of where we are now. (Glad I had forgotten about that tale when I hunted the cache recently!)

 

Those are the only two reports I've heard. I was very happy to not be a third; I recently had to go on land that is supposed to be closed to all but hunters, because we move before hunting season is up and I had to retrieve four of our caches. Thankfully nary a hunter, or bullet, or game warden was encountered.

Edited December 25, 2014 by hzoi

[+TeamRabbitRun]

At first glance I thought this thread's title was VISCOUS Muggles.

 

I was looking forward to reading THAT!

Edited December 26, 2014 by TeamRabbitRun

[4wheelin_fool]

At first glance I thought this thread's title was VISCOUS Muggles.

 

I was looking forward to reading THAT!

 

Some muggles do have a very high viscosity, especially in regard to their brain matter, so that's not far off!

[+GrayHawk613]

At first glance I thought this thread's title was VISCOUS Muggles.

 

I was looking forward to reading THAT!

 

Some muggles do have a very high viscosity, especially in regard to their brain matter, so that's not far off!

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: