report a cache? owner deleted maintenance

[+chemgrl08]

I was recently caching while on vacation (visiting relatives) and happened upon a cache that was on public property,but required you to pass through a clearly marked "no trespassing" area. This was in Florida- a lot of the canals are public property, but this cache required you to pass through the back lot of a store. There was a sign that clearly said no trespassing. I logged my dnf, and then also issued a maintenance log (including a pic of the clearly visible sign) saying the cache should be moved or archived. The CO deleted my maintenance log without any forewarning or attempt to solve the issue. I understand the CO is allowed to delete logs, but this just seemed like sour grapes. I was trying to get the attention of a reviewer so they could see the pic, but it was deleted.

We should never trespass for geocaching. I think this cacher feels a bit more important than he is due to prominence in the area. Before anyone asks how I can be sure trespassing is required, let me assure you that the coords were well past the no trespassing zone, and we looked for alternate entries that could avoid it to no avail.

How can I report this, should I politely contact the CO first, or should I just not bother with it? I just don't think trespassing is ok- especially when you can have so many other LEGAL spots to put a cache. Thoughts?

[+T.D.M.22]

I find it hard to believe that you have to pass through that area. Perhaps it is easier, but the only way? Anyway it's not a maintenance issue. First off the reviewers won't get notified for maintenance. Second, perhaps part of the challenge is getting to the cache. How do you know the CO didn't get permission from the property owner? I doubt you know the whole story, and there is the possibility that the reviewers know more than you as well.

 

I'm not saying oh should tresspass, but I am saying you only know what you saw- not what went on with other people, so you are just guessing. Anyway you did what you felt you had to do, so it's time to move on. It's ot your property, or your cache, or even your hometown so whatever happens either way won't affect you.

[+palmetto]

How can I report this, should I politely contact the CO first, or should I just not bother with it?

You can send an email to a local reviewer with the GC Code of the cache and your concerns. Check recent nearby listings for the publish log to see who that might be. Could be me.

You can log a Needs Archived log. Those logs are forwarded to reviewers.

Needs maintenance notes are not seen by reviewers. It doesn't matter whether the cache owner deletes either log type, as the archived logs are visible to reviewers.

 

I note that pictures of No Trespassing signs are generally useless, as there's usually no obvious relationship between the sign and the cache. I say this having looked at many many pictures of No Trespassing signs, posted to many caches ;-) (including one of my own, cacher had tried to access the cache through private residential property, instead of by finding the hiking trail. Was he standing in front of a No Trespassing sign with my cache loaded as a goto about 1000ft away? Yes. Was this relevant to the cache location or permission? No).

 

I don't mean to dissuade you with this reference to the uselessness of No Trespassing sign images - that the CO deleted the log, without addressing it either by email or on the listing suggests to me that you really ought to pursue this.

 

You could try an email to the CO first, this might get an explanation of how CO thinks you can access the cache. Given that your log was deleted without cache owner already sending you an email, I wouldn't count on that.

Edited January 5, 2015 by palmetto

[+L0ne.R]

I was recently caching while on vacation (visiting relatives) and happened upon a cache that was on public property,but required you to pass through a clearly marked "no trespassing" area. This was in Florida- a lot of the canals are public property, but this cache required you to pass through the back lot of a store. There was a sign that clearly said no trespassing. I logged my dnf, and then also issued a maintenance log (including a pic of the clearly visible sign) saying the cache should be moved or archived. The CO deleted my maintenance log without any forewarning or attempt to solve the issue. I understand the CO is allowed to delete logs, but this just seemed like sour grapes. I was trying to get the attention of a reviewer so they could see the pic, but it was deleted.

We should never trespass for geocaching. I think this cacher feels a bit more important than he is due to prominence in the area. Before anyone asks how I can be sure trespassing is required, let me assure you that the coords were well past the no trespassing zone, and we looked for alternate entries that could avoid it to no avail.

How can I report this, should I politely contact the CO first, or should I just not bother with it? I just don't think trespassing is ok- especially when you can have so many other LEGAL spots to put a cache. Thoughts?

 

Email the reviewer of that cache. You can post the no trespassing sign on a photo site like Flickr and give the reviewer a link to the photo.

[+L0ne.R]

I find it hard to believe that you have to pass through that area. Perhaps it is easier, but the only way? Anyway it's not a maintenance issue. First off the reviewers won't get notified for maintenance. Second, perhaps part of the challenge is getting to the cache. How do you know the CO didn't get permission from the property owner? I doubt you know the whole story, and there is the possibility that the reviewers know more than you as well.

 

I'm not saying oh should tresspass, but I am saying you only know what you saw- not what went on with other people, so you are just guessing. Anyway you did what you felt you had to do, so it's time to move on. It's ot your property, or your cache, or even your hometown so whatever happens either way won't affect you.

 

If the challenge is to find a non-trespassing route shouldn't the owner say so in the log -- 'do not access the cache via the parking lot at the back of the plaza' or 'access to the cache is via the small park on Coronation Street'.

If the CO got permission form the property owner why delete the OP's log, just reply explaining that permission was granted.

It looks fishy to me that the owner deleted the NM and the photo.

Edited January 5, 2015 by L0ne.R

[+narcissa]

Sounds fishy - post a NA log or privately write to the reviewer who published it. Even though your original log was deleted, it's still visible to reviewers (for exactly this reason - cache owners can't get away with "hiding" evidence that their cache is sketchy).

[+MartyBartfast]

Ignoring whether or not you should pursue this for a moment. If you log a Needs Archived log on it, it will be flagged to a reviewer even if that log is deleted by the CO, also all the previous logs he's deleted (including your NM) will be available to the reviewer, who can then make their judgement on it.

[4wheelin_fool]

Trespassing behind a store in Florida? They take it rather seriously there. This guy was arrested 62 times for trespassing while at work:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article1957716.html

[+T.D.M.22]

I find it hard to believe that you have to pass through that area. Perhaps it is easier, but the only way? Anyway it's not a maintenance issue. First off the reviewers won't get notified for maintenance. Second, perhaps part of the challenge is getting to the cache. How do you know the CO didn't get permission from the property owner? I doubt you know the whole story, and there is the possibility that the reviewers know more than you as well.

 

I'm not saying oh should tresspass, but I am saying you only know what you saw- not what went on with other people, so you are just guessing. Anyway you did what you felt you had to do, so it's time to move on. It's ot your property, or your cache, or even your hometown so whatever happens either way won't affect you.

 

If the challenge is to find a non-trespassing route shouldn't the owner say so in the log -- 'do not access the cache via the parking lot at the back of the plaza' or 'access to the cache is via the small park on Coronation Street'.

If the CO got permission form the property owner why delete the OP's log, just reply explaining that permission was granted.

It looks fishy to me that the owner deleted the NM and the photo.

 

Yes- I'm not saying your wrong, I'm right, but it is a possibility, however small. As you know people on the forums like to assume.

[+narcissa]

I find it hard to believe that you have to pass through that area. Perhaps it is easier, but the only way? Anyway it's not a maintenance issue. First off the reviewers won't get notified for maintenance. Second, perhaps part of the challenge is getting to the cache. How do you know the CO didn't get permission from the property owner? I doubt you know the whole story, and there is the possibility that the reviewers know more than you as well.

 

I'm not saying oh should tresspass, but I am saying you only know what you saw- not what went on with other people, so you are just guessing. Anyway you did what you felt you had to do, so it's time to move on. It's ot your property, or your cache, or even your hometown so whatever happens either way won't affect you.

 

If the challenge is to find a non-trespassing route shouldn't the owner say so in the log -- 'do not access the cache via the parking lot at the back of the plaza' or 'access to the cache is via the small park on Coronation Street'.

If the CO got permission form the property owner why delete the OP's log, just reply explaining that permission was granted.

It looks fishy to me that the owner deleted the NM and the photo.

 

Yes- I'm not saying your wrong, I'm right, but it is a possibility, however small. As you know people on the forums like to assume.

 

There's absolutely no harm in mentioning a potential issue or concern to a reviewer.

[+chemgrl08]

Thanks guys. I had thought maintenance logs got forwarded to reviewers. I'll try to politely ask the CO what's up with the cache; after all, I didn't like that he deleted my post without addressing the issue, so I ought to email him before I do anything like a "needs archived" flag. I agree that his post ought to have mentioned the trespassing issue (go around start here, has permission, etc.) I checked out the rules and you're not allowed to place a cache in a location that requires trespassing (kinda duh on that, I suppose. But I've been wrong plenty of times before.) I'll update if anything interesting happens or the issue gets resolved. Thank you everyone for your opinions!

 

PS @palmetto LOL it might be you! You're reviewing one of my caches in the area atm! Hahaha!! (To other posters: don't worry, a good maintenance plan is in place. )

[+Tassie_Boy]

When you are geocaching you are given the coordinates of the cache, of the whole surface of the earth those coordinates put you within a few feet of the exact point where that cache is hidden.

 

Part of the challenge of finding the cache is working out the best route to the cache. You say that the cache is on public land. .. you say that the canals in florida are on public land but not whether the cache is next to a canal, i can only assume that it is. Are you sure that the way you took was the ONLY way to access the cache?

 

I think what I'm taking exception to in this topic is the idea that CO's 'should' or 'need' to provide way points showing parking or the start of walking tracks or even the best way to access the cache. That sort of thing is up to the cacher and their research before going to find the cache.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Tassie_Boy

[+narcissa]

Thanks guys. I had thought maintenance logs got forwarded to reviewers. I'll try to politely ask the CO what's up with the cache; after all, I didn't like that he deleted my post without addressing the issue, so I ought to email him before I do anything like a "needs archived" flag. I agree that his post ought to have mentioned the trespassing issue (go around start here, has permission, etc.) I checked out the rules and you're not allowed to place a cache in a location that requires trespassing (kinda duh on that, I suppose. But I've been wrong plenty of times before.) I'll update if anything interesting happens or the issue gets resolved. Thank you everyone for your opinions!

 

PS @palmetto LOL it might be you! You're reviewing one of my caches in the area atm! Hahaha!! (To other posters: don't worry, a good maintenance plan is in place. )

 

Might not be a good idea at this point - someone who deletes logs like that isn't likely to respond kindly.

[+K13]

Maybe the time spent complaining in the forum would have been better-spent searching for the correct way to the cache....others found it, so can you.

[4wheelin_fool]

Maybe the time spent complaining in the forum would have been better-spent searching for the correct way to the cache....others found it, so can you.

 

It's more likely that nobody has taken the sign behind the store seriously. Usually those signs are placed to prevent loitering, or to prevent people from stealing items stored outside. It's also completely possible that the cache was placed to use as an alibi for petty theft. Perhaps there are pallets, totes, construction materials and scrap metals stored out there. An expected reaction would be to post an explanation, or proper way in. Not a quick deletion, which seems suspicious.

[+colleda]

Maybe the time spent complaining in the forum would have been better-spent searching for the correct way to the cache....others found it, so can you.

I didn't hear anyone complaining, just someone asking advice.

[+wmpastor]

When you are geocaching you are given the coordinates of the cache, of the whole surface of the earth those coordinates put you within a few feet of the exact point where that cache is hidden.

 

Part of the challenge of finding the cache is working out the best route to the cache. You say that the cache is on public land. .. you say that the canals in florida are on public land but not whether the cache is next to a canal, i can only assume that it is. Are you sure that the way you took was the ONLY way to access the cache?

 

I think what I'm taking exception to in this topic is the idea that CO's 'should' or 'need' to provide way points showing parking or the start of walking tracks or even the best way to access the cache. That sort of thing is up to the cacher and their research before going to find the cache.

If that's the case, a kayak is an obvious solution - but the terrain rating should reflect that. In any case, it's hard to believe that the public land is not in any way assessable through other public land.

 

And if it's on public land that's totally surrounded by private property, a cacher could still get there without trespassing. Yes, a helicopter would be extreme, but an ultralight is not out of the question, and then there is a very simple solution: the cacher sees someone outdoors at one of the adjoining private properties and asks if he or she may cross over to the public land. Viola! No longer trespassing!

Edited January 6, 2015 by wmpastor

[+wmpastor]

Maybe the time spent complaining in the forum would have been better-spent searching for the correct way to the cache....others found it, so can you.

 

It's more likely that nobody has taken the sign behind the store seriously. Usually those signs are placed to prevent loitering, or to prevent people from stealing items stored outside. It's also completely possible that the cache was placed to use as an alibi for petty theft. Perhaps there are pallets, totes, construction materials and scrap metals stored out there. An expected reaction would be to post an explanation, or proper way in. Not a quick deletion, which seems suspicious.

Aha! So the CO has in this thread gone from being considered rude (summarily deleting a log) to being considered a criminal???

[+JL_HSTRE]

Regardless of how this cache can be accessed, the CO deleting the log without addressing it is wrong. Some people, including some COs think rules and laws and signs don't apply to them. Many cachers will assume permission. This could be one of those situations. It's also possible the OP just missed the correct access, but if that's the situation then the CO should have said so - at least in a private message and usually better done on the cache page so others who have the same problem will see the answer.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Joshism

[+bflentje]

Some people, including some COs think rules and laws and signs don't apply to them.

 

Just as many cache seekers feel entitled and expect to have their hand held all the way into a cache.. where they feel no obligation to even sign in some instances.

[+Bubbles&Bonkers]

When you are geocaching you are given the coordinates of the cache, of the whole surface of the earth those coordinates put you within a few feet of the exact point where that cache is hidden.

 

Part of the challenge of finding the cache is working out the best route to the cache. You say that the cache is on public land. .. you say that the canals in florida are on public land but not whether the cache is next to a canal, i can only assume that it is. Are you sure that the way you took was the ONLY way to access the cache?

 

I think what I'm taking exception to in this topic is the idea that CO's 'should' or 'need' to provide way points showing parking or the start of walking tracks or even the best way to access the cache. That sort of thing is up to the cacher and their research before going to find the cache.

If that's the case, a kayak is an obvious solution - but the terrain rating should reflect that. In any case, it's hard to believe that the public land is not in any way assessable through other public land.

 

And if it's on public land that's totally surrounded by private property, a cacher could still get there without trespassing. Yes, a helicopter would be extreme, but an ultralight is not out of the question, and then there is a very simple solution: the cacher sees someone outdoors at one of the adjoining private properties and asks if he or she may cross over to the public land. Viola! No longer trespassing!

 

Off topic: And don't forget the "Beware of alligators" attribute (used to live there, caching is daaaangerous there hehe)

On topic: I agree with PPs, likely there was another way in.

[4wheelin_fool]

Maybe the time spent complaining in the forum would have been better-spent searching for the correct way to the cache....others found it, so can you.

 

It's more likely that nobody has taken the sign behind the store seriously. Usually those signs are placed to prevent loitering, or to prevent people from stealing items stored outside. It's also completely possible that the cache was placed to use as an alibi for petty theft. Perhaps there are pallets, totes, construction materials and scrap metals stored out there. An expected reaction would be to post an explanation, or proper way in. Not a quick deletion, which seems suspicious.

Aha! So the CO has in this thread gone from being considered rude (summarily deleting a log) to being considered a criminal???

 

I've noticed more than a few caches placed in suspicious places. Why place something in between 2 abandoned buildings, or behind a home improvement store where supplies are stored and a No Trespassing sign is present? When you find yourself going someplace that normally you would feel uncomfortable, that's when you should question the reason behind the placement. Some people believe the presence of a geocache instantly entitles them to go there. Then when the police show up, they hide behind the game. What do you think their impression of the activity will be after a few incidents like that? Most of the suspicious placed ones I've noticed were by people with few finds and unknown to most. Using the placement as a litmus test to determine how many people can go somewhere without being questioned is certainly possible.

 

In this case an expected normal reaction would be to simply post an explanation. Cutting off communication and removing the log from the page so nobody else can see it certainly does make it seem suspicious.

Edited January 7, 2015 by 4wheelin_fool

[+K13]

Reflecting on the issue, perhaps the sign was turned around. No Trespassing from the public canal area into the private property of the business?

[+dprovan]

Regardless of how this cache can be accessed, the CO deleting the log without addressing it is wrong. Some people, including some COs think rules and laws and signs don't apply to them. Many cachers will assume permission. This could be one of those situations. It's also possible the OP just missed the correct access, but if that's the situation then the CO should have said so - at least in a private message and usually better done on the cache page so others who have the same problem will see the answer.

I agree with your suggestions on how the CO could have better responded. Clearly there are some questions here that the cache description should answer. But I won't agree that deleting the NM is wrong. NM is input to the CO. The CO is free to do whatever he wants with the information. Once you've provided the input, you should accept his decision and move on.

 

There's an additional question here about whether this cache needs to be considered for archival, but that's a different issue. I'd need to have more information before I'd have an opinion on that. If an NA had been posted, then I'd agree deleting it would be bad form.

[+Mn-treker]

It also is possible that the no trespassing sign was put up after the cache placement.

The property owners may have gotten fed up with the traffic.

I have personally seen this, my log was ignored. The reviewer then took action.

[+NeverSummer]

Deleted logs are still viewable by Reviewers and Lackeys. If you think there is still a valid concern about this cache, and the owner has already responded to your valid NM log this way, it sounds like a simple, good-faith email to the Reviewer might be in order. Let them look over the circumstances, and then the owner will have to answer to the Reviewer (and thereby Groundspeak) to confirm that there is no issue with trespass for this cache.

 

Even if a sign may not appear to impede access to a cache location, it just might have to be addressed. Bypassing private property no trespass requests is still a pretty serious consideration, even if one can pop in and out of the cache site unseen or undetected. A look at plat maps and/or other local property maps may have to be consulted to know about ownership of the surrounding land necessary to access the cache.

 

Have you exhausted all options to access the cache? Meaning, is there a path that leads from another area to the cache's GZ? Do you absolutely cross private property to access the cache?

 

This may come down to permission for the hide at GZ too. If one must cross private property to access the cache, it likely is also placed on private property. It would be good to know that the cache owner has property owner permission, per the guidelines for cache placement.

[+cerberus1]

There's quite a few in my area, where "public land" appears to be surrounded by private property (game lands mostly), to find a dirt road that's in-between two driveways, next to someone's yard, or in a cul-de-sac leading in.

Most times the CO includes entrance coords, but we've found some that didn't.

Visitors to the area often leave, "how do you get in there?" with their DNF.

[+chemgrl08]

So I went ahead and emailed the CO and politely asked why my log was deleted, and if s/he could clarify why the cache was ok. He was pretty rude (not unexpected, but whatever,) and said that "I see you only have a few hundred caches. New geocachers use the needs maintenance button way too much.You won't use it after you get more experience." Which I think is total bologna (if a cache is messed up, I should tell the CO about it!) He also confirmed that the lot, where the "no trespassing sign" was placed, WAS the correct way to get to the cache. He claimed that "Just because someone puts up a sign does not make it private." He also claimed that the parking lot area was public property where parents pick up their kids from day care... I'm a little dubious about that due to the presence of barbed wire, pallets, and dumpsters (I personally might find a different daycare, but that's just me. ) He also said [sic] "Also, other people reads those logs and maybe not want to go find my cache." To me, that right there is a terrible reason. Simply address the problem on the logs, so that everyone knows it is specifically NOT a problem. That seems more reasonable. He said that if the publisher posts it, that means its ok. But in my opinion, that doesn't mean things can't change. For example, context from his message seems to suggest the sign was put up AFTER the cache was placed. Perhaps the publisher didn't know it was private property. (If I simply tell a reviewer it's ok, or that I have permission, seems like there are limited things the reviewer can do to check it aside from an email from the property owner.)

So in summary, I'm going to go ahead and contact the reviewer and show him the picture as well as the location of the cache. It's hard for me to believe that someone would post a no trespassing sign in an area that is not their property, and the CO couldn't give me a good reason not to report it. At least if it gets reviewed, something can be added such as, "Permission was secured from the land owner of the parking lot," or something to that effect. That way future cachers won't be nervous about trespassing like I was.

[+TriciaG]

I'd also include a copy of the message you received back, so the reviewer knows what is in the CO's mind - especially the part about the No Trespassing sign basically being invalid.

[+humboldt flier]

Hmmmmmmmm, I admit to having NOT researched the cache. If the D/T is in the higher range ... maybe one needs a watercraft or other special equipment to foray hither and yon to GZ thus negating a land route through private property.

[+NeverSummer]

I'd also include a copy of the message you received back, so the reviewer knows what is in the CO's mind - especially the part about the No Trespassing sign basically being invalid.

This^

 

The cache is breaking guidelines, and the owner isn't taking care of responsibility for their cache or listing. Add insult to injury that they are sounding like the type of cache owner this community just plain doesn't need.

[+macatac1961]

If the person thinks that the parking lot of a daycare center is public property, you might want to think about using the ignore list.

[4wheelin_fool]

"Also, other people reads those logs and maybe not want to go find my cache."

 

Wow. It appears to be someone who seemingly does not read or write too well, but yet looks down upon people with less finds.

 

Edited January 14, 2015 by 4wheelin_fool

[+chemgrl08]

So this is sort of funny. I contacted the reviewer and related the problem with the cache. I also mentioned a few of the quotes from the CO's email, and that I didn't want to make a "needs archived" log to avoid rustling feathers (although let's be serious, he was going to know it was me.) Well, turns out the reviewer must have agreed with me (I told him about the deleted picture from my "needs maintenance" log), and the next morning the cache was listed as temporarily disabled "Email sent to CO." So I was like, "OH! OK, so I wasn't completely wrong. There is some basis for my concern."

I had the cache on my watch list since I was curious as to what would happen, and the CO wrote (after the disable) "Looks like chemgrl08 had a problem with my cache that the rest of you didn't have. I guess she's smarter than your average bear." Whoa! Calm down there, Yogi! Hahaha I thought that was so silly, getting upset over a cache like that! (It would be so easy to fix!) The reviewer then posted ANOTHER message, saying "CO has been emailed again." LOL I don't mean to make fun of people or anything, but I think this CO took himself a little too seriously. Judging from his comment about those of us with "only a few hundred finds", I think the CO may have been relying on street cred, so to speak.

The cache was enabled after the CO changed the terrain all the way up to 5 and wrote, very sarcastically, "Put in a waypoint to drop off your CANOE so you can find my super easy cache." He also deleted the previous post mentioning my caching name. (I admit I didn't like that post- it had no context. I suspect the reviewer had a little email exchange with him.) But wow, sour grapes!

To be honest, this could be a super cool cache! You can see the area where it is, but no trespassing! So you have to take the long way around. I think that's kind of cool, even if the CO doesn't think so. I've never gone after a cache like that before. Plus, now there's no risk of a person's car getting towed or a person getting questioned by police for trespassing (my main concern.) Seems like things worked out well... I mean, I don't like making "enemies" per se, but I just didn't feel like it was ok to put other cachers in that position.

Thanks to all for the comments; I now know what to do if a cache issue like this comes up again. I also learned that reviewers can see deleted logs (and now I know why!) This forum has been very helpful. Happy caching, everyone!

[+cerberus1]

I also learned that reviewers can see deleted logs (and now I know why!)

Glad to see everything kinda worked out for ya.

[Pup Patrol]

Good for you, chemgrl08!

 

It's stunning how some cachers think that they are the be-all and end-all.

 

So other people conveniently forgot to mention the trespassing issue? And merrily went on their way, logging that all important "found it", of course. Well, that's not much of a surprise.

 

We've been caching for a few years longer than you, and have a "few hundred" finds logged. That is no excuse for a self-important twit to delete logs, ignore issues, and insult other cachers.

 

It's too bad you had to run into one of "those" cache owners.

 

It's hilarious that the cache owner, such an experienced person, had no clue that Groundspeak sees all deleted logs. Ha, guess he/she learned something, eh?

 

You're doing great, chemgrl08. Don't let the bullies push you around.

 

Keep on caching and having fun.

 

 

B.

[+RobDJr]

In a somewhat similar situation, I recently posted an NA on a cache that was obviously hidden in an area marked as off limits/no trespassing. I checked for information and confirmed that it wasn't merely a question of approach but an entire zone that had been declared closed by the DEC and Dept of Health. After posting the NA (including a picture of one of the signs and a link to a DEC pdf giving details of the closure), I noticed in the logs that this area had actually been posted as no trespassing several years ago and people had been logging finds on it since, including an owners maintenance visit. There are large signs posted every hundred or so feet for almost half a mile along the trail warning not to enter the area off the trail and it would be very difficult to approach that area without seeing at least one of those signs. The main reason I posted the NA is because, if/when the DEC and Dept of Health find out people have been ignoring that no trespassing order, the likely result is going to be a blanket "no caching" policy on any lands that fall under the control of the DEC.

 

As far as I can tell, nothing has been done about that NA log. I don't know what's happening there, or if I should do anything more about it. I don't have anything against the cache or the owner, and personally I think that the closure of the area has far more to do with an attempt to keep the public out of a dangerous area than the cited health reason (lead contamination). I don't know much at all about lead contamination, but the signage and pdf give the impression that a single exposure could have serious health consequences, which I find dubious at best. For example, merely entering the unrestricted sections of that park is enough that you should thoroughly wash hands afterwards, footwear should be cleaned before bringing into the house, and pets should be bathed. Makes one wonder if the restricted area glows in the dark or something...

 

Just in case anyone is thinking of asking, I did not search for, find, or log this cache.

[4wheelin_fool]

In a somewhat similar situation, I recently posted an NA on a cache that was obviously hidden in an area marked as off limits/no trespassing. I checked for information and confirmed that it wasn't merely a question of approach but an entire zone that had been declared closed by the DEC and Dept of Health. After posting the NA (including a picture of one of the signs and a link to a DEC pdf giving details of the closure), I noticed in the logs that this area had actually been posted as no trespassing several years ago and people had been logging finds on it since, including an owners maintenance visit. There are large signs posted every hundred or so feet for almost half a mile along the trail warning not to enter the area off the trail and it would be very difficult to approach that area without seeing at least one of those signs. The main reason I posted the NA is because, if/when the DEC and Dept of Health find out people have been ignoring that no trespassing order, the likely result is going to be a blanket "no caching" policy on any lands that fall under the control of the DEC.

 

As far as I can tell, nothing has been done about that NA log. I don't know what's happening there, or if I should do anything more about it. I don't have anything against the cache or the owner, and personally I think that the closure of the area has far more to do with an attempt to keep the public out of a dangerous area than the cited health reason (lead contamination). I don't know much at all about lead contamination, but the signage and pdf give the impression that a single exposure could have serious health consequences, which I find dubious at best. For example, merely entering the unrestricted sections of that park is enough that you should thoroughly wash hands afterwards, footwear should be cleaned before bringing into the house, and pets should be bathed. Makes one wonder if the restricted area glows in the dark or something...

 

Just in case anyone is thinking of asking, I did not search for, find, or log this cache.

 

No safe threshold for lead exposure has been discovered—that is, there is no known sufficiently small amount of lead that will not cause harm to the body.

 

[+niraD]

We've been caching for a few years longer than you, and have a "few hundred" finds logged.

Yeah, I remember when someone with a few hundred finds was a very experienced geocacher. It's been a while since I've seen Groundspeak's stats, but my guess is that someone with a few hundred finds is still a few standard deviations above the mean.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I'd also include a copy of the message you received back, so the reviewer knows what is in the CO's mind - especially the part about the No Trespassing sign basically being invalid.

 

I found a cache awhile back where someone had put up a No Trespassing sign on a wooden board (they may have put the board their as well. The sign was attached to the board with velcro and the cache as in between the sign and the board.

 

 

[+jellis]

I will report caches on certain private properties. Mostly I will just contact the reviewer with any proof like photos or a map. Then I let the reviewer contact the CO so it could be either resolved or archived. Some newbies feel that because they live in an apartment complex or a private community that it is okay to place a cache there without asking permission from the management or the HOA. Also some COs don't pay attention to where property lines end just because there is or is not a fence. Some properties extend past a fence line.

[+doc73]

I will report caches on certain private properties. Mostly I will just contact the reviewer with any proof like photos or a map. Then I let the reviewer contact the CO so it could be either resolved or archived. Some newbies feel that because they live in an apartment complex or a private community that it is okay to place a cache there without asking permission from the management or the HOA. Also some COs don't pay attention to where property lines end just because there is or is not a fence. Some properties extend past a fence line.

 

Same can be said for the caches placed in business lots and around their property.