Local Cache in Private Park?

[+J Grouchy]

...wandering into subdivisions and traipsing...

Just an interesting aside:

Merriam Webster's definition of 'to traipse': to walk or travel about without apparent plan but with or without a purpose.'

 

I particularly like this term for what geocachers do because from the perspective of the puzzled, uninformed muggle, that's exactly what we're doing.

 

We are all wayward traipsers.

 

C

 

Using that particular definition, one might argue that actually IS what geocachers do. We DO have a purpose (finding the cache), but we rarely have "an apparent plan" for doing so..."apparent" being defined as clearly visible or understood; obvious.

[+narcissa]

I know you mean well, but you need to understand a couple of things:

 

1. Geocaching.com is a listing site. They do their best to manage the quality/legitimacy of geocaches listed on their site, but there is a limit to what they can do. Reviewers are volunteers who do what they can with the information they have. They are not cops.

 

2. The rules need to be a little bendy. This is an international game, and there are innumerable factors that cannot be adequately covered by the guidelines without making them thousands of pages long. That's why there are regional reviewers who can familiarize themselves with the issues specific to particular places.

 

3. As a geocacher, it is not your responsibility to police others. If you feel uncomfortable going somewhere to find a geocache, move on. If you encounter an obstacle like a NO TRESPASSING sign or an angry homeowner, get out of dodge and report the cache using the NA attribute, or, if you're uncomfortable with that, figure out who the current local reviewer is and tell them about it privately.

 

4. I would recommend caching a bit longer before coming up with any grand schemes for redesigning the game.

narcissa,

After posting, I realized that too about the website. They would have to hire people to verify money transactions. It's a multiple-revenue-loss approach, and basically an unfundable ruleset. Yep... Bad idea. And I've said all along, I'm loathe to be a cache cop.

 

Geocaching.com started as someone's grand scheme, so maybe grand schemes are okay, as long as we abandon the ones that won't work. But let's not stop coming up with them, eh?

 

In your experience, has rule flouting gotten better, worse or remained the same since the game began? Are there things you would change?

 

Chris

 

Right now you're new, and for someone who claims to be "loathe to be a cache cop" you're very caught up with the idea of "rules" and overly bothered by the mere fact that people sometimes bend them. Rule bending is something that has always happened in geocaching. Sometimes it leads to innovation (new cache types etc.), and sometimes it leads to problems.

 

There are some things that have gotten worse over time. We're seeing permission issues with some of these power trails and geo-art things that have me genuinely concerned, and I hope we'll see some changes to better manage that.

 

In other ways, I think things have gotten better. Certainly, where I live, organizations that had previously shut us out of their lands (Ontario Parks, Parks Canada) are starting to be more open to geocaching as long as we work with them to make sure it's in keeping with their own mandates. In my opinion, the good will that we're starting to see now would not be possible without strong enforcement from the reviewers.

 

Most of the time, people don't bend the rules out of malice, and a bit of education solves most problems. This is a game. Being excessively punitive about people who are just trying to put out a cache for others to find seems like a pretty obvious way to stomp the fun right out of it for everyone.

Edited June 1, 2015 by narcissa

[+AustinMN]

...wandering into subdivisions and traipsing...

Just an interesting aside:

Merriam Webster's definition of 'to traipse': to walk or travel about without apparent plan but with or without a purpose.'

 

I particularly like this term for what geocachers do because from the perspective of the puzzled, uninformed muggle, that's exactly what we're doing.

 

We are all wayward traipsers.

 

C

 

+1

 

Not all who wander are lost. But all who wander are still wanderers.

 

Austin

[+LaughterOnWater]

Right now you're new, and for someone who claims to be "loathe to be a cache cop" you're very caught up with the idea of "rules" and overly bothered by the mere fact that people sometimes bend them. Rule bending is something that has always happened in geocaching. Sometimes it leads to innovation (new cache types etc.), and sometimes it leads to problems.

 

There are some things that have gotten worse over time. We're seeing permission issues with some of these power trails and geo-art things that have me genuinely concerned, and I hope we'll see some changes to better manage that.

 

In other ways, I think things have gotten better. Certainly, where I live, organizations that had previously shut us out of their lands (Ontario Parks, Parks Canada) are starting to be more open to geocaching as long as we work with them to make sure it's in keeping with their own mandates. In my opinion, the good will that we're starting to see now would not be possible without strong enforcement from the reviewers.

I can't quite explain why, but this game got me curious... about rules and about the overlay of rules with laws. This game is a microcosm mirror of reality. At first I was bothered, so I asked a lot of questions. I learn a lot better by asking lots of questions and sometimes making suggestions. Some of those suggestions were rightly slapped down as untenable. I'll stop fretting now. There's no point, since bendiness is inherent to the rules.

 

Most of the time, people don't bend the rules out of malice, and a bit of education solves most problems. This is a game. Being excessively punitive about people who are just trying to put out a cache for others to find seems like a pretty obvious way to stomp the fun right out of it for everyone.

Truer words are seldom writ. They're also good advice for life in general. Thank you for your insight.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

There's no point, since bendiness is inherent to the rules.

 

Sorry for the massive redacting of your post but I just wanted to comment on this one statement.

 

I know some might say "they're not rules, they're guidelines" but, at least in terms of placing caches we have guidelines and requirements (the page is called "Cache Listing Requirements and Guidelines"). To me, a requirement is synonymous with a rule. But let's consider the relevant guideline for the cache being discussed. As I see it, this is the relevant text:

• All local laws and documented land management policies apply.This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it. Geocachers must not be required to cross any land with "No Trespassing" signs, or locally-defined markers that prohibit access.
   
  

To me, breaking a trespassing law isn't "bendiness" of a guideline. It just means that a bunch of geocachers have managed to break the law and not get caught. People drive over the speed limit, roll through stop signs, and even drive while intoxicated but that doesn't mean those laws are "bendy". It just means they did't get caught.

 

In an earlier post someone questioned whether entering that area would be consider a crime or a civil matter. It was pretty easy to find the relevant statute for the state of Georgia (Title 16, Section 16-7-21) and while I am not a lawyer it appear to me that it would be considered criminal trespass, a misdemeanor. Consider this subclaus:

"Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden;"

Essentially, entering an area after being informed that such entry is forbidden, is considered trespass. Although the language may be different in different states, a "no trespassing sign" is considered the method of "informing" or "receiving prior notice".

 

[+narcissa]

There's no point, since bendiness is inherent to the rules.

 

Sorry for the massive redacting of your post but I just wanted to comment on this one statement.

 

I know some might say "they're not rules, they're guidelines" but, at least in terms of placing caches we have guidelines and requirements (the page is called "Cache Listing Requirements and Guidelines"). To me, a requirement is synonymous with a rule. But let's consider the relevant guideline for the cache being discussed. As I see it, this is the relevant text:

• All local laws and documented land management policies apply.This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it. Geocachers must not be required to cross any land with "No Trespassing" signs, or locally-defined markers that prohibit access.
   
  

To me, breaking a trespassing law isn't "bendiness" of a guideline. It just means that a bunch of geocachers have managed to break the law and not get caught. People drive over the speed limit, roll through stop signs, and even drive while intoxicated but that doesn't mean those laws are "bendy". It just means they did't get caught.

 

In an earlier post someone questioned whether entering that area would be consider a crime or a civil matter. It was pretty easy to find the relevant statute for the state of Georgia (Title 16, Section 16-7-21) and while I am not a lawyer it appear to me that it would be considered criminal trespass, a misdemeanor. Consider this subclaus:

"Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden;"

Essentially, entering an area after being informed that such entry is forbidden, is considered trespass. Although the language may be different in different states, a "no trespassing sign" is considered the method of "informing" or "receiving prior notice".

 

Holy out of context interpretation Batman. Nobody questions the issue at hand - it's clearly trespassing in this situation. That's not the "bendiness" we're referring to here, at all.

[+NeverSummer]

So, has anyone emailed ReviewerLZ33?

[+AustinMN]

I'll stop fretting now.

 

This is important. Never lose sight of the fact that this is a game. We should do it for fun.

 

Austin

Edited June 2, 2015 by AustinMN

[+LaughterOnWater]

...I know some might say "they're not rules, they're guidelines" but, at least in terms of placing caches we have guidelines and requirements...

 

In an earlier post someone questioned whether entering that area would be consider a crime or a civil matter. ...

Thanks for that research. Criminal is certainly worse than civil. Trespass is a tricky beast and comes in many flavors.

 

The lesson I'm taking home from this thread is that unless I witness something resembling the burning of live cuddly kittens, I'll probably let things slide and enjoy the game. I need more experience. And where I'm not comfortable, as others have suggested, I'll just vote with my feet by not visiting that cache.

 

Chris

[+LaughterOnWater]

So, has anyone emailed Reviewer LZ33?

As I've said prior, I'm going to respect the original reviewer's and previous cachers' experience by no longer pursuing this. Please respect my request that we leave this alone.

 

This is important. Never lose sight of the fact that this is a game. We should do it for fun.

 

Austin

+1

[+J Grouchy]

So, has anyone emailed ReviewerLZ33?

 

I've had a number of communications with him. He's a pretty 'by the book' kind of guy...which gets him a lot of grief from folks who don't like it when he does a "sweep" of an area to clear out abandoned caches. He's pretty open to talking about this sort of thing, though.

[+WarNinjas]

Well LaughterOnWater, Like many have already said I will say again. I think you handled this well! I think you will be/are a great cacher and I for one am happy to have you playing. Keep caching and most of all have fun. If you see a cache has problems feel free to fix it up or point out it's flaws! This one you found here does have flaws but it has also been around with them for a long time. My vote would be to just ignore this one. It isn't like it is blocking a new hide anyways.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

So, has anyone emailed Reviewer LZ33?

As I've said prior, I'm going to respect the original reviewer's and previous cachers' experience by no longer pursuing this. Please respect my request that we leave this alone.

 

 

Just as a point of information, the original reviewer of that cache is somewhat unique in that he is/was a reviewer that covered regions not assigned a specific reviewer. I don't know why he reviewed that cache in Georgia but I've found caches that he's reviewed in Africa and Asia and have seen cache listings from all over the world that he's reviewed. Most areas in the world have a specific reviewer but other reviewers will occasionally cover when needed and when comes to issues that arise post-publication any reviewer could step in and take action if necessary.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

There's no point, since bendiness is inherent to the rules.

 

Sorry for the massive redacting of your post but I just wanted to comment on this one statement.

 

I know some might say "they're not rules, they're guidelines" but, at least in terms of placing caches we have guidelines and requirements (the page is called "Cache Listing Requirements and Guidelines"). To me, a requirement is synonymous with a rule. But let's consider the relevant guideline for the cache being discussed. As I see it, this is the relevant text:

 

• All local laws and documented land management policies apply.This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it. Geocachers must not be required to cross any land with "No Trespassing" signs, or locally-defined markers that prohibit access.
   
  

To me, breaking a trespassing law isn't "bendiness" of a guideline. It just means that a bunch of geocachers have managed to break the law and not get caught. People drive over the speed limit, roll through stop signs, and even drive while intoxicated but that doesn't mean those laws are "bendy". It just means they did't get caught.

 

In an earlier post someone questioned whether entering that area would be consider a crime or a civil matter. It was pretty easy to find the relevant statute for the state of Georgia (Title 16, Section 16-7-21) and while I am not a lawyer it appear to me that it would be considered criminal trespass, a misdemeanor. Consider this subclaus:

 

"Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden;"

Essentially, entering an area after being informed that such entry is forbidden, is considered trespass. Although the language may be different in different states, a "no trespassing sign" is considered the method of "informing" or "receiving prior notice".

 

Holy out of context interpretation Batman. Nobody questions the issue at hand - it's clearly trespassing in this situation. That's not the "bendiness" we're referring to here, at all.

 

There is no universal agreed upon definition of bendiness. There was a question posed on whether or not it was a case of criminal trespass or a civil manner. I was only attempting to answer that question.

[+NeverSummer]

So, has anyone emailed Reviewer LZ33?

As I've said prior, I'm going to respect the original reviewer's and previous cachers' experience by no longer pursuing this. Please respect my request that we leave this alone.

 

This is important. Never lose sight of the fact that this is a game. We should do it for fun.

 

Austin

+1

The original reviewer of the cache in question also published caches clearly placed on USFWS land, and on Wilderness areas in the Aleutian Islands. I know mistakes are made, but sometimes a sweep of caches that are against the guidelines must be made.

[+LaughterOnWater]

The original reviewer of the cache in question also published caches clearly placed on USFWS land, and on Wilderness areas in the Aleutian Islands. I know mistakes are made, but sometimes a sweep of caches that are against the guidelines must be made.

I'm curious -- how do you find the review history of a reviewer? It doesn't seem to be visible from his profile.

[Spurges]

So I've emailed the CO. ... He's a member of the HOA, ...

Anyone who owns property in an HOA governed neighborhood, is a member of the HOA. So that's a moot point, really. Unless he is on the Board of Directors, he has no more authority than any other home owner in the association.

 

The problem is simple. Enough of ingnoring land rights and geocahing will be illegal. Game over. It has already happened in several communities in the US. You would not be a cache cop, you would be protecting the game for everyone.

 

Austin

+1

 

 

Picture this: the new Land Manager for that massive State park down the road is driving home in this neighborhood (they have to live somewhere, right?). He sees two police cars, lights flashing, and two civilians on the side of the road. Being a concerned resident, he inquires about the goings on. He learns that a geocacher in the neighborhood is trying to convince the police that the other geocacher is OK to trespass because he (cacher #1) hid the cache (in violation of the rules of the game). And, after all, the cache has been there for 10 years and has been found by 164 other Trespassing geocachers.

 

Our Land Manager, upon returning to work the next day, learns that he has complete autonomy concerning the Geocaching guidelines in his 4,000 square mile park. Well, all he knows about geocachers is that they encourage other geocachers to trespass, and that they have no qualms about trespassing. Ergo, geocachers are scofflaws. So, he decides to ban all geocaching in his park.

 

Any math wiz out there want to tell us how many potential caches have been lost; assuming placement within the guidelines - which, according to some, are not really important?

 

No. We, as responsible geocachers, must police our own game. If a cache is in violation of the rules - and especially, if it encourages the breaking of laws - it must be reported.

[knowschad]

There is no universal agreed upon definition of bendiness.

So, you are saying that the definition of "bendiness" is flexible?

 

[+NeverSummer]

The original reviewer of the cache in question also published caches clearly placed on USFWS land, and on Wilderness areas in the Aleutian Islands. I know mistakes are made, but sometimes a sweep of caches that are against the guidelines must be made.

I'm curious -- how do you find the review history of a reviewer? It doesn't seem to be visible from his profile.

You run into Reviewers and folks from "back when" throughout caching exploits. I've been fortunate to live in 3 states, and meet/get to know lots of people including Reviewers.

[+LaughterOnWater]

... No. We, as responsible geocachers, must police our own game. If a cache is in violation of the rules - and especially, if it encourages the breaking of laws - it must be reported.

A geocaching member (not someone who lives in Georgia) has emailed the HOA, disregarding my request to leave this alone. The consequences, unfortunately are more closely connected than this person realized, and now some good local persons who are wholly unconnected with geocaching and issues of trespass may suffer for it. There are interconnections in small communities that may be hard to see from several states away. That was part of what narcissa was trying to say. From my response to the person who alerted the HOA:

... Yes I am right, but in the long run, other people suffer for it. Our world is connected in ways that we don't always see. The wheels of goodness and righteousness are not always greased with honor. Sometimes they are greased with forgiveness, temperance and compassion. I'm only now understanding that. People who could have been better off will likely suffer because of my righteousness. I am embarrassed and gutted for my part in it.

 

I guess we can't all be Axel Foley. This is a very sad day.

 

Chris

[+IslandsAndOcean]

So, has anyone emailed Reviewer LZ33?

As I've said prior, I'm going to respect the original reviewer's and previous cachers' experience by no longer pursuing this. Please respect my request that we leave this alone.

 

This is important. Never lose sight of the fact that this is a game. We should do it for fun.

 

Austin

+1

The original reviewer of the cache in question also published caches clearly placed on USFWS land, and on Wilderness areas in the Aleutian Islands. I know mistakes are made, but sometimes a sweep of caches that are against the guidelines must be made.

While this is true, it would be important to add that erik88l-r wasn't intentionally publishing caches where there would be permission issues.

 

Land ownership can be complicated to understand in Alaska, and without the new maps we have today (especially overlays which can work with something as friendly as Google Earth) some of those caches might have been tough to know details about.

 

As has been said before, Reviewers tend to "take cache owners at their word" when they click that button at the bottom of the cache submission form. Permission is implied, but Reviewers rely on "the boots on the ground" to report caches when there are issues.

[+NeverSummer]

... No. We, as responsible geocachers, must police our own game. If a cache is in violation of the rules - and especially, if it encourages the breaking of laws - it must be reported.

A geocaching member (not someone who lives in Georgia) has emailed the HOA, disregarding my request to leave this alone. The consequences, unfortunately are more closely connected than this person realized, and now some good local persons who are wholly unconnected with geocaching and issues of trespass may suffer for it. There are interconnections in small communities that may be hard to see from several states away. That was part of what narcissa was trying to say. From my response to the person who alerted the HOA:

... Yes I am right, but in the long run, other people suffer for it. Our world is connected in ways that we don't always see. The wheels of goodness and righteousness are not always greased with honor. Sometimes they are greased with forgiveness, temperance and compassion. I'm only now understanding that. People who could have been better off will likely suffer because of my righteousness. I am embarrassed and gutted for my part in it.

 

I guess we can't all be Axel Foley. This is a very sad day.

 

Chris

And to think...if a "Needs Archived" would have been posted, the HOA never would have gotten involved, and these interconnected communities outside of our game would have never known the difference.

[+LaughterOnWater]

And to think...if a "Needs Archived" would have been posted, the HOA never would have gotten involved, and these interconnected communities outside of our game would have never known the difference.

I wish I could explain in detail how horribly wrong you are, but it's not in any way connected to geocaching, so I'm not bringing it up here.

 

Good night.

[knowschad]

And to think...if a "Needs Archived" would have been posted, the HOA never would have gotten involved, and these interconnected communities outside of our game would have never known the difference.

I wish I could explain in detail how horribly wrong you are, but it's not in any way connected to geocaching, so I'm not bringing it up here.

 

Good night.

 

OK, this thread has gotten really weird.

[+narcissa]

I don't know who has done what, but you are not the cache owner, nor a land owner, nor a reviewer, so it's not really for you to decide if it should be left alone.

 

That being said, it is not your fault that someone placed a cache without permission. You were right to give pause and ask questions when you encountered the sign.

 

My point all along has been that you should know where your responsibilities begin and end. Tell a reviewer, then back off. No more, no less. The moment you wrote an email that cache owner you became way more involved than you should be.

[+AustinMN]

I don't know who has done what, but you are not the cache owner, nor a land owner, nor a reviewer, so it's not really for you to decide if it should be left alone.

 

That being said, it is not your fault that someone placed a cache without permission. You were right to give pause and ask questions when you encountered the sign.

 

My point all along has been that you should know where your responsibilities begin and end. Tell a reviewer, then back off. No more, no less. The moment you wrote an email that cache owner you became way more involved than you should be.

 

There were a number of good, intelligent, experienced people here who advised him to do exactly what he did. The reality is any actions we take may have unexpected consequences, and it is not possible to predict them all. While I agree that it isn't his decision what course of action others should or would take, I also can't bame him for following other posters advice, even if it was not what I would have done.

 

Austin

[+J Grouchy]

And to think...if a "Needs Archived" would have been posted, the HOA never would have gotten involved, and these interconnected communities outside of our game would have never known the difference.

I wish I could explain in detail how horribly wrong you are, but it's not in any way connected to geocaching, so I'm not bringing it up here.

 

Good night.

 

OK, this thread has gotten really weird.

 

Indeed.

 

An 'NA' log WAS posted and from all appearances it was totally justified. Maybe something else is going on 'behind the scenes', but I predict the outcome of this will be the cache will be archived and life will go on as usual.

[knowschad]

But the question the OP is asking is "Should this cache be flagged for archive?" Personally, I would say "yes". That, or email the reviewer, if that's what they're more comfortable with.

Why not ask the CO first instead of "going over his/her head" to a reviewer. NA is certainly not necessary as it might well be there is permission and thus nothing wrong with the cache.

 

Most of the NA I see around here is if nothing happens after a few NM (mostly because CO's are no longer active or interested). I see NA as a last resort.

 

Now, do you see why? This whole debacle could have been bypassed had the OP simply emailed the reviewer (or Groundspeak, in this case, since the publishing reviewer no longer reviews) privately. 20/20 hindsight, yeah. But that was what was suggested very early-on.

[+on4bam]

Now, do you see why? This whole debacle could have been bypassed had the OP simply emailed the reviewer (or Groundspeak, in this case, since the publishing reviewer no longer reviews) privately. 20/20 hindsight, yeah. But that was what was suggested very early-on.

 

If only nobody would have begun rocking the boat. At least it gave me a nice view on how cachers across the pond think about all this. I must say, I wasn't very surprised.

 

So the cache will probably be archived, mission accomplished To the next...

[knowschad]

Now, do you see why? This whole debacle could have been bypassed had the OP simply emailed the reviewer (or Groundspeak, in this case, since the publishing reviewer no longer reviews) privately. 20/20 hindsight, yeah. But that was what was suggested very early-on.

 

If only nobody would have begun rocking the boat. At least it gave me a nice view on how cachers across the pond think about all this. I must say, I wasn't very surprised.

 

So the cache will probably be archived, mission accomplished To the next...

 

This boat needed to be rocked. Trespassing is not just a guideline violation.

[+on4bam]

This boat needed to be rocked. Trespassing is not just a guideline violation.

 

Well, I feel it's not up to "outsiders" (people not going for that cache) to "go and tell". If I see a "private" sign I'll just let it be and don't go yanking chains. Worst case scenario I would contact the CO if it's OK to go past the sign.

[+J Grouchy]

This boat needed to be rocked. Trespassing is not just a guideline violation.

 

Well, I feel it's not up to "outsiders" (people not going for that cache) to "go and tell". If I see a "private" sign I'll just let it be and don't go yanking chains. Worst case scenario I would contact the CO if it's OK to go past the sign.

 

What's the point of installing a "No Trespassing" sign if it's "OK to go past the sign"?

I agree it should be a first-hand account that produces the NA log, but what's done is done and the result is probably what should have happened long ago.

[+narcissa]

Well, I feel it's not up to "outsiders" (people not going for that cache) to "go and tell". If I see a "private" sign I'll just let it be and don't go yanking chains. Worst case scenario I would contact the CO if it's OK to go past the sign.

 

Well, I feel that this is exactly the sort of attitude that causes problems and leads to geocaching getting banned.

 

It is *never* wrong to ask a reviewer to look into a permission issue.

[+on4bam]

What's the point of installing a "No Trespassing" sign if it's "OK to go past the sign"?

I agree it should be a first-hand account that produces the NA log, but what's done is done and the result is probably what should have happened long ago.

 

It seems trespassing is a bigger deal where you are then here (depending on the location). We see "private" signs mostly on undeveloped land and most of the time it's fenced off. We also have paths that are on private ground but must be kept open for general access. Farmers tend to plow their land sometimes including the path or even put a (barbed) wire across. (If the path is not used for a certain amount of time you loose the "right to pass"). People are now encouraged to report these things so path can be open for the public again.

It's this I meant when mentioning that "one size fits all" rules/guidelines don't work globally and a "private" sign is not always the same as a "keep out" sign.

BTW, we have a lot of forestland with paths in it where the forest is private but anyone can use the paths.

 

The cache concerned shouldn't have been published but making waves after 10 years is something that shouldn't have happened.

[+narcissa]

What's the point of installing a "No Trespassing" sign if it's "OK to go past the sign"?

I agree it should be a first-hand account that produces the NA log, but what's done is done and the result is probably what should have happened long ago.

 

It seems trespassing is a bigger deal where you are then here (depending on the location). We see "private" signs mostly on undeveloped land and most of the time it's fenced off. We also have paths that are on private ground but must be kept open for general access. Farmers tend to plow their land sometimes including the path or even put a (barbed) wire across. (If the path is not used for a certain amount of time you loose the "right to pass"). People are now encouraged to report these things so path can be open for the public again.

It's this I meant when mentioning that "one size fits all" rules/guidelines don't work globally and a "private" sign is not always the same as a "keep out" sign.

BTW, we have a lot of forestland with paths in it where the forest is private but anyone can use the paths.

 

The cache concerned shouldn't have been published but making waves after 10 years is something that shouldn't have happened.

 

If the cache is still in place, and it continues to be in place without adequate permission, then "making waves" should happen. There are plenty of privately owned places where people are allowed to walk but are not allowed to place geocaches.

 

Whether or not you feel trespassing is a "big deal" is irrelevant. Cache owners are supposed to get permission.

Edited June 3, 2015 by narcissa

[+J Grouchy]

What's the point of installing a "No Trespassing" sign if it's "OK to go past the sign"?

I agree it should be a first-hand account that produces the NA log, but what's done is done and the result is probably what should have happened long ago.

 

It seems trespassing is a bigger deal where you are then here (depending on the location). We see "private" signs mostly on undeveloped land and most of the time it's fenced off. We also have paths that are on private ground but must be kept open for general access. Farmers tend to plow their land sometimes including the path or even put a (barbed) wire across. (If the path is not used for a certain amount of time you loose the "right to pass"). People are now encouraged to report these things so path can be open for the public again.

It's this I meant when mentioning that "one size fits all" rules/guidelines don't work globally and a "private" sign is not always the same as a "keep out" sign.

BTW, we have a lot of forestland with paths in it where the forest is private but anyone can use the paths.

 

The cache concerned shouldn't have been published but making waves after 10 years is something that shouldn't have happened.

 

The age of the cache has no bearing on whether or not it should have been hidden there in the first place.

 

As for 'No Trespassing' signs...unless it is some secure or sensitive facility, generally folks will just get shooed away or, worst case, fined. Many places don't actively enforce the policy, but will use it as a fallback in the event of unwanted activity (groups congregating on a property, unknown individuals seen in a neighborhood with a history of break-ins, cars left overnight by attendees of nearby events, etc.). My problem is that folks shouldn't be put in that position in the first place. Why bring a bunch of outside folks into a private neighborhood to wander through and around peoples' properties?

[+NeverSummer]

This boat needed to be rocked. Trespassing is not just a guideline violation.

 

Well, I feel it's not up to "outsiders" (people not going for that cache) to "go and tell". If I see a "private" sign I'll just let it be and don't go yanking chains. Worst case scenario I would contact the CO if it's OK to go past the sign.

 

What's the point of installing a "No Trespassing" sign if it's "OK to go past the sign"?

I agree it should be a first-hand account that produces the NA log, but what's done is done and the result is probably what should have happened long ago.

Well, what has happened is a NA log was posted "from afar", but the backing documentation comes from this very thread from someone who has very personal connection to the cache and didn't take recommended action for a cache which breaks the guidelines.

[+redsox_mark]

Well, I personally don't like what has happened and I feel badly for the OP. He/She came here looking for advice, and wanted to keep the specific cache detail (the GC code) private. Now what has happened is a NA log (from an account in Alaska) which points to this thread.... which includes for example the OP sharing the email response they got from the CO as the evidence.

 

One can argue that the end justifies the means.. but personally I don't like it. I think it is much better for issues to be handled locally.

[+NeverSummer]

... No. We, as responsible geocachers, must police our own game. If a cache is in violation of the rules - and especially, if it encourages the breaking of laws - it must be reported.

A geocaching member (not someone who lives in Georgia) has emailed the HOA, disregarding my request to leave this alone. The consequences, unfortunately are more closely connected than this person realized, and now some good local persons who are wholly unconnected with geocaching and issues of trespass may suffer for it. There are interconnections in small communities that may be hard to see from several states away. That was part of what narcissa was trying to say. From my response to the person who alerted the HOA:

... Yes I am right, but in the long run, other people suffer for it. Our world is connected in ways that we don't always see. The wheels of goodness and righteousness are not always greased with honor. Sometimes they are greased with forgiveness, temperance and compassion. I'm only now understanding that. People who could have been better off will likely suffer because of my righteousness. I am embarrassed and gutted for my part in it.

 

I guess we can't all be Axel Foley. This is a very sad day.

 

Chris

And to think...if a "Needs Archived" would have been posted, the HOA never would have gotten involved, and these interconnected communities outside of our game would have never known the difference.

 

Well, I personally don't like what has happened and I feel badly for the OP. He/She came here looking for advice, and wanted to keep the specific cache detail (the GC code) private. Now what has happened is a NA log (from an account in Alaska) which points to this thread.... which includes for example the OP sharing the email response they got from the CO as the evidence.

 

One can argue that the end justifies the means.. but personally I don't like it. I think it is much better for issues to be handled locally.

 

And to think...if a "Needs Archived" would have been posted [by the OP], the HOA never would have gotten involved, and these interconnected communities outside of our game would have never known the difference.

 

It was "handled locally", but the OP was reluctant to post a NA. The evidence is here, so I don't see it as a big problem if a NA was logged "from afar".

 

Would it have "been better" if it were handled locally? Sure. But that doesn't mean that it is a bad thing if a cache which is clearly against the guidelines gets a nudge from an "outsider".

 

I mean, what's the alternative? We don't police caches to make sure they're in line with guidelines of the game? It makes no difference if it was a NA from near or far; the cache was against the guidelines. Cascade Reviewer even mentioned that logs had been deleted which may have brought to the community's attention the issue of trespass. So, 10 years and thousands of miles are irrelevant when a cache is against the guidelines. Just because a region might be more willing to sweep things under the rug, it's still very important that we try to follow guidelines about trespass so that we don't lose privileges to hide caches in areas where a land manager might note that "those cachers just plain ignore trespass and property rights...so I'm not going to let them play here."

[+GeoBain]

This boat needed to be rocked. Trespassing is not just a guideline violation.

 

Well, I feel it's not up to "outsiders" (people not going for that cache) to "go and tell". If I see a "private" sign I'll just let it be and don't go yanking chains. Worst case scenario I would contact the CO if it's OK to go past the sign.

 

So on one hand you don't feel that "outsiders" should "go and tell", but then you state that if you saw a "private" sign you would ignore it. So we should just keep our mouths shut and allow fellow geocachers blindly walk into a potential trap?

 

If we do not regulate ourselves, someone else will do it for us. Do you really want others to step in and do it? That usually leads to more stringent rules and policies, if not outright bans on caching.

[Pup Patrol]

This has been a fascinating thread.

 

The "NA" was posted by IslandsAndOcean, hardly just a regular cacher.

 

See post # 171 of this thread.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=6d71f0c4-b7e9-41e0-a5a0-75dba7f1a61c

 

Profile Information

This account is the Land Manager account for the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge and Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.

 

The Islands and Ocean Visitor Center is currently a partnership of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge and the Kachemak Bay National Esturaine Research Reserve. This partnership is dedicated to understanding and conserving the marine environment. We are your window to the largest seabird refuge in the world, with all the natural wonders of Kachemak Bay right outside its doors! This account serves as a Land Management resource for the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, the Homer, AK area, and protions of the Kenai Peninsula. Please visit http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Alaska_Maritime/visit/visitor_center.html to learn more about the Visitor Center. Geocache Regulations to be aware of:

 

-The US Fish & Wildlife Service does not allow physical geocaches within National Wildlife Refuges or Waterfowl Production Areas.

 

-Areas in Homer (Including parts of Beluga Slough) are part of the Alaska Maritime NWR's property. Be aware that geocaches on Islands and Ocean property will not be allowed without explicit permissions from the Refuge and Visitor Center Managers. Questions? Please contact us through our profile via EMAIL

 

-The boardwalks and trails from the Visitor Center to Bunnell Avenue currently may not have physical geocaches present, and are federal property. The Visitor Center and Refuge reserve the right to place physical geocaches through approved geocaching.com accounts.

 

-To download a kmz file of Alaska Refuge maps, visit www.fws.gov/GIS/data.

 

-Homer, Alaska does not have a geocaching policy for public property within city limits. Please maintain this relationship by achieving proper permissions for placements.

 

-All cache placements in Homer, on Kachemak Bay Research Reserve areas, and Alaska Maritime NWR or area USFWS land must follow geocaching.com's rules and guidelines for placement.

 

This account is the Land Manager account administered by Staff from the Islands And Ocean visitor center, Homer, AK for the US Fish and Wildlife Service and Kachemak Bay Estuarine Research Reserve

 

B.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Pup Patrol

[+LaughterOnWater]

... My point all along has been that you should know where your responsibilities begin and end. Tell a reviewer, then back off. No more, no less. The moment you wrote an email that cache owner you became way more involved than you should be.

Yep... Lesson learned.

 

There were a number of good, intelligent, experienced people here who advised him to do exactly what he did. The reality is any actions we take may have unexpected consequences, and it is not possible to predict them all. While I agree that it isn't his decision what course of action others should or would take, I also can't bame him for following other posters advice, even if it was not what I would have done.

 

Austin

Also true. What seems like appropriate advice for one region of the world could be inappropriate for another. Another lesson learned.

 

... An 'NA' log WAS posted and from all appearances it was totally justified. Maybe something else is going on 'behind the scenes', but I predict the outcome of this will be the cache will be archived and life will go on as usual.

Just a thought... In any community, isn't the trick to make things better and better day by day? Is America (or any country for that matter) really about letting the status quo be a goal?

[+J Grouchy]

... An 'NA' log WAS posted and from all appearances it was totally justified. Maybe something else is going on 'behind the scenes', but I predict the outcome of this will be the cache will be archived and life will go on as usual.

Just a thought... In any community, isn't the trick to make things better and better day by day? Is America (or any country for that matter) really about letting the status quo be a goal?

 

How did you make that leap?

 

My point was simply that geocaching won't come to a screeching halt by the archival of this cache. The CO won't have to move to a new state and change his name because of this. Odds are a handful of people will be looking at their map and say "hmmm...didn't there used to be a cache somewhere around this area? Oh well...next...". That's about the extent of the effects this will all have.

Edited June 3, 2015 by J Grouchy

[+NeverSummer]

... An 'NA' log WAS posted and from all appearances it was totally justified. Maybe something else is going on 'behind the scenes', but I predict the outcome of this will be the cache will be archived and life will go on as usual.

Just a thought... In any community, isn't the trick to make things better and better day by day? Is America (or any country for that matter) really about letting the status quo be a goal?

 

How did you make that leap?

 

My point was simply that geocaching won't come to a screeching halt by the archival of this cache. The CO won't have to move to a new state and change his name because of this. Odds are a handful of people will be looking at their map and say "hmmm...didn't there used to be a cache somewhere around this area? Oh well...next...". That's about the extent of the effects this will all have.

Or, if they have it on a bookmark list or other record, they'll look back at the archived record and see that the cache that "used to be there" was against the guidelines, and they'll rethink placing a cache somewhere without proper permission.

[+LaughterOnWater]

So on one hand you don't feel that "outsiders" should "go and tell", but then you state that if you saw a "private" sign you would ignore it. So we should just keep our mouths shut and allow fellow geocachers blindly walk into a potential trap?

 

If we do not regulate ourselves, someone else will do it for us. Do you really want others to step in and do it? That usually leads to more stringent rules and policies, if not outright bans on caching.

It makes more sense for locals to regulate. For instance, as on4bam suggested, local reviewers in Belgium accept prikstok caches, which are essentially buried hides -- a buried subsurface construction with a door or cover that is flush to the ground that conceals the cache container. No digging is necessary by the seeker. They are apparently as common as lamp post caches in the US.

 

And to say, "If we don't do it, who will?" often comes across more as a justification for something already accomplished then as an actual reason for action.

 

There are tens of thousands of illegal US caches, all happily living on the map on geocaching.com, and nobody has stopped it from happening. I can navigate the map to any state, and in five minutes find twenty illegal caches or more. If I wanted to tinker with the geocaching API and arcGIS, I could probably come up with a huge nationwide list of illegal caches in less than an hour. What's to stop me or anyone else from being "Mr. Cache Cop Avenger"? Because it just breeds ill will.

 

Sure, it may have been appropriate to NA one particular cache, but right and appropriate don't always coincide, and you can't always tell what's right from half a country or half a world away. If you live in Outer Branaska, I'll be happy for you to NA your region's inappropriate caches. Please allow me to determine what's appropriate where I live, and contact the reviewer myself.

[+narcissa]

So on one hand you don't feel that "outsiders" should "go and tell", but then you state that if you saw a "private" sign you would ignore it. So we should just keep our mouths shut and allow fellow geocachers blindly walk into a potential trap?

 

If we do not regulate ourselves, someone else will do it for us. Do you really want others to step in and do it? That usually leads to more stringent rules and policies, if not outright bans on caching.

It makes more sense for locals to regulate. For instance, as on4bam suggested, local reviewers in Belgium accept prikstok caches, which are essentially buried hides -- a buried subsurface construction with a door or cover that is flush to the ground that conceals the cache container. No digging is necessary by the seeker. They are apparently as common as lamp post caches in the US.

 

And to say, "If we don't do it, who will?" often comes across more as a justification for something already accomplished then as an actual reason for action.

 

There are tens of thousands of illegal US caches, all happily living on the map on geocaching.com, and nobody has stopped it from happening. I can navigate the map to any state, and in five minutes find twenty illegal caches or more. If I wanted to tinker with the geocaching API and arcGIS, I could probably come up with a huge nationwide list of illegal caches in less than an hour. What's to stop me or anyone else from being "Mr. Cache Cop Avenger"? Because it just breeds ill will.

 

Sure, it may have been appropriate to NA one particular cache, but right and appropriate don't always coincide, and you can't always tell what's right from half a country or half a world away. If you live in Outer Branaska, I'll be happy for you to NA your region's inappropriate caches. Please allow me to determine what's appropriate where I live, and contact the reviewer myself.

 

You could come up with caches that you *suspect* are illegal. Regular geocachers can't see the hidden notes between reviewers and cache owners, so you don't know if they're illegal or not. You don't know if a cache owner has permission or not.

[+LaughterOnWater]

Well, one good thing happened today. A local 4H club found my car keys.

[+LaughterOnWater]

You could come up with caches that you *suspect* are illegal. Regular geocachers can't see the hidden notes between reviewers and cache owners, so you don't know if they're illegal or not. You don't know if a cache owner has permission or not.

There are plenty of national forests to choose from on the map. Also national parks, etc... Choose one. I've chosen Shawnee National Forest in Illinois at random. I'm viewing this with the google maps overlay on geocaching.com. How many traditional caches (even recently placed ones) can you find within the perimeter of the park, as outlined in green? Maybe there's a loophole. I don't know. I would have thought these would all be illegal.

 

C

Edited June 3, 2015 by LaughterOnWater

[+J Grouchy]

You could come up with caches that you *suspect* are illegal. Regular geocachers can't see the hidden notes between reviewers and cache owners, so you don't know if they're illegal or not. You don't know if a cache owner has permission or not.

There are plenty of national forests to choose from on the map. Also national parks, etc... Choose one. I've chosen Shawnee National Forest in Illinois at random. I'm viewing this with the google maps overlay on geocaching.com. How many traditional caches (even recently placed ones) can you find within the perimeter of the park, as outlined in green? Maybe there's a loophole. I don't know. I would have thought these would all be illegal.

 

C

 

It's my understanding that NPS doesn't outright ban all caches, but they can be there with express permission of the Park Service and the Ranger/Park Management. Not an easy task. Here is a bookmark list of some in National Parks... http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=5a20621e-782d-484b-9019-1e5e03c84bae

 

Also, you can't really use the green areas of the map as a guide. You'd really have to consult an official map of the Park if there is a question about whether it's on Park property.

Edited June 3, 2015 by J Grouchy

[+narcissa]

Maybe there's a loophole. I don't know. I would have thought these would all be illegal.

 

Right. And unless you're a reviewer, and you can view the history of the cache, you don't know one way or the other.