Local Cache in Private Park?

[+LaughterOnWater]

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.

 

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.

 

These are awesome replies to my ignorance. Thank you.

[jholly]

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

You better believe that caches are placed in National Parks with expressed permission only. Reviewers won't allow it any other way. National Forests are iffy depending on the part of the county. Some allow them, some don't. Of those that allow them some require you get permission, some don't. I certainly would not use a National forest as and example. I would expect that reviewers that regularly cover those areas are aware of the requirements.

[+narcissa]

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

You better believe that caches are placed in National Parks with expressed permission only. Reviewers won't allow it any other way. National Forests are iffy depending on the part of the county. Some allow them, some don't. Of those that allow them some require you get permission, some don't. I certainly would not use a National forest as and example. I would expect that reviewers that regularly cover those areas are aware of the requirements.

 

Same thing with Ontario Parks and Parks Canada land up here. The reviewers are keenly aware that geocaching is highly restricted in those places.

[+on4bam]

 

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?

 

Read again...

 

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.

 

Strange, this whole thread some were very sure this cache was illegal. Looks like they probably just suspected it then

[jholly]

 

Read again...

 

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.

 

Strange, this whole thread some were very sure this cache was illegal. Looks like they probably just suspected it then

 

Your quoting what narcissa said. I don't believe narcissa has the ability to read archived logs.

 

What Cascade Reviewer said ...

Actually, there have been problems with the cache, but the logs have been deleted. I can't tell if they were deleted by the people who logged the cache, or by the CO, but I assume it was by the CO. It's just several logs over the years, but one of them stated that they were stopped by a "rent a cop" for parking nearby.

 

So there have been logs pointing out problems that were deleted an as has been shown the property the cache is on is private property, interestingly apparently property that is not part of the HOA.

 

The question is this cache illegal or not has yet to be answered. To access this cache you need to enter a subdivision that has a home owners association. Since there is a Google street view available I assume driving the streets of the subdivision is legal. However it appears for non-HOA members entering the area of he cache is trespass. Now if the cache owner got permission from the owner of the land were the cache is hidden on and the HOA gave permission for non HOA folks to park in the area noted then the cache would be legal. The fact permission was granted and contact information on the cache page would have covered it. But this seems to be missing so one can surmise the cache is probably not placed legally.

[+on4bam]

 

Read again...

 

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.

 

Strange, this whole thread some were very sure this cache was illegal. Looks like they probably just suspected it then

 

Your quoting what narcissa said. I don't believe narcissa has the ability to read archived logs.

 

Exactly, and neither can most others who claimed the cache was "illegal".

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Read again...

 

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.

 

Strange, this whole thread some were very sure this cache was illegal. Looks like they probably just suspected it then

 

Your quoting what narcissa said. I don't believe narcissa has the ability to read archived logs.

 

Exactly, and neither can most others who claimed the cache was "illegal".

 

Right, so now an NA was logged and a reviewer, who can see those archived notes and exchanges between CO and reviewers, will take a look at it and determine if there is an issue.

[+Crow T Robot]

Read again...

 

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.

 

Strange, this whole thread some were very sure this cache was illegal. Looks like they probably just suspected it then

 

Your quoting what narcissa said. I don't believe narcissa has the ability to read archived logs.

 

Exactly, and neither can most others who claimed the cache was "illegal".

 

Right, so now an NA was logged and a reviewer, who can see those archived notes and exchanges between CO and reviewers, will take a look at it and determine if there is an issue.

 

Yeah, what he just said.

[knowschad]

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?

 

Read again...

 

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.

 

Strange, this whole thread some were very sure this cache was illegal. Looks like they probably just suspected it then

Have you even read this thread? The cache owner himself stated to the OP that he did not have permission. Try to follow along.

[knowschad]

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

 

National Forests and National Park Service are distinct entities with distinct geocaching policies.

 

Shawnee National Forest Geocaching Policy

http://www.fs.usda.gov/activity/shawnee/recreation/otheractivities/?recid=10669&actid=103 (click the Expand Text link)

[+narcissa]

 

Read again...

 

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.

 

Strange, this whole thread some were very sure this cache was illegal. Looks like they probably just suspected it then

 

Your quoting what narcissa said. I don't believe narcissa has the ability to read archived logs.

 

Exactly, and neither can most others who claimed the cache was "illegal".

 

That's why, in cases like this, the best course of action is to skip the cache and bring it up to a reviewer (through an NA log, or privately). The reviewer will take it from there.

 

[+NeverSummer]

Read again...

 

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.

 

Strange, this whole thread some were very sure this cache was illegal. Looks like they probably just suspected it then

 

Your quoting what narcissa said. I don't believe narcissa has the ability to read archived logs.

 

Exactly, and neither can most others who claimed the cache was "illegal".

 

Right, so now an NA was logged and a reviewer, who can see those archived notes and exchanges between CO and reviewers, will take a look at it and determine if there is an issue.

 

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?

 

Read again...

 

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.

 

Strange, this whole thread some were very sure this cache was illegal. Looks like they probably just suspected it then

Have you even read this thread? The cache owner himself stated to the OP that he did not have permission. Try to follow along.

It's an important bit that won't be seen by the Reviewer (LZ33)--the fact that the OP of this thread emailed the owner directly, and the owner admitted to the OP that they did not have permission from the HOA to hide a cache there. That's where this thread is important.

 

Well, that, and the sleuthing with plat maps, property ownership, etc. That's a lot of legwork and evidence from non-Reviewers showing why this specific cache is ready for archival.

[+NeverSummer]

 

That's why, in cases like this, the best course of action is to skip the cache and bring it up to a reviewer (through an NA log, or privately). The reviewer will take it from there.

 

Or they'll tell you to pound sand.

[+narcissa]

 

That's why, in cases like this, the best course of action is to skip the cache and bring it up to a reviewer (through an NA log, or privately). The reviewer will take it from there.

 

Or they'll tell you to pound sand.

 

Maybe, but at least you'll know you've done your due diligence.

[+on4bam]

It's an important bit that won't be seen by the Reviewer (LZ33)--the fact that the OP of this thread emailed the owner directly, and the owner admitted to the OP that they did not have permission from the HOA to hide a cache there. That's where this thread is important.

 

BTW, posting e-mails might be OK in the US but it's not in the EU (privacy laws) just in case there's more discussion about legal/illegal stuff.

[knowschad]

It's an important bit that won't be seen by the Reviewer (LZ33)--the fact that the OP of this thread emailed the owner directly, and the owner admitted to the OP that they did not have permission from the HOA to hide a cache there. That's where this thread is important.

 

BTW, posting e-mails might be OK in the US but it's not in the EU (privacy laws) just in case there's more discussion about legal/illegal stuff.

 

He didn't post the email. He spoke about the content of the email. And, no... there is no such law here in the U.S., although some will tell you that it is bad form.

[+AustinMN]

It's an important bit that won't be seen by the Reviewer (LZ33)--the fact that the OP of this thread emailed the owner directly, and the owner admitted to the OP that they did not have permission from the HOA to hide a cache there. That's where this thread is important.

 

BTW, posting e-mails might be OK in the US but it's not in the EU (privacy laws) just in case there's more discussion about legal/illegal stuff.

 

Technically, a private email is under copyright protection. It is not under privacy protection.

 

Even in Europe, there is no reasonable way to even imagine that an unencrypted email is functionally private, even if it legally is. While it is unlikely, an email travelling to someone across the street could end up passing through dozens of servers and six countries on its way to the recipient, every one of which has at least a temporary copy of it.

 

Austin

Edited June 4, 2015 by AustinMN

[+LaughterOnWater]

He didn't post the email. He spoke about the content of the email. And, no... there is no such law here in the U.S., although some will tell you that it is bad form.

I posted snippets from my correspondence and summarized what I generally understood from others' correspondence. I agree that it comes across as bad form to post someone else's specific correspondence unless they're expecting it, at least while the correspondence is civil and reasoned. I might feel differently if I received threatening correspondence.

 

It also means that what my summary of their correspondence is second-hand, about as useful to the reviewer as hearsay.

 

Chris

[+AustinMN]

He didn't post the email. He spoke about the content of the email. And, no... there is no such law here in the U.S., although some will tell you that it is bad form.

I posted snippets from my correspondence and summarized what I generally understood from others' correspondence. I agree that it comes across as bad form to post someone else's specific correspondence unless they're expecting it, at least while the correspondence is civil and reasoned. I might feel differently if I received threatening correspondence.

 

It also means that what my summary of their correspondence is second-hand, about as useful to the reviewer as hearsay.

 

Chris

 

This isn't a court of law. The reviewer can use the hearsay to question the CO about the facts.

 

Austin

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I was not too certain about finding a cache at a local park with a sign that said:

This area is restricted for use of <blah blah> homeowners association members only. No trespassing. No swimming. No fishing. No boating.

I couldn't find the cache, as GZ was in the middle of a bramble I wasn't willing to go through. While it was beautiful, I've never seen so much goose poop in all my life.

 

Nothing says "Geocachers allowed." I didn't exactly feel like it was appropriate to be there. There are a lot of caches that aren't exactly geokosher in the area, but a "no trespassing" sign was one hurdle I felt was too high. Should this cache be flagged for archive?

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

 

P.S.: Hey, I just coined "geokosher"!

 

 

Perhaps the owner, who may or may not live there, has permission?

 

Anyway, what does it matter? If you feel uncomfortable, unsafe, whatever, then don't look for the cache. There's 2 million+ caches, so there's always more to find.

 

Whether or not the OP feels comfortable or not doesn't change the fact that it should be archived if the cache was placed on private property (and that there are no tresspassing signs) without permission. Ignoring a cache that violates the guidelines because one doesn't feel comfortable finding it just means that the cache is still there and could potentially cause problems for others.

 

I see nothing indicating there's no permission. For that reason, I'm against logging a NA. An email to the reviewer stating the OP'S concerns, sure. But remember, we all state that we have permission when sending the page in for review, and that's good enough for me, I don't need to be told 3 different times. Just my point of view...

 

I agree but I wouldn't bother a reviewer. 99%+ of geocaches do not have " permission has been granted " written on the cache page.

Re the cache in question we have found a few but recently stopped looking for caches in the little landscaped common area where you enter a development....too much traffic and too many muggles and often it involved trampling landscaping which we won't do.

[+NeverSummer]

He didn't post the email. He spoke about the content of the email. And, no... there is no such law here in the U.S., although some will tell you that it is bad form.

I posted snippets from my correspondence and summarized what I generally understood from others' correspondence. I agree that it comes across as bad form to post someone else's specific correspondence unless they're expecting it, at least while the correspondence is civil and reasoned. I might feel differently if I received threatening correspondence.

 

It also means that what my summary of their correspondence is second-hand, about as useful to the reviewer as hearsay.

 

Chris

And an even better reason to share what was said is that the current, local Reviewer won't know what you've heard unless you share it with them. This is why it's important to log a NA--the local reviewer can always reach out to you for more details. In a few cases I've had just that happen, and it's all helpful information for a Reviewer to make a call on archival or patience for owner action to fix the problem.

[+LaughterOnWater]

This isn't a court of law. The reviewer can use the hearsay to question the CO about the facts.

 

Austin

Objection, Counselor!

[knowschad]

Anybody watching the cache received notification today of a note posted by the cache owner

 

AC4SH posted a note for Two Ponds

Saturday, 06 June 2015Georgia SE 916.9 mi from your home location

 

To those watching this listing. Please send me a private message if you are interested in seeing the Two Ponds geocache remain active. Thanks AC4SH.

[+NeverSummer]

Anybody watching the cache received notification today of a note posted by the cache owner

 

AC4SH posted a note for Two Ponds

Saturday, 06 June 2015Georgia SE 916.9 mi from your home location

 

To those watching this listing. Please send me a private message if you are interested in seeing the Two Ponds geocache remain active. Thanks AC4SH.

Does this mean the CO is weighing options to see if they will actually bother with getting permissions from the HOA or the Private Trust for placement of their geocache? Or...

 

I've got the cache watchlisted so I can see the outcome. I don't plan on responding, because I likely won't get there to search for it. On the other hand, if I did reply, I'd say that I don't mind if the cache goes away, especially if they don't resolve the permission issue.

[knowschad]

Anybody watching the cache received notification today of a note posted by the cache owner

 

AC4SH posted a note for Two Ponds

Saturday, 06 June 2015Georgia SE 916.9 mi from your home location

 

To those watching this listing. Please send me a private message if you are interested in seeing the Two Ponds geocache remain active. Thanks AC4SH.

Does this mean the CO is weighing options to see if they will actually bother with getting permissions from the HOA or the Private Trust for placement of their geocache? Or...

 

I've got the cache watchlisted so I can see the outcome. I don't plan on responding, because I likely won't get there to search for it. On the other hand, if I did reply, I'd say that I don't mind if the cache goes away, especially if they don't resolve the permission issue.

 

I don't know. Sounds to me as though the OP believes that public opinion can trump reviewer's opinion.

[+GeoTrekker26]

Anybody watching the cache received notification today of a note posted by the cache owner

 

AC4SH posted a note for Two Ponds

Saturday, 06 June 2015Georgia SE 916.9 mi from your home location

 

To those watching this listing. Please send me a private message if you are interested in seeing the Two Ponds geocache remain active. Thanks AC4SH.

Does this mean the CO is weighing options to see if they will actually bother with getting permissions from the HOA or the Private Trust for placement of their geocache? Or...

 

I've got the cache watchlisted so I can see the outcome. I don't plan on responding, because I likely won't get there to search for it. On the other hand, if I did reply, I'd say that I don't mind if the cache goes away, especially if they don't resolve the permission issue.

 

I don't know. Sounds to me as though the OP believes that public opinion can trump reviewer's opinion.

 

And it can, but not on a Groundspeak site.

[+NeverSummer]

Anybody watching the cache received notification today of a note posted by the cache owner

 

AC4SH posted a note for Two Ponds

Saturday, 06 June 2015Georgia SE 916.9 mi from your home location

 

To those watching this listing. Please send me a private message if you are interested in seeing the Two Ponds geocache remain active. Thanks AC4SH.

Does this mean the CO is weighing options to see if they will actually bother with getting permissions from the HOA or the Private Trust for placement of their geocache? Or...

 

I've got the cache watchlisted so I can see the outcome. I don't plan on responding, because I likely won't get there to search for it. On the other hand, if I did reply, I'd say that I don't mind if the cache goes away, especially if they don't resolve the permission issue.

 

I don't know. Sounds to me as though the OP believes that public opinion can trump reviewer's opinion.

 

And it can, but not on a Groundspeak site.

It doesn't seem to me that there is any reason to think the Reviewer and CO are at odds here. There's a TD log, not an Archival here. So add that in with the note from the CO, and I'll bet the Reviewer and CO have been in contact about the issue. (And I'll also bet that there was some poo-pooing of the NA log "from afar", instead of treating this cache as one with apparent, clear trespass issues and archiving the listing pending approval from the property owner...)

 

I think the Reviewer would have Archived straight away in the places I've lived and cached since 2005, but would then have allowed the cache to be re-submitted for Review to get re-enabled when/if the owner solved the permission and private property issues. In this case the Reviewer disabled and let the owner have 30 days to update the situation in one form or another. Meh, oh well, no big deal I guess.

 

In the meantime, someone can still search for the cache online, find it, seek it on private property, and welcome the chance that there will be a problem with the property owners, rent-a-cop, or actual police. Let alone the fact that land managers will see this as another example of geocaching not self-policing well enough...

[+wmpastor]

Anybody watching the cache received notification today of a note posted by the cache owner

 

AC4SH posted a note for Two Ponds

Saturday, 06 June 2015Georgia SE 916.9 mi from your home location

 

To those watching this listing. Please send me a private message if you are interested in seeing the Two Ponds geocache remain active. Thanks AC4SH.

Does this mean the CO is weighing options to see if they will actually bother with getting permissions from the HOA or the Private Trust for placement of their geocache? Or...

 

I've got the cache watchlisted so I can see the outcome. I don't plan on responding, because I likely won't get there to search for it. On the other hand, if I did reply, I'd say that I don't mind if the cache goes away, especially if they don't resolve the permission issue.

 

I don't know. Sounds to me as though the OP believes that public opinion can trump reviewer's opinion.

 

And it can, but not on a Groundspeak site.

It doesn't seem to me that there is any reason to think the Reviewer and CO are at odds here. There's a TD log, not an Archival here. So add that in with the note from the CO, and I'll bet the Reviewer and CO have been in contact about the issue. (And I'll also bet that there was some poo-pooing of the NA log "from afar", instead of treating this cache as one with apparent, clear trespass issues and archiving the listing pending approval from the property owner...)

 

I think the Reviewer would have Archived straight away in the places I've lived and cached since 2005, but would then have allowed the cache to be re-submitted for Review to get re-enabled when/if the owner solved the permission and private property issues. In this case the Reviewer disabled and let the owner have 30 days to update the situation in one form or another. Meh, oh well, no big deal I guess.

 

In the meantime, someone can still search for the cache online, find it, seek it on private property, and welcome the chance that there will be a problem with the property owners, rent-a-cop, or actual police. Let alone the fact that land managers will see this as another example of geocaching not self-policing well enough...

 

I see *some* rationale in the "shoot first, ask questions later" approach for reviewers that you describe.

 

HOWEVER, it is equivalent to "guilty until proven innocent" and *blatantly unfair* in some situations.

 

Case in point. I created a cache with a broken branch from my yard that I worked on and took to the site. A cache cop saw this, judged me guilty (no email), reported me to the reviewer who also judged me guilty (also no courtesy email), & archived the cache. As a new cacher, I was frightened to death that my hours of work were unfairly down the drain.

 

All the reviewer had to do was offer me the courtesy of an email inquiry, to which I would have promptly replied.

 

I appealed, offered to have the reviewer or anyone else come to my home and see the actual tree from which I got the broken branch, and my cache was reinstated.

 

So there are various interests to address. The public interest must be considered. But it does the sport no good to figuratively kick a CO in the ---, either!

[+NeverSummer]

Anybody watching the cache received notification today of a note posted by the cache owner

 

AC4SH posted a note for Two Ponds

Saturday, 06 June 2015Georgia SE 916.9 mi from your home location

 

To those watching this listing. Please send me a private message if you are interested in seeing the Two Ponds geocache remain active. Thanks AC4SH.

Does this mean the CO is weighing options to see if they will actually bother with getting permissions from the HOA or the Private Trust for placement of their geocache? Or...

 

I've got the cache watchlisted so I can see the outcome. I don't plan on responding, because I likely won't get there to search for it. On the other hand, if I did reply, I'd say that I don't mind if the cache goes away, especially if they don't resolve the permission issue.

 

I don't know. Sounds to me as though the OP believes that public opinion can trump reviewer's opinion.

 

And it can, but not on a Groundspeak site.

It doesn't seem to me that there is any reason to think the Reviewer and CO are at odds here. There's a TD log, not an Archival here. So add that in with the note from the CO, and I'll bet the Reviewer and CO have been in contact about the issue. (And I'll also bet that there was some poo-pooing of the NA log "from afar", instead of treating this cache as one with apparent, clear trespass issues and archiving the listing pending approval from the property owner...)

 

I think the Reviewer would have Archived straight away in the places I've lived and cached since 2005, but would then have allowed the cache to be re-submitted for Review to get re-enabled when/if the owner solved the permission and private property issues. In this case the Reviewer disabled and let the owner have 30 days to update the situation in one form or another. Meh, oh well, no big deal I guess.

 

In the meantime, someone can still search for the cache online, find it, seek it on private property, and welcome the chance that there will be a problem with the property owners, rent-a-cop, or actual police. Let alone the fact that land managers will see this as another example of geocaching not self-policing well enough...

 

I see *some* rationale in the "shoot first, ask questions later" approach for reviewers that you describe.

 

HOWEVER, it is equivalent to "guilty until proven innocent" and *blatantly unfair* in some situations.

 

Case in point. I created a cache with a broken branch from my yard that I worked on and took to the site. A cache cop saw this, judged me guilty (no email), reported me to the reviewer who also judged me guilty (also no courtesy email), & archived the cache. As a new cacher, I was frightened to death that my hours of work were unfairly down the drain.

 

All the reviewer had to do was offer me the courtesy of an email inquiry, to which I would have promptly replied.

 

I appealed, offered to have the reviewer or anyone else come to my home and see the actual tree from which I got the broken branch, and my cache was reinstated.

 

So there are various interests to address. The public interest must be considered. But it does the sport no good to figuratively kick a CO in the ---, either!

So, via contact with the Reviewer, you were able to resolve this issue.

 

Sounds like a NA that was valid, and a Reviewer who took action appropriately--especially based on the climate of cache placements and "altering/damaging items to place or create your geocache". So, you did the right thing by asking questions and getting your cache re-enabled. In your case it wasn't clear that there was a problem that meant archival was eminent, but in the case of this OP cache "Two Ponds" we have abundant evidence that the cache was placed deliberately in a place where permission was not granted, and that there are No Trespassing signs which are being ignored to find a geocache on private property.

 

Sadly not every Reviewer is interviewed and selected for their conflict resolution skills or ability to communicate effectively. Most are quite good at both, but not every one has had training or experience to know how to best handle difficult situations like this.

 

Heck, some Reviewers, when nudged about caches which clearly break the guidelines, will ignore the issue and not take action until a NA is logged--even when presented with the clear case of a cache which needs to be archived or at least disabled by the Reviewer.

[+WarNinjas]

I think the reviewer did the right thing with the 30 days disabled. I would have a completely different outlook on this situation if the cache had not been around for almost 10 years.

[+LaughterOnWater]

I don't know. Sounds to me as though the OP believes that public opinion can trump reviewer's opinion.

 

And it can, but not on a Groundspeak site.

What I think as the OP is irrelevant. Reviewers are the judges. I had no stake, one way or the other when I first posted. I was unclear of the rules. I asked others what I should do, got feedback and proceeded -- apparently the wrong way. So I learned some things:

1. Vote with your feet. If you're not comfortable pursuing a cache, find another one.
2. If a cache is inappropriate, find a local reviewer and tell them. Don't contact the cache owner unless you have a well-established relationship with the owner.
3. Different nations/regions have different skews on what is acceptable with regards to the guidelines, and reviewers in those countries/regions make their own unwritten local rules that better suit them.
4. I can choose to report or not report problems. More often than not, I'll likely choose not to report because it causes pain and stomps fun out of the game. If something is hazardous or terribly illegal, I'll probably tell a reviewer.
5. There is a tacit tug-of-war between the rules/guidelines as written and as followed, very similar to people driving 80mph in a 55mph zone on I-85 just north of Spaghetti Junction in Atlanta, GA. Pertaining to the game, an example might be: You're not supposed to be a cache cop, but at the same time, you're supposed to NA a cache that is placed where it is clearly stated, "No Trespassing." So gamers don't report the cache.
6. Since the game started, gamers have slowly grown hesitant to DNF, NM or NA caches themselves.
7. I also learned a little about property rights and trespass.
8. I have little or no control over what others outside my local community do within the geocaching.com interface. For instance, just talking about a questionable cache on this forum will likely cause others many states away to seek it out and archive the cache. This will make me hesitant to bring up any specific questionable cache in the future, again because it will stomp fun.

This reviewer has taken a reasoned, balanced approach. It's out of my hands. I've shared some embarrassing moments with a public forum in hopes that other new geocachers will find something helpful in this discussion.

 

Chris

Edited June 11, 2015 by LaughterOnWater

[knowschad]

I don't know. Sounds to me as though the OP believes that public opinion can trump reviewer's opinion.

 

And it can, but not on a Groundspeak site.

What I think as the OP is irrelevant.

Chris

 

My mistake... sorry. I mean to say "CO" (Cache owner) not "OP".

[+J Grouchy]

None of this changes the fact that it's a cache buried deep within a private residential neighborhood past a sign indicating an area open only to residents of that neighborhood. Seriously, who has strong enough emotional attachment to such a cache that they think it's worth keeping around? Age means nothing. Age doesn't suddenly trump permissions and property rights. I swear, I'll never understand why a cache should get some magical pass that a three or five or eight year old cache never would.

[+narcissa]

None of this changes the fact that it's a cache buried deep within a private residential neighborhood past a sign indicating an area open only to residents of that neighborhood. Seriously, who has strong enough emotional attachment to such a cache that they think it's worth keeping around? Age means nothing. Age doesn't suddenly trump permissions and property rights. I swear, I'll never understand why a cache should get some magical pass that a three or five or eight year old cache never would.

 

+1

[+larryc43230]

I swear, I'll never understand why a cache should get some magical pass that a three or five or eight year old cache never would.

Every time an older cache is archived, that's one less cache that can be used to fulfill somebody's Jasmer challenge. I've always assumed that was the hidden agenda behind keeping caches active that really should be archived.

 

--Larry

[+WarNinjas]

Age means nothing. Age doesn't suddenly trump permissions and property rights. I swear, I'll never understand why a cache should get some magical pass that a three or five or eight year old cache never would.

My post above was just about giving it 30 days disabled. I don't think that is much after almost 10 years. I would give the same thoughts to one of 3, 5 or even 8 years. If it had been out for 3 months I would think it should have been archived on the spot.

[+LaughterOnWater]

I don't know. Sounds to me as though the OP believes that public opinion can trump reviewer's opinion.

 

And it can, but not on a Groundspeak site.

What I think as the OP is irrelevant.

Chris

 

My mistake... sorry. I mean to say "CO" (Cache owner) not "OP".

Got it. No Worries...

[+NeverSummer]

I think the reviewer did the right thing with the 30 days disabled. I would have a completely different outlook on this situation if the cache had not been around for almost 10 years.

 

None of this changes the fact that it's a cache buried deep within a private residential neighborhood past a sign indicating an area open only to residents of that neighborhood. Seriously, who has strong enough emotional attachment to such a cache that they think it's worth keeping around? Age means nothing. Age doesn't suddenly trump permissions and property rights. I swear, I'll never understand why a cache should get some magical pass that a three or five or eight year old cache never would.

 

I swear, I'll never understand why a cache should get some magical pass that a three or five or eight year old cache never would.

Every time an older cache is archived, that's one less cache that can be used to fulfill somebody's Jasmer challenge. I've always assumed that was the hidden agenda behind keeping caches active that really should be archived.

 

--Larry

Age really should not matter in any case--even as a "ratio" for how long a cache is disabled versus archived.

 

We've already had evidence that the CO has deleted logs which call into question the property ownership, etc.

 

So, it's not much to see 30-day disabled when compared to 10 years of being on the planet, no. But the cache is against the guidelines--quite clearly based on evidence--and really could have been archived immediately. The CO could always appeal, but would have to re-submit for review and prove that the permission issue is resolved. That's how I've seen this handled before.

 

So I really do wonder if it is about "keeping old caches alive". I've seen it first hand...and it sure does cloud the otherwise clear waters.

[+J Grouchy]

Jasmer/grid challenges should not even be a factor in the reviewer's decision.

Unless it's an officially sanctioned part of Groundspeak's game, they should not take such things into account when deciding whether or not to archive a cache.

[+larryc43230]

Jasmer/grid challenges should not even be a factor in the reviewer's decision.

Unless it's an officially sanctioned part of Groundspeak's game, they should not take such things into account when deciding whether or not to archive a cache.

I don't think I've seen evidence of Jasmer/grid challenges affecting reviewers' judgment, but I've definitely seen local geocaching communities rallying and sometimes fighting to preserve old caches solely because of their age.

 

--Larry

[+narcissa]

Jasmer/grid challenges should not even be a factor in the reviewer's decision.

Unless it's an officially sanctioned part of Groundspeak's game, they should not take such things into account when deciding whether or not to archive a cache.

I don't think I've seen evidence of Jasmer/grid challenges affecting reviewers' judgment, but I've definitely seen local geocaching communities rallying and sometimes fighting to preserve old caches solely because of their age.

 

--Larry

 

I don't think it necessarily affects the reviewer.

 

It is sometimes the reason that geocachers will attack someone who brings a bad cache to the reviewer's attention.

[+jellis]

Are we getting off topic? Wasn't this about local Private Parks not National parks or archival of Jasmer challenge caches?

 

Just saying when I see a cache on private park, HOA type I will report it, that's it. Let the reviewer deal with the CO!

Edited June 13, 2015 by jellis

[+GeoBain]

Just gonna say I would rather have seen the OP report the cache than force, through inaction someone else to do it. It's always better to have someone directly involved contact the review than to force another not so directly involved but devoted cacher to do what is right and protect future fellow cachers from walking into a potential legal trap.

 

Kudos to our Alaskan brother or sister for doing the right thing.

[+TheMoiety]

The poor newbie that started this thread pretty clearly stated that they would prefer not to antagonize the local caching community.

 

Whoever put the "needs archived" on the cache page (some Cacher from Alaska with one find?) linked to this conversation in his post instead of sending to the reviewer directly. Now half of North Georgia knows who it is. Way to go.

[+Geojunkie_George]

I like sailboats!

[+TheMoiety]

Lol, I do too GeoJunkie!

 

But what I don't like are long distance sanctimonious know-it-alls throwing our local cachers (especially new cachers) under the bus when all they did was ask a question and especially throwing shade at our reviewer who rocks btw.

 

One person needed to answer this post and all they needed to say was email CO.

Edited June 14, 2015 by TheMoiety

[Pup Patrol]

The poor newbie that started this thread pretty clearly stated that they would prefer not to antagonize the local caching community.

 

Whoever put the "needs archived" on the cache page (some Cacher from Alaska with one find?) linked to this conversation in his post instead of sending to the reviewer directly. Now half of North Georgia knows who it is. Way to go.

 

The cache owner can respond to the Reviewer, as instructed. If there's no problem, then an archival might be avoided.

 

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.

 

Did you see post #134, from May 31st?

 

Actually, there have been problems with the cache, but the logs have been deleted. I can't tell if they were deleted by the people who logged the cache, or by the CO, but I assume it was by the CO. It's just several logs over the years, but one of them stated that they were stopped by a "rent a cop" for parking nearby.

 

Wow, the locals actually did know about this problem all along.

 

The fact that logs have been deleted doesn't send up red flags?

 

B.

[knowschad]

One person needed to answer this post and all they needed to say was email CO.

Ummmm... that was said. And early-on. And that was done. To no avail. The CO basically told the OP to take a long hike off a short dock.

[+TheMoiety]

No, IslandsandOceans doesn't look like a Cacher at all. Looks like a dilettante to me. That was my point.

 

And where is the proof that logs have been deleted? Someone with two caches makes a random comment? That is proof?

 

Yes I am a (reasonably) local Cacher but I do not know anyone involved personally. And neither does anyone involved in this conversation as far as I can tell.

 

The cache has been located in this spot for ten dadgum years with no problem and just now it is a national event?

Edited June 14, 2015 by TheMoiety

[+TheMoiety]

(I was involuntarily autocorrected to "dadgum" above!")

Edited June 14, 2015 by TheMoiety