Local Cache in Private Park?

[+NeverSummer]

And, in an interesting turn of events, the "Needs Archived" log has been deleted by Geocaching HQ.

 

The cache is still Disabled, however.

[+narcissa]

A different member of themoiety weighs in tonight; this is R

 

 

"One Reviewer and one Land Manager...yeah, not worthy of attention because the usernames don't have a lot of "finds" under them."

 

Yep - that's pretty much it.

 

You've flown a plane ONCE - oh, looking on from the jump seat...? Fascinated by all the pretty lights... yeah, I'm putting my luggage up top and settling in for a peaceful ride. I trust you completely. Please... guide us all.

 

Oh and folks we've got a "Land Manager"? Gosh, we're all really impressed down here. Can't wait to see your framed certificate and enameled lapel pin. Got one for crocheting, raccoon management and interpretive dance too? Cool.

 

I'm sure a self-righteous "Land Manager" with only 1 Event under their twee Abercrombie & Fitch belt is supremely qualified to properly assess a GZ they've never EVEN FREAKIN' WALKED - and never will.

 

Dear LM - find some caches - 4? 10? maybe even 32? Oh heavens you're soaring into the clouds. Get to 100 and you're ON FIRE! We will all be dim lamps unto your feet and gratefully accept what words of cache-killing wisdom you deign to grace us hot, sweaty actual cache-finding log-signing peasants with.

 

Recap: Got one Find? Your opinion is worthless - deal with it.

 

Pax out.

 

R

Boy talk about a persnal attack. How come you didn't flame the moderator/reviewer as bad as you flamed the land manager?

Because it was IslandsAndOcean who posted the NA log on the cache in question, right? Had the Reviewer or another Reviewer taken action with a NA or Archived log, I'd bet they'd be the target too.

 

And it should be noted that, throughout this thread, when I put on my brown uniform and snap on my work badge, I'm a USFWS employee who helps manage geocaching activities on the Kachemak Bay Estuarine Research Reserve and Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. As IslandsAndOcean I work in concert with refuge and reserve management on geocaching activities and permissions on our managed lands. This also includes advising them, as the only player of the game within either staff, on whether or not we should allow specific and general geocaching activities on our managed lands. In addition, I work closely with our Alaska region and the whole of the USFWS to work on policy and process for this "emerging" public land use concept.

 

So, it is a very serious consideration when I let project leads or managers know that I can't assure them with 100% confidence that Geocaching.com and geocachers can be counted on to always gain permission, or to take proper action and remove geocaches when requested to by a property owner or land manager. This means that we hang onto the perceptions that geocaching is not a compatible activity for the USFWS, and majority opinion of project leads and refuge managers and staff is that geocaching is a detriment to the lands we manage. Meaning, until we clean up our act here as players, options for geocaching on USFWS lands will be severely limited and/or banned altogether.

 

And there you go.

 

Thanks, NeverSummer.

 

B.

You're welcome.

 

I'll just add, as I'm posting as "just another guy" in this account, that it really wouldn't bode too well to present to those who make land management decisions about geocaching on those lands a clear-as-a-bell example of a cache that didn't get permission, let alone the attitudes of many geocachers who think it's not a big deal.

 

There are very clear, serious implications when people disregard the guidelines and choose to be offensive, abrasive, or irresponsible with their geocaching activities. (And that goes double for me, too...)

 

We really shouldn't forget that how we self-police this game is the most clear representation of how we can be a "responsible" user group on public lands. If we can't maintain geocaches as required, use reporting tools responsibly, consistently, or honestly, or see action by Groundspeak or their Volunteer Reviewers when there is an issue brought to their attention, it sends a much clearer message to land managers than we all think. The days of this game flying under the radar are long gone.

 

+1

[+NeverSummer]

It has been brought to my attention that theKnowledge Books clarify who should be writing a NA log, and that a log posted otherwise can and will be deleted, even if there is an actual, fundamental guideline violation.

 

3.7. I found a geocache that needs to be archived

 

If you feel that a geocache listing needs to archived, log onto the geocache page, use "log your visit" and select the log type, "needs archived". Please explain in your log why the listing needs to be archived. This log will be received by both the geocache owner and a local reviewer. The log will not automatically cause the listing to be archived. You may not see any public response to your log.

 

Please use this log only if you have visited the geocache location and:

•You found a geocache that was placed illegally on private property, without permission, and/or the property owners or law enforcement expressed concerns to you during your search.

•You found a geocache where aggressive searching activity is causing damage to the surrounding area or the cache placement damages or defaces property.

•You couldn't find the geocache and it already has MANY DNFs, Needs Maintenance logs (with no cache owner response), and is without a genuine find for a very long time.

 

Please be thoughtful and deliberate in your decision to post a Needs Archived log, as a flippant/fake Needs Archived log can be offensive to cache owners.

 

Do not use it if the geocache needs repairs (please use a Needs Maintenance log in this case), or you didn't find it, or the location made you uncomfortable. Please consider first contacting the owner of the geocache with your concerns. Use the profile link next to the geocache owner's name at the top of the geocache page to send an email, as well as logging to the geocache page about your visit.

 

They do say "Please use this log...", but it has been made more clear to me that this isn't just a kind request.

 

So, to that end, someone local needs to log a NA on this cache. This is where the original, first page recommendation is what Groundspeak also asks us to do: If we find a cache that has a clear trespassing and/or permission issue, we need to report it. We are all cache cops, and it isn't worth a single cache ( no matter if old or whatever other challenge qualifier it provides...) to risk another example of geocaching being an activity which won't obtain permission, allows trespass, and that it can't police itself via users, Reviewers, or the company itself.

[+GeoBain]

And, in an interesting turn of events, the "Needs Archived" log has been deleted by Geocaching HQ.

 

The cache is still Disabled, however.

 

By HQ or by the CO?

 

Odd if HQ did it. Par for the course, based on previous info, if the CO did it.

[knowschad]

And, in an interesting turn of events, the "Needs Archived" log has been deleted by Geocaching HQ.

 

The cache is still Disabled, however.

 

By HQ or by the CO?

 

Odd if HQ did it. Par for the course, based on previous info, if the CO did it.

 

By HQ.

[+GeoBain]

It has been brought to my attention that theKnowledooks clarify who should be writing a NA log, and that a log posted otherwise can and will be deleted, even if there is an actual, fundamental guideline violation.

 

3.7. I found a geocache that needs to be archived

 

If you feel that a geocache listing needs to archived, log onto the geocache page, use "log your visit" and select the log type, "needs archived". Please explain in your log why the listing needs to be archived. This log will be received by both the geocache owner and a local reviewer. The log will not automatically cause the listing to be archived. You may not see any public response to your log.

 

Please use this log only if you have visited the geocache location and:

•You found a geocache that was placed illegally on private property, without permission, and/or the property owners or law enforcement expressed concerns to you during your search.

•You found a geocache where aggressive searching activity is causing damage to the surrounding area or the cache placement damages or defaces property.

•You couldn't find the geocache and it already has MANY DNFs, Needs Maintenance logs (with no cache owner response), and is without a genuine find for a very long time.

 

Please be thoughtful and deliberate in your decision to post a Needs Archived log, as a flippant/fake Needs Archived log can be offensive to cache owners.

 

Do not use it if the geocache needs repairs (please use a Needs Maintenance log in this case), or you didn't find it, or the location made you uncomfortable. Please consider first contacting the owner of the geocache with your concerns. Use the profile link next to the geocache owner's name at the top of the geocache page to send an email, as well as logging to the geocache page about your visit.

 

They do say "Please use this log...", but it has been made more clear to me that this isn't just a kind request.

 

So, to that end, someone local needs to log a NA on this cache. This is where the original, first page recommendation is what Groundspeak also asks us to do: If we find a cache that has a clear trespassing and/or permission issue, we need to report it. We are all cache cops, and it isn't worth a single cache ( no matter if old or whatever other challenge qualifier it provides...) to risk another example of geocaching being an activity which won't obtain permission, allows trespass, and that it can't police itself via users, Reviewers, or the company itself.

 

Well, perhaps the public NA should be avoided by someone that has not been to the cach location. But, there is nothing wrong with someone who is aware of the problems contacting the reviewer and alerting them. In fact, I was disappointed that the cache was not disabled as a result of the reviewer participating in this thread becoming aware of the potential lack of permission.

 

I've said it many times, this game is based on the honor system. We trust each other to do the right thing. And when it is clear that someone is not being forthright, it is our duty to bring this to the reviewer's attention. As NeverSummer pointed out, land managers do pay attention to these issues. If it becomes evident that we are not willing to abide by the guidelines we purport to follow, then they have every right and obligation to kick us off their land.

 

Either we do what is right or it will be done for us.

[+SwineFlew]

And, in an interesting turn of events, the "Needs Archived" log has been deleted by Geocaching HQ.

 

The cache is still Disabled, however.

 

By HQ or by the CO?

 

Odd if HQ did it. Par for the course, based on previous info, if the CO did it.

 

By HQ.

Very interesting...

[knowschad]

It has been brought to my attention that theKnowledge Books clarify who should be writing a NA log, and that a log posted otherwise can and will be deleted, even if there is an actual, fundamental guideline violation.

 

3.7. I found a geocache that needs to be archived

 

If you feel that a geocache listing needs to archived, log onto the geocache page, use "log your visit" and select the log type, "needs archived". Please explain in your log why the listing needs to be archived. This log will be received by both the geocache owner and a local reviewer. The log will not automatically cause the listing to be archived. You may not see any public response to your log.

 

Please use this log only if you have visited the geocache location and:

•You found a geocache that was placed illegally on private property, without permission, and/or the property owners or law enforcement expressed concerns to you during your search.

•You found a geocache where aggressive searching activity is causing damage to the surrounding area or the cache placement damages or defaces property.

•You couldn't find the geocache and it already has MANY DNFs, Needs Maintenance logs (with no cache owner response), and is without a genuine find for a very long time.

 

Please be thoughtful and deliberate in your decision to post a Needs Archived log, as a flippant/fake Needs Archived log can be offensive to cache owners.

 

Do not use it if the geocache needs repairs (please use a Needs Maintenance log in this case), or you didn't find it, or the location made you uncomfortable. Please consider first contacting the owner of the geocache with your concerns. Use the profile link next to the geocache owner's name at the top of the geocache page to send an email, as well as logging to the geocache page about your visit.

 

They do say "Please use this log...", but it has been made more clear to me that this isn't just a kind request.

 

So, to that end, someone local needs to log a NA on this cache. This is where the original, first page recommendation is what Groundspeak also asks us to do: If we find a cache that has a clear trespassing and/or permission issue, we need to report it. We are all cache cops, and it isn't worth a single cache ( no matter if old or whatever other challenge qualifier it provides...) to risk another example of geocaching being an activity which won't obtain permission, allows trespass, and that it can't police itself via users, Reviewers, or the company itself.

 

While I can understand the rationale of that apparently mandatory "request" (rationale being to avoid abuse, I assume), in this case, I think that more than ample evidence has been posted to warrant a remote NA log. For that matter, I would have expected some of the reviewers that have read this thread to have posted one themselves long ago. In any case, the now deleted NA log still served its purpose in having brought attention to the reviewer of the issues.

 

There was a time, however, when deleting anything but a bogus "Found It" log was considered to be a bad thing, because they were all a part of the cache's history. But this cache has had at least a couple of logs mentioning the trespass issue deleted, presumably by the CO, and now an NA log deleted by HQ. So much for an accurate history. That is one thing that is so scary about this digital age is that it is so easy to erase or rewrite history.

[+GeoBain]

And, in an interesting turn of events, the "Needs Archived" log has been deleted by Geocaching HQ.

 

The cache is still Disabled, however.

 

By HQ or by the CO?

 

Odd if HQ did it. Par for the course, based on previous info, if the CO did it.

 

By HQ.

 

How do we know? I have the cache on watch list and haven't seen anything from HQ stating they removed it. Not that I don't believe it. It is possible. Just wondering how we know.

[jholly]

And, in an interesting turn of events, the "Needs Archived" log has been deleted by Geocaching HQ.

 

The cache is still Disabled, however.

 

By HQ or by the CO?

 

Odd if HQ did it. Par for the course, based on previous info, if the CO did it.

 

By HQ.

 

How do we know? I have the cache on watch list and haven't seen anything from HQ stating they removed it. Not that I don't believe it. It is possible. Just wondering how we know.

Ditto. I'm going with CO since there are a couple finds after the NA/reviewer disable. Wonder if a reviewer diable can not be cleared by the CO or the CO just doesn't know how to clear the disable.

[+NeverSummer]

HQ.

 

See above comment about the importance of local involvement in the NA process, need for honest NA and NM logs...

 

...and add the hope that Reviewers make the "right" decision when emailed directly with clear issues with fundamental geocaching guidelines with a specific cache instead of letting things escalate.

 

OP can't win if you email the owner. OP can't win if you email the Reviewer who published the cache. Others can't win if you email the local Reviewer with the clear evidence (map, OP mention of correspondence with CO, Reviewer observation that the cache had "issues" deleted, etc.). Others can't win if you post a NA. And all this fiasco does is give more reason for Land Managers to limit or ban geocaching altogether. Tresspass (going beyond signs that say "No Trespassing" or "Keep out"), permission (asking the proper person or process if it is ok to play our game on their land), buried (many caches still out there getting published where something is partially buried, or "pushed into the ground"), and screwed (nails and screws in trees, e.g.) I can't readily endorse the process if this is how it goes...

Edited June 17, 2015 by NeverSummer

[+NeverSummer]

Scenario:

A cache is placed on managed Anyplace County Park Board (ACPB) land. The owner claims they have permission on the cache page, and the Reviewer publishes the cache. The Reviewer has nothing on file which states a policy for the ACPB, so assumes the cache owner has permission. There is a sign stating "No Trespassing" on two ends of the park land where the cache is hidden.

 

Early finders state that they observe the signs stating "No Trespassing", but ignore it because they believe the cache owner. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, for example logs.)

 

At some point in this timeline, Geocaching.com website changes the interface, and you have to "load more results" to see logs beyond the most recent.

 

The cache owner deletes logs which call into question the validity of the permission, so others do not see them.

 

Newcomers to this cache do not see the previous logs, and the only recent logs say "TFTC" and so on; one can easily assume that permission is granted, and that the signs are of no worry.

 

Someone feels uncomfortable about the search, so asks some questions. The CO is unhelpful. The Reviewer is not active.

 

Then, the ACPB finds out that there are people entering a "No Trespassing" area where there are not supposed to be people who are not authorized by the ACPB.

 

It turns out that the ACPB has a test site for some critical habitat within that area, and for 10 years people have been entering it, unauthorized. The ACPB finds out that people had tried to do something about it, but no action was taken.

 

Do you think the ACPB is going to welcome geocaching on their land in the future? Do you think that, if the ACPB shared their experience with other land management organizations and agencies, other agencies would also want to allow geocaching on their lands?

 

Again, I'm not ready to advocate with my employer that Geocaching is an acceptable or compatible use when people willfully ignore No Trespassing signs, and don't ask for permission before conducting an activity on the lands we manage.

[knowschad]

And, in an interesting turn of events, the "Needs Archived" log has been deleted by Geocaching HQ.

 

The cache is still Disabled, however.

 

By HQ or by the CO?

 

Odd if HQ did it. Par for the course, based on previous info, if the CO did it.

 

By HQ.

 

How do we know? I have the cache on watch list and haven't seen anything from HQ stating they removed it. Not that I don't believe it. It is possible. Just wondering how we know.

 

Insider information. Sorry, I can't reveal my sources.

[knowschad]

http://coord.info/GLHX93DZ

AC4SH enabled Two Ponds

Wednesday, 17 June 2015

 

Be respectful of the area and continue to seek this geocache where it has been for 10 years.

 

 

I have to assume that means that adequate permission was demonstrated to the reviewer. However, I don't see updated coordinates showing that it was moved off of private homeowner's property and back(?) into the common area, so I hope that he also got permission from that home owner.

Edited June 17, 2015 by knowschad

[+cheech gang]

Now we start over again from square one.

[+on4bam]

And after 7 pages the result is.....

[knowschad]

Now we start over again from square one.

 

And after 7 pages the result is.....

Actually, I think this is the time for us to say that due process has been rendered and to bow out of the issue. I will say that it seems an odd due process, though. A mite snarky of the CO to add that little "10 years" dig into his Enabled note, too. To the CO, if you're reading this... that was 10 years of trespassing on private land. Great that nobody got in trouble over it, but that doesn't make it right.

[+on4bam]

I have to assume that means that adequate permission was demonstrated to the reviewer.

 

To the CO, if you're reading this... that was 10 years of trespassing on private land. Great that nobody got in trouble over it, but that doesn't make it right.

 

Now I'm confused... You assume there was adequate permission and then you go on about 10 years of trespassing. Since all is cleared out now there was no issue to begin with, except for a few people rattling the cage.

[+larryc43230]

A couple of odd things struck me when I read the cache description. The CO states that " I am a member of the homeowners association ask you to be considerate of the private property lines."

 

First, I live in a condo development, and as a homeowner here I'm a member of the homeowner's association. Every homeowner here is a member. That doesn't mean I have the right to give permission for outsiders to trespass on development property. We have three trustees who, I presume, would be the only entities authorized to give that permission. Does this cache actually have adequate permission?

 

Second, the CO refers to being "considerate of the private property lines." Are there actually lines? Are these property lines clearly marked out so that geocachers will know where it's safe to walk and where it isn't? At least in my development, we don't have fences, chalk marks, or anything else that separates private property from common areas. IF I looked fo this cache, how would I know what's common area and what's trespassing?

 

--Larry

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I have to assume that means that adequate permission was demonstrated to the reviewer.

 

To the CO, if you're reading this... that was 10 years of trespassing on private land. Great that nobody got in trouble over it, but that doesn't make it right.

 

Now I'm confused... You assume there was adequate permission and then you go on about 10 years of trespassing. Since all is cleared out now there was no issue to begin with, except for a few people rattling the cage.

 

The OP wrote that he did not ask for permission to place the cache. We don't know when it was placed, but there is a no tresspassing sign at the location of the recommended parking coordinates. Typically in the U.S., criminal tresspass occurs when someone goes onto private property after being informed that they do not have permission. A no tresspassing sign is deemed to be an valid instrument of informing. If the sign was not there, and someone went onto the property to find the cache, it would not be tresspassing. But the fact that the sign does exist means anyone entering the property without explicit permission, was, in fact, tresspassing. I find it hard to believe that the CO was able to obtain permission which allowed anyone to enter the property. Even if he did, the CO offers no way for someone to prove they have permission. A LEO, on routine patrol, might encounter someone entering or leaving property and ask for evidence if permission. Then the geocacher could not provide it, a summons could be issued, and the person could even be arrested. At that point, they would still would have to prove they had permission in court, and if they could not they could be subject to fines, jail time, and have a permenant arrest record.

 

So what if the cache has been there for 10 years. Is one cache find really worth putting fellow geocachers at risk to being arrested?

 

 

[knowschad]

I have to assume that means that adequate permission was demonstrated to the reviewer.

 

To the CO, if you're reading this... that was 10 years of trespassing on private land. Great that nobody got in trouble over it, but that doesn't make it right.

 

Now I'm confused... You assume there was adequate permission and then you go on about 10 years of trespassing. Since all is cleared out now there was no issue to begin with, except for a few people rattling the cage.

 

You're right. You are confused. I was referring to

 

"Be respectful of the area and continue to seek this geocache where it has been for 10 years."

 

... implying that it was always OK. Which it was not. Yes, I am assuming that there is NOW adequate permission.

[+cheech gang]

I stiill don't get it.

 

A. There is a NoTrespassing sign at the recommended parking.

B. There is no indication that the Board of Trustees of the HOA has approved the invitation for outsiders to transit their property unaccompanied by a homeowner.

C. The coordinates are on a private lot, not even HOA property.

 

How did the NA request get resolved?

[knowschad]

I stiill don't get it.

 

A. There is a NoTrespassing sign at the recommended parking.

B. There is no indication that the Board of Trustees of the HOA has approved the invitation for outsiders to transit their property unaccompanied by a homeowner.

C. The coordinates are on a private lot, not even HOA property.

 

How did the NA request get resolved?

 

I guess that is between the cache owner and the reviewer.

 

[i just noticed the hint: "It's a film canister under a rock" All this, for a film canister under a rock. Sigh...]

[+narcissa]

I stiill don't get it.

 

A. There is a NoTrespassing sign at the recommended parking.

B. There is no indication that the Board of Trustees of the HOA has approved the invitation for outsiders to transit their property unaccompanied by a homeowner.

C. The coordinates are on a private lot, not even HOA property.

 

How did the NA request get resolved?

 

It's entirely possible that the CO is bold/entitled enough to delete the reviewer log and re-enable the cache without resolving the problem. Stranger things have happened.

[+cheech gang]

I stiill don't get it.

 

A. There is a NoTrespassing sign at the recommended parking.

B. There is no indication that the Board of Trustees of the HOA has approved the invitation for outsiders to transit their property unaccompanied by a homeowner.

C. The coordinates are on a private lot, not even HOA property.

 

How did the NA request get resolved?

 

I guess that is between the cache owner and the reviewer.

 

[i just noticed the hint: "It's a film canister under a rock" All this, for a film canister under a rock. Sigh...]

 

I would expect these things, if resolved to the reviewer's satisfaction, to be addressed on the cache page. I guess I expect too much.

[knowschad]

I stiill don't get it.

 

A. There is a NoTrespassing sign at the recommended parking.

B. There is no indication that the Board of Trustees of the HOA has approved the invitation for outsiders to transit their property unaccompanied by a homeowner.

C. The coordinates are on a private lot, not even HOA property.

 

How did the NA request get resolved?

 

I guess that is between the cache owner and the reviewer.

 

[i just noticed the hint: "It's a film canister under a rock" All this, for a film canister under a rock. Sigh...]

 

I would expect these things, if resolved to the reviewer's satisfaction, to be addressed on the cache page. I guess I expect too much.

 

I would tend agree, but, of course, there is no requirement for such things (unless the reviewer requires it).

 

I'm not taking my watch off the cache just yet.

[+NeverSummer]

I stiill don't get it.

 

A. There is a NoTrespassing sign at the recommended parking.

B. There is no indication that the Board of Trustees of the HOA has approved the invitation for outsiders to transit their property unaccompanied by a homeowner.

C. The coordinates are on a private lot, not even HOA property.

 

How did the NA request get resolved?

 

It's entirely possible that the CO is bold/entitled enough to delete the reviewer log and re-enable the cache without resolving the problem. Stranger things have happened.

I doubt that's the case. I was told that there is much discussion between the cache owner and Reviewer which "you cannot see".

 

If you go back and read every log since publication, you'll see that people willfully bypassed the No Trespassing sign (back to 2005 we see logs about the signs). We have a cache where the cache owner memeber of the HOA might live nearby, but did not ask the HOA if it was ok to place it in the park--if that CO, as a homeowner, could provide a blanket permission to people who are not members to show up and root around in the park.

 

Then you look at the plat map. Clear as a bell, the cache is placed on a homeowner's property, not in the "park".

 

__

 

When LOW, the OP, said they tried emailing erikl-88r (original Reviewer) and didn't get a response, I looked up who the Reviewer was. LOW said that they were going to leave the issue alone, and I saw a clear NA issue where a cache was causing trespass based on all of our sleuthing and LOW's correspondence with the CO. So I emailed LZ33, and got a very terse email back to mind my own business. Without a NA logged, or Groundspeak's hand in the business, the Reviewer was going to take no action. So, rather than stir the pot with my personal account, I decided to log with the account that matters most--a Land Manager.

 

That way there was more clout behind the NA log, as perception of trespass issues and permission problems are a real concern for the agency I work for. I thought that the Reviewer would also see this as a significant issue and take action. He did, with a Disable log, allowing 30 days for the CO to take action.

 

The CO then posted a log to ask watchlisters to contact him if they thought the cache should be worth the effort. With this thread, I'm sure we grew that watchlist. Then, with his pleas to the Athens, GA and greater GA areas, I'm sure word spread in the community.

 

Rather than taking the cache at face value in its guideline infractions, public opinion seems to have overruled the HOA's request that nobody trespass--you must be a homeowner in the HOA to play in that park. Leave alone, again, that the cache was actually placed deep enough in this park to be on private property, with the HOA, with access only via bypassing a No Trespassing sign.

 

And still, because of this cache, we end up with a general public who appears to have no regard for permission or trespass; they all assume the best: that the CO had sufficient permission all along, even though he did not. They also assume that interlopers (even Reviewers and Land Managers not acting under their player accounts) are dilettantes or bloviating know-it-alls who deserve no bother whatsoever. In the end we have a film can on private property, behind a No Trespassing sign, with a cache owner who admitted to not having permission in the first place and deleted logs that called that issue out publicly, where Groundspeak has gotten involved and essentially asked that we just try to ignore the whole issue.

 

A valid NA was logged with backing documentation. HQ deleted the log because of how it looked to the locals to have someone who hasn't visited the site or know the area post a NA log (even if it does have valid information in it, such as links to the discussion and photos of the No Trespassing signs and map of the property lines). We have a Reviewer who was notified of the issue and told that person to pound sand. And all of this for a cache without permission on private property.

 

I still don't understand how the CO got the HOA to provide a blanket permission for Trespass. That would be great info to put on the cache page, or to provide to interested parties who see this situation as a very poorly handled issue where a cache certainly appeared to need to be archived and removed for permission, trespass, and presence on private property.

Edited June 17, 2015 by NeverSummer

[+AustinMN]

I'm not trying to change the subject, but the CO's only other listing has some questionable items as well.

[fendmar]

To be fair, some might consider handcuffs and court dates family fun.

 

Who am I to judge?

[+NeverSummer]

I'm not trying to change the subject, but the CO's only other listing has some questionable items as well.

What is the Georgia DNR stance on geocaching? What about geocaching on sensitive natural sites? Were permissions granted for this, and the other cache in the area?

 

The way it reads to me, the cache listings should be updated to be more clear about permissions, taking care with the fragile landscape, etc. That, and it really doesn't seem like a 55-yard hike off trail and uphill in a sensitive nature area is the best idea.

 

This article for more context.

 

You see, these are the public faces of geocache listings which can be very, very counterproductive to opening doors with land managing agencies for geocaching. Not only is permission or trespass an issue to consider with this cache owner's hides, but also the descriptions of the caches being accurate and helpful enough to keep the caches from becoming an issue.

 

That second cache is located on a Georgia DNR Natural Area, and I can't locate anything on their website or the Georgia Geocaching Association pages to know what the regulations are for GA DNR lands. I did find an old thread where erikl-88r was working on an updated policy with the DNR, but didn't add an update to the end of the thread.

[+cheech gang]

I'm not trying to change the subject, but the CO's only other listing has some questionable items as well.

What is the Georgia DNR stance on geocaching? What about geocaching on sensitive natural sites? Were permissions granted for this, and the other cache in the area?

 

The way it reads to me, the cache listings should be updated to be more clear about permissions, taking care with the fragile landscape, etc. That, and it really doesn't seem like a 55-yard hike off trail and uphill in a sensitive nature area is the best idea.

 

This article for more context.

 

You see, these are the public faces of geocache listings which can be very, very counterproductive to opening doors with land managing agencies for geocaching. Not only is permission or trespass an issue to consider with this cache owner's hides, but also the descriptions of the caches being accurate and helpful enough to keep the caches from becoming an issue.

 

That second cache is located on a Georgia DNR Natural Area, and I can't locate anything on their website or the Georgia Geocaching Association pages to know what the regulations are for GA DNR lands. I did find an old thread where erikl-88r was working on an updated policy with the DNR, but didn't add an update to the end of the thread.

 

The cache page of the other owner in that Georgia DNR cites permission "Permission for this cache placement was obtained from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Nongame and Heritage Trust Section". There is no comment about permission for the one in question.

 

This is the scene at the road to the suggested parking that a couple of finders have questioned..

 

[+NeverSummer]

I'm not trying to change the subject, but the CO's only other listing has some questionable items as well.

What is the Georgia DNR stance on geocaching? What about geocaching on sensitive natural sites? Were permissions granted for this, and the other cache in the area?

 

The way it reads to me, the cache listings should be updated to be more clear about permissions, taking care with the fragile landscape, etc. That, and it really doesn't seem like a 55-yard hike off trail and uphill in a sensitive nature area is the best idea.

 

This article for more context.

 

You see, these are the public faces of geocache listings which can be very, very counterproductive to opening doors with land managing agencies for geocaching. Not only is permission or trespass an issue to consider with this cache owner's hides, but also the descriptions of the caches being accurate and helpful enough to keep the caches from becoming an issue.

 

That second cache is located on a Georgia DNR Natural Area, and I can't locate anything on their website or the Georgia Geocaching Association pages to know what the regulations are for GA DNR lands. I did find an old thread where erikl-88r was working on an updated policy with the DNR, but didn't add an update to the end of the thread.

 

The cache page of the other owner in that Georgia DNR cites permission "Permission for this cache placement was obtained from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Nongame and Heritage Trust Section". There is no comment about permission for the one in question.

 

This is the scene at the road to the suggested parking that a couple of finders have questioned..

 

And I can't even find a single reference to the "Georgia Department of Natural Resources Nongame and Heritage Trust Section" that includes geocaching or policy about geocaching.

 

I struggle to believe that the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Nongame and Heritage Trust department would grant access to an area that has a specialized, endangered plant on the ground where unwary geocachers might trample it. There is even a log that posts a picture of the plant so "people will know what not to step on". But, the cache owner(s) have not posted the picture. So those who hunt, unless they have downloaded or memorized the plant image, will not be aware of what it is they and their Friday Cache Outing are stomping on as they wander off trail along a stream bed habitat.

 

[+jwmoe1973]

I'm not trying to change the subject, but the CO's only other listing has some questionable items as well.

What is the Georgia DNR stance on geocaching? What about geocaching on sensitive natural sites? Were permissions granted for this, and the other cache in the area?

 

The way it reads to me, the cache listings should be updated to be more clear about permissions, taking care with the fragile landscape, etc. That, and it really doesn't seem like a 55-yard hike off trail and uphill in a sensitive nature area is the best idea.

 

This article for more context.

 

You see, these are the public faces of geocache listings which can be very, very counterproductive to opening doors with land managing agencies for geocaching. Not only is permission or trespass an issue to consider with this cache owner's hides, but also the descriptions of the caches being accurate and helpful enough to keep the caches from becoming an issue.

 

That second cache is located on a Georgia DNR Natural Area, and I can't locate anything on their website or the Georgia Geocaching Association pages to know what the regulations are for GA DNR lands. I did find an old thread where erikl-88r was working on an updated policy with the DNR, but didn't add an update to the end of the thread.

 

From the link:

"In many parts of Rock and Shoals, the landscape is nearly bare granite, topped in scattered hollows with a thin layer of soil or transient pools of water.

 

It's a landscape of life both tough and delicate, he said: Plants tough enough to survive the harsh, dry conditions, but delicate enough to be easily hurt by too much human intrusion. Some of the small, delicate flowers here are found in only a handful of other places. But it's not the rare plants that makes Rock and Shoals a special place, it's the unique plant communities, said Canalos and others familiar with the area."

 

I'm troubled by this and rather glad I don't live down that way. CO's like this one are indeed dangerous to our fun past time. Sad that people like that only seem to care about their own perceptions.

Edited June 17, 2015 by jwmoe1973

[Pup Patrol]

Enable Listing

06/17/2015

 

Be respectful of the area and continue to seek this geocache where it has been for 10 years.

 

 

Update Coordinates

07/30/2014

N 33° 54.931 W 083° 20.175

 

Coordinates changed from:

N 33° 54.926 W 083° 20.170

 

Coordinates changed to:

N 33° 54.931 W 083° 20.175

 

Distance from original: 39.6 feet or 12.1 meters.

 

Confirmed the coordinates with Garmin 60CSX and Android phone using c:geo app.

 

Update Coordinates

09/03/2012

N 33° 54.926 W 083° 20.170

 

Coordinates changed from:

N 33° 54.928 W 083° 20.173

 

Coordinates changed to:

N 33° 54.926 W 083° 20.170

 

Distance from original: 19.6 feet or 6 meters.

 

We took some time on Labor Day to do some GeoCache maintenance which was long overdue. The ammo box has been replaced with a small tube and well covered. The big green box was too much temptation and the trail has been well-worn to the old location. Alas there is no room for cache goodies. There is only a log sheet and pencil inside. I appreciate everyone logging Two Ponds and hope the we can keep it there a while longer without further "muggling"

 

B.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Pup Patrol

[+NeverSummer]

Enable Listing

06/17/2015

 

Be respectful of the area and continue to seek this geocache where it has been for 10 years.

 

 

Update Coordinates

07/30/2014

N 33° 54.931 W 083° 20.175

 

Coordinates changed from:

N 33° 54.926 W 083° 20.170

 

Coordinates changed to:

N 33° 54.931 W 083° 20.175

 

Distance from original: 39.6 feet or 12.1 meters.

 

Confirmed the coordinates with Garmin 60CSX and Android phone using c:geo app.

 

Update Coordinates

09/03/2012

N 33° 54.926 W 083° 20.170

 

Coordinates changed from:

N 33° 54.928 W 083° 20.173

 

Coordinates changed to:

N 33° 54.926 W 083° 20.170

 

Distance from original: 19.6 feet or 6 meters.

 

We took some time on Labor Day to do some GeoCache maintenance which was long overdue. The ammo box has been replaced with a small tube and well covered. The big green box was too much temptation and the trail has been well-worn to the old location. Alas there is no room for cache goodies. There is only a log sheet and pencil inside. I appreciate everyone logging Two Ponds and hope the we can keep it there a while longer without further "muggling"

 

B.

So all moves were still on household private property according to the plat map, not HOA property anyway.

 

Do JAMES JIMMIE E & JOANNE G JAMES TRUST know that someone has placed a container on their property for strangers to go look for?

 

It looks like the building (house) was built in 2005. The cache was hidden in 2005. Could it be that the CO didn't have a house on that property before he placed it? Is it also not possible that he was not aware that it was private property when he hid the cache because there was no house or fence to stop him?

 

I am a member of the homeowners association ask you to be considerate of the private property lines.

Except he won't be respectful of the property lines...and neither will the Reviewer or Groundspeak?

 

It would be a really, really good idea to note on the cache page that the cache is on private property, and who gave permission to be there.

Edited June 17, 2015 by NeverSummer

[knowschad]

It would be a really, really good idea to note on the cache page that the cache is on private property, and who gave permission to be there.

 

I am really surprised that the reviewer didn't require that as a condition of re-enabling the cache.

[jholly]

 

So all moves were still on household private property according to the plat map, not HOA property anyway.

 

Do JAMES JIMMIE E & JOANNE G JAMES TRUST know that someone has placed a container on their property for strangers to go look for?

 

It looks like the building (house) was built in 2005. The cache was hidden in 2005. Could it be that the CO didn't have a house on that property before he placed it? Is it also not possible that he was not aware that it was private property when he hid the cache because there was no house or fence to stop him?

 

 

The property in question was owned by the developer in 2005

 

06/15/2006 3111 495 $ 367,068 Fair Market - Improved JLR PROPERTIES INC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

03/30/2004 2625 382 $ 45,000 Fair Market - Vacant ASHTON PLACE PARTNERSHIP JLR PROPERTIES INC

 

The CO bought their house in 1998 in that subdivision. It's quite possible that in 2005 the house on the property in queston did not exist.

[+The A-Team]

...So I emailed LZ33, and got a very terse email back to mind my own business.

You know, this is what I find most distressing about the whole situation. A reviewer refusing to do anything about clearly-documented trespassing situations can do real harm to this game/hobby. I hope GSHQ is fully aware of what's been going on with all involved parties.

[+NeverSummer]

...So I emailed LZ33, and got a very terse email back to mind my own business.

You know, this is what I find most distressing about the whole situation. A reviewer refusing to do anything about clearly-documented trespassing situations can do real harm to this game/hobby. I hope GSHQ is fully aware of what's been going on with all involved parties.

They're aware, but you've seen what the result has been. SMH

[knowschad]

...So I emailed LZ33, and got a very terse email back to mind my own business.

You know, this is what I find most distressing about the whole situation. A reviewer refusing to do anything about clearly-documented trespassing situations can do real harm to this game/hobby. I hope GSHQ is fully aware of what's been going on with all involved parties.

 

I wonder if they have access to this forum...?

[+SwineFlew]

So I emailed LZ33, and got a very terse email back to mind my own business.

Time to take off your gloves and goes the next step... call up the property owner.

 

Now things might get really ugly.

 

I got a story, one time a CO said she got full permission to place a cache on someone property... however, the property owner just happen to be my cousin, so I asked him about it and he said...no, I didnt give anyone permission and I always wonder why people were there. (the reason why I asked him because I know him too well and he isn't a nice guy) The cache got archived really fast.

 

I feel we are to police ourselves if we want to keep our hobby going.

[Keystone]

...So I emailed LZ33, and got a very terse email back to mind my own business.

You know, this is what I find most distressing about the whole situation. A reviewer refusing to do anything about clearly-documented trespassing situations can do real harm to this game/hobby. I hope GSHQ is fully aware of what's been going on with all involved parties.

If it were true as a factual matter, I would agree with your conclusion.

 

Assume for the sake of argument that the email back to Alaska was "terse" and literally said to "mind your own business." From that piece of evidence, one cannot take the logical leap and conclude that nothing else is being done. What about discussions behind the scenes -- in places like Georgia, and Seattle? The proper places and the proper discussions with the proper people.

[+cheech gang]

I am really perplexed by this situation. I can not believe Groundspeak is letting this one slide. There has to be a part of the story that we are not seeing.

[Keystone]

I am really perplexed by this situation. I can not believe Groundspeak is letting this one slide. There has to be a part of the story that we are not seeing.

Correct as usual, my good sir.

[knowschad]

I am making an appeal here for Groundspeak to speak up and let us know what happened behind the scenes here. There is a lot going on here besides a simple permission issue and some of us would love to know why it appears to have been handled so much differently than other caches. I personally have submitted caches for publication that had explicit permission and still had to jump through more hoops than it would appear that this cache owner had to do. Can you do that for us please?

[jholly]

I am making an appeal here for Groundspeak to speak up and let us know what happened behind the scenes here. There is a lot going on here besides a simple permission issue and some of us would love to know why it appears to have been handled so much differently than other caches. I personally have submitted caches for publication that had explicit permission and still had to jump through more hoops than it would appear that this cache owner had to do. Can you do that for us please?

You haven't figured it out yet? LZ33 lives in that house and has a trail cam set up on the cache. Him and AC4SH like to look at the pictures while they BBQ.

[+narcissa]

If Groundspeak and/or a reviewer have confirmed that the cache has adequate permission and the cache has been reactivated with the reviewer's approval, then that's great. No need to keep beating this horse. The forum mob isn't owed a detailed explanation.

 

If the cache owner can't be bothered to detail the specifics of the permission on the cache page, then he/she is the one who has to put up with ongoing suspicion and concerned logs.

[knowschad]

If Groundspeak and/or a reviewer have confirmed that the cache has adequate permission and the cache has been reactivated with the reviewer's approval, then that's great. No need to keep beating this horse. The forum mob isn't owed a detailed explanation.

 

If the cache owner can't be bothered to detail the specifics of the permission on the cache page, then he/she is the one who has to put up with ongoing suspicion and concerned logs.

 

I agree that we are not "owed" an explanation, and I did not demand one.

[+WarNinjas]

I almost posted last night that this one should just be archived after all of this has gone on. Now it is back and active. We all did our part. Now the CO knows of the problem. The reviewer knows and it seem as even GSHQ knows.

I grew up in a HOA place and there would be no way a cache would last a day without security stopping them and asking for there HOA ID. I am guessing it is different at this place and the CO knows it. From what I see only the OP has gone to the location. I think we should all drop it now unless we actually go there and get hassled...then it would be time to bring it back up. Seems as if the OP has already let go of it.

I see the CO is still interested in the hide almost 10 years later and I find that rare. Most wouldn't even be checking up on it that long after.

By the way I have no real interest in this one being active or not as I will never find it but this is just how I am seeing it.

[+redsox_mark]

I am really perplexed by this situation. I can not believe Groundspeak is letting this one slide. There has to be a part of the story that we are not seeing.

Correct as usual, my good sir.

 

And in my view, this is the reason for the guidelines against remote NA logging, and why I was unhappy with this approach from the start. There have been MANY threads on this forum where the posters were "up in arms" about actions (or inactions) of a cache owner and/or reviewer, based on one side of a story. There is often more to the story than we can see.

 

And I can see why a reviewer might respond in a terse way. They have enough to do without justifying their actions to people thousands of miles away who have not visited the cache.