Local Cache in Private Park?

[+on4bam]

The story so far:

Newbie has doubts about a cache and asks "the public" about what to do.

Posse forms to hunt down the CO to "hang 'm high.

Judge and jury verdict after "trial".. Not guilty

Posse disappointed and still wants to hunt down CO to "hang 'm high"

 

Since the cache is enabled again it must be clear there's no problem (anymore). Time to let go and find another target, I'm sure you guys will be able to find a few more (maybe scrutinize your own caches )

[knowschad]

The story so far:

Newbie has doubts about a cache and asks "the public" about what to do.

Posse forms to hunt down the CO to "hang 'm high.

Judge and jury verdict after "trial".. Not guilty

Posse disappointed and still wants to hunt down CO to "hang 'm high"

 

Since the cache is enabled again it must be clear there's no problem (anymore). Time to let go and find another target, I'm sure you guys will be able to find a few more (maybe scrutinize your own caches )

 

The story so far:

Intelligent new geocacher questions a No Trespassing sign on route to a geocache and posts a message to the Geocaching Topics forum

Forum members and the OP do the research and learn that the cache is, indeed, hidden on private property without permission

One forum member posts a NA log to notify the reviewer

Reviewer posts a 30 day warning to the cache

After some weeks pass, the cache is re-enabled, apparently indicating that sufficient permission has been obtained after 10 years without it

 

Since the cache is enabled again it must be assumed that the process worked.

 

Thank you for your cynicism.

[+LaughterOnWater]

...After some weeks pass, the cache is re-enabled, apparently indicating that sufficient permission has been obtained after 10 years without it

 

Since the cache is enabled again it must be assumed that the process worked.

...

I saw! Isn't that great? I'm so glad he was able to get it through review. I wasn't able to find the cache, but it really is a beautiful place. I'm looking forward to attempting it again soon.

 

Thank you, AC4SH !

 

Chris

[+Ben0w]

A definite note from the reviewer about insignificance of the "no trespassing" signs would surely calm down things. At the moment there are a lot of things still left open for discussion.

 

Interesting is, that from the cited knowledge book article (see several posts ago) a cache can't be NA'd just for guideline violation (i.e. being buried) - read the article, a lot about permission and condition, nothing about guidelines.

 

No wonder land managers don't trust geocaching as a whole. This and the choosen information politics including terse answers/actions from reviewers/HQ are poor performance in my view.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The story so far:

Newbie has doubts about a cache and asks "the public" about what to do.

Posse forms to hunt down the CO to "hang 'm high.

Judge and jury verdict after "trial".. Not guilty

Posse disappointed and still wants to hunt down CO to "hang 'm high"

 

Since the cache is enabled again it must be clear there's no problem (anymore). Time to let go and find another target, I'm sure you guys will be able to find a few more (maybe scrutinize your own caches )

 

The story so far:

Intelligent new geocacher questions a No Trespassing sign on route to a geocache and posts a message to the Geocaching Topics forum

Forum members and the OP do the research and learn that the cache is, indeed, hidden on private property without permission

One forum member posts a NA log to notify the reviewer

Reviewer posts a 30 day warning to the cache

After some weeks pass, the cache is re-enabled, apparently indicating that sufficient permission has been obtained after 10 years without it

 

Since the cache is enabled again it must be assumed that the process worked.

 

Thank you for your cynicism.

 

There is an important chapter in the story so far. The forum member that posted the NA is a land manager associated with almost 4 million acres of land, and that forum member/land manager has expressed concern that the process has allowed a cache which was posted on private property without permission to remain active.

 

Hopefully there won't an epilogue to the story which informs us that millions of acres of property are not off limit to geocaching due to outcome of the process or one where a geocacher is arrested for trespassing because they can't provide an evidence to a LEO that they have permission to be on private property posted with a no trespassing sign.

 

 

 

[Pup Patrol]

I wonder if the CO will continue to delete logs that mention the "no trespassing" signs, or express concerns about private property?

 

A note on the cache page from the Reviewer would go along way toward clearing up a lot of issues/questions.

 

No note about "adequate" permission was added to the cache page?

 

 

B.

[+Ben0w]

Now I know what's meant with "Groundspeak"!!!

[Pup Patrol]

Now I know what's meant with "Groundspeak"!!!

 

That's good!

 

And here I thought someone was going to tag me about the "no burying" guideline!

 

B.

[fendmar]

If this isn't already obvious to everyone, I have to bring up that in signing the paper logs and logging online you're leaving a trail of evidence straight to your front door of possible illegal activities that could be used to prosecute you in a court of law.

 

[+NeverSummer]

Hello!

I would like to bring to your attention a cache (http://coord.info/GCQJAW) that is on private property, and with some other issues as noted on the forum thread found here: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=332390&st=0

The owner has admitted that they do not have permission, and the cache has been found to be on private property (HOA/private trust) with clear "No Tresspassing" signs present.

 

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

NeverSummer

You can post a needs archive note on the listing if you would like for me to investigate. When I look at the cache page, it states how to get to the cache without going onto private property and also states he has permission.

Thanks, X

 

(So, he welcomed a NA from thousands of miles away, even though Groundspeak HQ requests that we don't.)

 

Thanks for getting back to me.

The cache page states some ways in, but the forum topic about the cache has a number of issues included in it. Not least of which is that the cache owner admitted to not having permission in the first place from the HOA.

 

The entrance(s) to the cache area are marked with "No Trespassing" signs, according to investigations by the OP on the forums, and other investigations:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=332390&view=findpost&p=5509306

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=332390&view=findpost&p=5509309

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=332390&view=findpost&p=5509320

 

Cascade Reviewer also uncovered "probems with the cache, but the logs have been deleted": http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=332390&view=findpost&p=5509434

 

User LaughterOnWater is new, and he is the one who asked what he should do. He's afraid to log a NA because "it might burn bridges". We have urged him to log the NA or contact the reviewer. Sadly, the Reviewer listed is Erik88l-r, who no longer reviews, so LaughterOnWater gave up there without a NA log.

Is it not enough to have this information, as well as the context of the forum topic to take action without a NA log from a user 3500 miles away when the user 5 miles away is afraid to log a NA?

Thanks for your input and time.

Sincerely,

 

Hi,

I'm sorry, if your [sic] 3500 miles away, why is this issue of concern for you and why are you pushing me to do something?

Unless there is something from HQ, or a NA log, I don't investigate listings, specially listings I didn't published.

Thanks, X

 

X, I'm not pushing, I'm asking.

I'm surprised this is your attitude; I've never encountered a Reviewer who has responded to a concern like this with that kind of thought process. I've generally met Reviewers who appreciate getting this kind of feedback from users if a cache is in violation of the guidelines.

 

I'll report straight away if that's what it takes.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

 

I then reported via NA the cache in question via my Land Manager account. This is because it is far more pertinent at "3500 miles away" for the lands I help manage for geocaching activities to be observing these trespass and permission issues. The NA was welcomed by the Reviewer if he was going to take action--even when presented with evidence that there was a clear fundamental guideline violation.

 

This issue still reeks from the lack of clarity, lack of overt action, and the experience of reporting a cache which has clear trespass and permission issues. These issues are not resolved, and certainly do not bode well for how the process will be shared with land managing peers.

[Pup Patrol]

If this isn't already obvious to everyone, I have to bring up that in signing the paper logs and logging online you're leaving a trail of evidence straight to your front door of possible illegal activities that could be used to prosecute you in a court of law.

 

 

How?

 

B.

[fendmar]

If this isn't already obvious to everyone, I have to bring up that in signing the paper logs and logging online you're leaving a trail of evidence straight to your front door of possible illegal activities that could be used to prosecute you in a court of law.

 

 

How?

 

B.

How aren't you?

[+narcissa]

This issue would have been resolved so simply if the actual cacher who encountered the sign had just logged N/A in the first place.

 

Instead, some aggressive geocachers have created this "don't be a cache cop" culture that makes others fearful of retaliation for reporting glaring issues that make the game look terrible.

[+NeverSummer]

This issue would have been resolved so simply if the actual first cacher who encountered the sign in 2005 had just logged N/A in the first place.

 

Instead, some aggressive geocachers have created this "don't be a cache cop" culture that makes others fearful of retaliation for reporting glaring issues that make the game look terrible.

Fixed that for ya

Edited June 18, 2015 by NeverSummer

[+AustinMN]

This issue would have been resolved so simply if the actual first any cacher who encountered the sign in 2005 at any time during or since 2005 had just logged N/A in the first place.

 

Instead, some aggressive geocachers have created this "don't be a cache cop" culture that makes others fearful of retaliation for reporting glaring issues that make the game look terrible.

Fixed that for ya

 

Fixed that for ya

[+cheech gang]

Hello!

I would like to bring to your attention a cache (http://coord.info/GCQJAW) that is on private property, and with some other issues as noted on the forum thread found here: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=332390&st=0

The owner has admitted that they do not have permission, and the cache has been found to be on private property (HOA/private trust) with clear "No Tresspassing" signs present.

 

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

NeverSummer

You can post a needs archive note on the listing if you would like for me to investigate. When I look at the cache page, it states how to get to the cache without going onto private property and also states he has permission.

Thanks, X

 

(So, he welcomed a NA from thousands of miles away, even though Groundspeak HQ requests that we don't.)

 

Thanks for getting back to me.

The cache page states some ways in, but the forum topic about the cache has a number of issues included in it. Not least of which is that the cache owner admitted to not having permission in the first place from the HOA.

 

The entrance(s) to the cache area are marked with "No Trespassing" signs, according to investigations by the OP on the forums, and other investigations:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=332390&view=findpost&p=5509306

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=332390&view=findpost&p=5509309

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=332390&view=findpost&p=5509320

 

Cascade Reviewer also uncovered "probems with the cache, but the logs have been deleted": http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=332390&view=findpost&p=5509434

 

User LaughterOnWater is new, and he is the one who asked what he should do. He's afraid to log a NA because "it might burn bridges". We have urged him to log the NA or contact the reviewer. Sadly, the Reviewer listed is Erik88l-r, who no longer reviews, so LaughterOnWater gave up there without a NA log.

Is it not enough to have this information, as well as the context of the forum topic to take action without a NA log from a user 3500 miles away when the user 5 miles away is afraid to log a NA?

Thanks for your input and time.

Sincerely,

 

Hi,

I'm sorry, if your [sic] 3500 miles away, why is this issue of concern for you and why are you pushing me to do something?

Unless there is something from HQ, or a NA log, I don't investigate listings, specially listings I didn't published.

Thanks, X

 

X, I'm not pushing, I'm asking.

I'm surprised this is your attitude; I've never encountered a Reviewer who has responded to a concern like this with that kind of thought process. I've generally met Reviewers who appreciate getting this kind of feedback from users if a cache is in violation of the guidelines.

 

I'll report straight away if that's what it takes.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

 

I then reported via NA the cache in question via my Land Manager account. This is because it is far more pertinent at "3500 miles away" for the lands I help manage for geocaching activities to be observing these trespass and permission issues. The NA was welcomed by the Reviewer if he was going to take action--even when presented with evidence that there was a clear fundamental guideline violation.

 

This issue still reeks from the lack of clarity, lack of overt action, and the experience of reporting a cache which has clear trespass and permission issues. These issues are not resolved, and certainly do not bode well for how the process will be shared with land managing peers.

 

Wow! Just wow.

[+NeverSummer]

This issue would have been resolved so simply if the actual first any cacher who encountered the sign in 2005 at any time during or since 2005 had just logged N/A in the first place.

 

Instead, some aggressive geocachers have created this "don't be a cache cop" culture that makes others fearful of retaliation for reporting glaring issues that make the game look terrible.

Fixed that for ya

 

Fixed that for ya

+1, and all that jazz

[+The A-Team]

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.

Granted. It turns out the messages sent by the reviewer had nothing to do with any behind-the-scenes investigations anyway. It hadn't even gotten to that stage yet.

 

Now, the reviewer said that they do not investigate listings without an NA or direction from GSHQ. This seems to leave a gap (notification via PM, direct email, Facebook, forums, etc.) where potentially-problem caches could go uninvestigated simply due to the method of communication. Can you clarify whether reviewers have been directed to investigate problems reported to them via any means, or only via NA or GSHQ direction? Are reviewers that investigate listings after being notified via other means doing it voluntarily and going above-and-beyond? There have been instances in the past where a reviewer has seen information in a forum discussion and passed it on to a fellow reviewer in the relevant area, but are reviewers required to do such a thing?

 

An analogy I can think of would be a fire department that refuses to respond to fires unless someone calls 911. It doesn't matter if they can see the fire across the street or someone mistakenly calls them on the non-emergency number, they won't do anything until that 911 call is received. I think we can all agree that such a scenario would not be in the best interests of the general public.

 

Edit to clarify: I'd like to state that I am not attempting to vilify or otherwise attack the actions of the reviewer in question. I'm simply trying to learn more about the duties of the reviewers in general. For all I know, that reviewer is doing exactly what they've been directed to do.

Edited June 18, 2015 by The A-Team

[+NeverSummer]

...After some weeks pass, the cache is re-enabled, apparently indicating that sufficient permission has been obtained after 10 years without it

 

Since the cache is enabled again it must be assumed that the process worked.

...

I saw! Isn't that great? I'm so glad he was able to get it through review. I wasn't able to find the cache, but it really is a beautiful place. I'm looking forward to attempting it again soon.

 

Thank you, AC4SH !

 

Chris

So AC4SH got permission from the HOA for general access for non-HOA members, and he also obtained permission from the private property owners upon whose land this cache is hidden?

 

I'd love to hear how that happened, and to see something more publicly stated. Sure would make for a better taste in my mouth when I advise on land management and geocaching issues. (Especially as the only contact information I can find for the HOA is a PO box at the UPS Store in town...)

Edited June 18, 2015 by NeverSummer

[+The A-Team]

So AC4SH got permission from the HOA for general access for non-HOA members, and he also obtained permission from the private property owners upon whose land this cache is hidden?

So far, we, the general public, have not been presented with any evidence of what has happened. There is no evidence that permission has been obtained or that the cache's status is any different than it was before this all happened.

[+NanCycle]

...After some weeks pass, the cache is re-enabled, apparently indicating that sufficient permission has been obtained after 10 years without it

 

Since the cache is enabled again it must be assumed that the process worked.

...

I saw! Isn't that great? I'm so glad he was able to get it through review. I wasn't able to find the cache, but it really is a beautiful place. I'm looking forward to attempting it again soon.

 

Thank you, AC4SH !

 

Chris

 

Am I the only one who reads this as sarcasm?

[Rock Chalk]

This thread is over.