Spotted this article on damage to a historic site.

3.6k · September 27, 2015

Why caches should be allowed on historic sites.

http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2015/09/27/roman-ruins-in-cadiz-at-risk-from-geocaching/

I removed my cache from an old building because cachers were removing stone parts to the structure. Then I saw the EBRP rules stating not allowed on any buildings. This should maybe in GC rules too.

Edited September 27, 2015 by jellis

1.5k · September 27, 2015

Geocaches are not placed in restricted, prohibited or otherwise inappropriate locations. Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region may further restrict cache placement. A cache may be disabled or archived if one or more of the following is true. Please note that the list is not exhaustive; there are many reasons why a cache may be disabled or archived.

1....

2. The placement is in an area that is highly sensitive to additional foot and/or vehicular traffic including, but not limited to, archaeological sites, historical sites and cemeteries. Note that some cemeteries permit cache placement.

3.....

7.5k · September 27, 2015

I wonder which geocache is causing the damage. The closest I see is the earthcache.

https://www.geocaching.com/play/search/@36.089722,-5.774722?origin=36.089722,-5.774722

September 27, 2015

I think it's this one: Baleo Claudia. Conociendo Andalucia , it's archived now, maybe there were more.

5.9k · September 27, 2015

I wonder which geocache is causing the damage.

I guess was this one Baleo Claudia. Conociendo Andalucia.

September 27, 2015

Geocaches are not placed in restricted, prohibited or otherwise inappropriate locations. Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region may further restrict cache placement. A cache may be disabled or archived if one or more of the following is true. Please note that the list is not exhaustive; there are many reasons why a cache may be disabled or archived.

1....

2. The placement is in an area that is highly sensitive to additional foot and/or vehicular traffic including, but not limited to, archaeological sites, historical sites and cemeteries. Note that some cemeteries permit cache placement.

3.....

So apparently it should have never been published...

4.8k · September 27, 2015

Geocaches are not placed in restricted, prohibited or otherwise inappropriate locations. Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region may further restrict cache placement. A cache may be disabled or archived if one or more of the following is true. Please note that the list is not exhaustive; there are many reasons why a cache may be disabled or archived.

1....

2. The placement is in an area that is highly sensitive to additional foot and/or vehicular traffic including, but not limited to, archaeological sites, historical sites and cemeteries. Note that some cemeteries permit cache placement.

3.....

So apparently it should have never been published...

No, it should never have been submitted.

5.7k · September 27, 2015

Geocaches are not placed in restricted, prohibited or otherwise inappropriate locations. Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region may further restrict cache placement. A cache may be disabled or archived if one or more of the following is true. Please note that the list is not exhaustive; there are many reasons why a cache may be disabled or archived.

1....

2. The placement is in an area that is highly sensitive to additional foot and/or vehicular traffic including, but not limited to, archaeological sites, historical sites and cemeteries. Note that some cemeteries permit cache placement.

3.....

Most of us are aware of those guidelines, but I have found several geocaches in questionable locations myself.

Say for example in cemeterys in Tennessee where geocaching is illegal. GS uses the term "Grandfathered" on existing ones that slipped under their radar before they were made aware of the Law. They are still illegal cache placements according to Tennessee Sttate Law.

4.8k · September 27, 2015

Geocaches are not placed in restricted, prohibited or otherwise inappropriate locations. Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region may further restrict cache placement. A cache may be disabled or archived if one or more of the following is true. Please note that the list is not exhaustive; there are many reasons why a cache may be disabled or archived.

1....

2. The placement is in an area that is highly sensitive to additional foot and/or vehicular traffic including, but not limited to, archaeological sites, historical sites and cemeteries. Note that some cemeteries permit cache placement.

3.....

Most of us are aware of those guidelines, but I have found several geocaches in questionable locations myself.

Say for example in cemeterys in Tennessee where geocaching is illegal. GS uses the term "Grandfathered" on existing ones that slipped under their radar before they were made aware of the Law. They are still illegal cache placements according to Tennessee Sttate Law.

I completely understand. It takes a special person to stand up for what's right and post an NA log.

5.7k · September 27, 2015

Geocaches are not placed in restricted, prohibited or otherwise inappropriate locations. Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region may further restrict cache placement. A cache may be disabled or archived if one or more of the following is true. Please note that the list is not exhaustive; there are many reasons why a cache may be disabled or archived.

1....

2. The placement is in an area that is highly sensitive to additional foot and/or vehicular traffic including, but not limited to, archaeological sites, historical sites and cemeteries. Note that some cemeteries permit cache placement.

3.....

Most of us are aware of those guidelines, but I have found several geocaches in questionable locations myself.

Say for example in cemeterys in Tennessee where geocaching is illegal. GS uses the term "Grandfathered" on existing ones that slipped under their radar before they were made aware of the Law. They are still illegal cache placements according to Tennessee Sttate Law.

I completely understand. It takes a special person to stand up for what's right and post an NA log.

Yes, I agree. But unless it's against Groundspeak's guideline it will not be archived. State Laws mean nothing, and that just ain't right. It's still illegal for the cache seeker to play a game of amusement in a cemetery in the State of Tennessee. South Carolina has a similar Law, and I'm not sure if there are any cemetery hides left in the State or they were all archived like the ones here in Virginia on VDOT property.

Edited September 27, 2015 by Manville Possum Hunters

4.8k · September 27, 2015

State Laws mean nothing, ...

That's the first I've heard of that.

2k · September 27, 2015

Whenever we see a cache in a dry stone wall or within an ancient monumet we post a NA. Those caches always lead to damage from other cachers. What's wring with doing the same if you encounter such cache?

5.7k · September 28, 2015

State Laws mean nothing, ...

That's the first I've heard of that.

There are several threads here on the subject.

15.3k · September 28, 2015

State Laws mean nothing

All local laws and documented land management policies apply.

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

Edited September 28, 2015 by niraD

4.8k · September 28, 2015

State Laws mean nothing, ...

That's the first I've heard of that.

There are several threads here on the subject.

Doesn't make it true to make a blanket statement of that nature. I'll wager that it's true in such an insignificant numer of times, in the bigger scheme of things, that it barely raises to the level of anecdotal.

5.7k · September 28, 2015

State Laws mean nothing, ...

That's the first I've heard of that.

There are several threads here on the subject.

Doesn't make it true to make a blanket statement of that nature. I'll wager that it's true in such an insignificant numer of times, in the bigger scheme of things, that it barely raises to the level of anecdotal.

How much are we wagering?

Take a look at this petition.

You can look for yourself on any of the reviewers for the State of Tennessee home page here that no new caches will be accepted within 1/10th of a mile in proxcimity of a cemetery within the State.

September 28, 2015

State Laws mean nothing,

Just try to get a cache approved in a Minnesota WMA. You will find out if state laws mean nothing.

3.7k · September 28, 2015

Geocaches are not placed in restricted, prohibited or otherwise inappropriate locations. Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region may further restrict cache placement. A cache may be disabled or archived if one or more of the following is true. Please note that the list is not exhaustive; there are many reasons why a cache may be disabled or archived.

1....

2. The placement is in an area that is highly sensitive to additional foot and/or vehicular traffic including, but not limited to, archaeological sites, historical sites and cemeteries. Note that some cemeteries permit cache placement.

3.....

Most of us are aware of those guidelines, but I have found several geocaches in questionable locations myself.

Say for example in cemeterys in Tennessee where geocaching is illegal. GS uses the term "Grandfathered" on existing ones that slipped under their radar before they were made aware of the Law. They are still illegal cache placements according to Tennessee Sttate Law.

I completely understand. It takes a special person to stand up for what's right and post an NA log.

Yes, I agree. But unless it's against Groundspeak's guideline it will not be archived. State Laws mean nothing, and that just ain't right. It's still illegal for the cache seeker to play a game of amusement in a cemetery in the State of Tennessee. South Carolina has a similar Law, and I'm not sure if there are any cemetery hides left in the State or they were all archived like the ones here in Virginia on VDOT property.

I disagree. I don't think it takes a "special person". It should be something we ALL are willing to do.

Geocaches are not allowed in cemeteries in Georgia, either (though I think they allow for them if the property owner/manager expressly allows it).

7.5k · September 28, 2015

I wonder which geocache is causing the damage.

I guess was this one Baleo Claudia. Conociendo Andalucia.

Thanks. I see that it was archived on the 21st. A speedy response from the cache owner. Yet the article was published on the 27th. Sad but typical of news articles. It's more interesting to bash an activity then report that the cache was quickly archived when the cache owner was contacted.

Goes to show the importance of having active responsible owners.

And shows the importance of building a community that reports possible issues that an owner may not have realized, examples -- stone walls that could end up dismantled by geocachers (or it could look that way even though harm was not done by geocachers); a cache placed, unbeknownst to the cache owner, in an area with protected or fragile plants; a cache placed too close to nesting sites, etc.

5.7k · September 28, 2015

State Laws mean nothing,

Just try to get a cache approved in a Minnesota WMA. You will find out if state laws mean nothing.

Let's use the whole quote of "But unless it's against Groundspeak's guideline it will not be archived. State Laws mean nothing, and that just ain't right." and not just part of it to make it appear out of context. <_<

Edited September 28, 2015 by Manville Possum Hunters

September 28, 2015

State Laws mean nothing,

Just try to get a cache approved in a Minnesota WMA. You will find out if state laws mean nothing.

Let's use the whole quote of "But unless it's against Groundspeak's guideline it will not be archived. State Laws mean nothing, and that just ain't right." and not just part of it to make it appear out of context.

The meaning changes not one wit.

2k · September 28, 2015

State Laws mean nothing,

Just try to get a cache approved in a Minnesota WMA. You will find out if state laws mean nothing.

Let's use the whole quote of "But unless it's against Groundspeak's guideline it will not be archived. State Laws mean nothing, and that just ain't right." and not just part of it to make it appear out of context.

Let's keep it in context and assume you are speaking only to archival of caches. Ground$peak has archived geocaches before when state law changed and it was brought to their attention. So yes, state laws do mean something.

5.7k · September 28, 2015

State Laws mean nothing,

Just try to get a cache approved in a Minnesota WMA. You will find out if state laws mean nothing.

Let's use the whole quote of "But unless it's against Groundspeak's guideline it will not be archived. State Laws mean nothing, and that just ain't right." and not just part of it to make it appear out of context.

Let's keep it in context and assume you are speaking only to archival of caches. Ground$peak has archived geocaches before when state law changed and it was brought to their attention. So yes, state laws do mean something.

Yes, archival of caches is what I'm talking about. Groundspeak used to publish geocache listings in cemeterys in Tennessee, then when they found out it is against State LLaw to do so they no longer publish any new ones within 1/10th of a mile in proxcimity of a cemetery. So what I am talking about is the use of the term "grandfathered" by Groundspeak on all of the ones published before they were made aware of the Law.

What I am saying is if they are not legal, Groundspeak should have archived them in respect of the State Law. It's illegal for the cache seeker to play a game of amusement in the cemetery, but yet they are published here, so let the players beware because it's a felony.

5.7k · September 28, 2015

State Laws mean nothing,

Just try to get a cache approved in a Minnesota WMA. You will find out if state laws mean nothing.

Let's use the whole quote of "But unless it's against Groundspeak's guideline it will not be archived. State Laws mean nothing, and that just ain't right." and not just part of it to make it appear out of context.

The meaning changes not one wit.

Groundspeak should respect the same Law that we in Tennessee abide by.

If it's illegal to place or seek a geocache in a cemetery then they should not be listed on a geocache listing service.

38.2k · September 28, 2015

State Laws mean nothing,

Just try to get a cache approved in a Minnesota WMA. You will find out if state laws mean nothing.

Let's use the whole quote of "But unless it's against Groundspeak's guideline it will not be archived. State Laws mean nothing, and that just ain't right." and not just part of it to make it appear out of context.

#1 of the Fundamental Placement Guidelines "All local laws and documented land management policies apply." So if there is a state, or any law, it means a lot. It means that if it is against the law, it violates the guidelines.

September 28, 2015

State Laws mean nothing,

Just try to get a cache approved in a Minnesota WMA. You will find out if state laws mean nothing.

Let's use the whole quote of "But unless it's against Groundspeak's guideline it will not be archived. State Laws mean nothing, and that just ain't right." and not just part of it to make it appear out of context.

Let's keep it in context and assume you are speaking only to archival of caches. Ground$peak has archived geocaches before when state law changed and it was brought to their attention. So yes, state laws do mean something.

Do you really think they have some magic method for knowing the boundaries of every cemetery in Tennessee?

When brough to their attention, they get archived.

5.7k · September 28, 2015

State Laws mean nothing,

Just try to get a cache approved in a Minnesota WMA. You will find out if state laws mean nothing.

Let's use the whole quote of "But unless it's against Groundspeak's guideline it will not be archived. State Laws mean nothing, and that just ain't right." and not just part of it to make it appear out of context.

Let's keep it in context and assume you are speaking only to archival of caches. Ground$peak has archived geocaches before when state law changed and it was brought to their attention. So yes, state laws do mean something.

Do you really think they have some magic method for knowing the boundaries of every cemetery in Tennessee?

When brough to their attention, they get archived.

Yes, they do have a method of knowing cemetery boundrys, and no they don't get archived when brought to their attention. I have reported a few in historic cemeterys myself that are in violation.

5.7k · September 28, 2015

State Laws mean nothing,

Just try to get a cache approved in a Minnesota WMA. You will find out if state laws mean nothing.

Let's use the whole quote of "But unless it's against Groundspeak's guideline it will not be archived. State Laws mean nothing, and that just ain't right." and not just part of it to make it appear out of context.

#1 of the Fundamental Placement Guidelines "All local laws and documented land management policies apply." So if there is a state, or any law, it means a lot. It means that if it is against the law, it violates the guidelines.

I agree, and I understand that. What I don't understand is why Groundspeak did not archive cemetery caches in Tennessee when they became aware and no longer publish listings within 1/10th of a mile from a cemetery. The Law was on the books already when the old ones were published. That is what I don't understand. I really enjoy visiting these old historic cemeterys and I enjoy geocaching. I'm even concerned about Waymarking because of Tennessee cemetery Laws because it is a felony to play a game of amusement in a cemetery according to the State Law.

3.7k · September 28, 2015

I'm even concerned about Waymarking because of Tennessee cemetery Laws because it is a felony to play a game of amusement in a cemetery according to the State Law.

Seems like there's a very wide, very hazy line between "game of amusement" and "educational/informative tour" though.

7.8k · September 28, 2015

I have reported a few in historic cemeterys myself that are in violation.

Can you give us an example?

Yes, they do have a method of knowing cemetery boundrys...

...or show us the tool that can be used to identify all Tennessee cemeteries?

5.7k · September 28, 2015

I have reported a few in historic cemeterys myself that are in violation.

Can you give us an example?

Yes, they do have a method of knowing cemetery boundrys...

...or show us the tool that can be used to identify all Tennessee cemeteries?

I use google earth when reviewing Waymarks, normally it's easy to tell a cemetery on the map.

And no, I'm not posting an example of a geocache in a historic cemetery in Tennessee here in the forums or posting NA on the cache page.

Once upon a time I communicated with the reviewer privatly about a existing cache.

I may be willing to share with you privately, but not publicly some examples, but you are not close to Tennessee and I am so we need to establish the fact that it would highly PO the community by posting NA on their listings that they already know fails to meet currant guidelines.

14k · September 28, 2015

State Laws mean nothing,

Just try to get a cache approved in a Minnesota WMA. You will find out if state laws mean nothing.

Let's use the whole quote of "But unless it's against Groundspeak's guideline it will not be archived. State Laws mean nothing, and that just ain't right." and not just part of it to make it appear out of context.

The meaning changes not one wit.

Groundspeak should respect the same Law that we in Tennessee abide by.

If it's illegal to place or seek a geocache in a cemetery then they should not be listed on a geocache listing service.

Groundspeak hasn't placed any caches in Tennessee. Geocachers have done so, then indicated that the cache complied with all guidelines (first and foremost, not breaking any laws) when the listing was submitted.

I found cache in a stone wall very close to a historical site (Arche de Constantine, 305AD) and was seen doing so by a plain clothed policeman. After being questioned about it for 15 minutes I was able to go on my way and they replaced the cache themselves. It's been found many times since I found it in July, including by a couple of others that were questioned by the police.

3.5k · September 28, 2015

And no, I'm not posting an example of a geocache in a historic cemetery in Tennessee here in the forums or posting NA on the cache page.

Once upon a time I communicated with the reviewer privatly about a existing cache.

I may be willing to share with you privately, but not publicly some examples, but you are not close to Tennessee and I am so we need to establish the fact that it would highly PO the community by posting NA on their listings that they already know fails to meet currant guidelines.

And herein lies the problem. If the caching community is unwilling to report caches (via an NA log) that are in violation of state laws, then what action do you expect? Sounds like you expect the volunteer reviewers in Tennessee to scroll through the map and look for any geocaches that are within cemetery grounds? Really?! Cache seekers need to play a role and take some responsibility for their own hobby/sport. If they see caches that will likely reflect poorly on their hobby/sport, then do something about it. Much more effective that ranting about it on a website.

7.8k · September 28, 2015

I use google earth when reviewing Waymarks, normally it's easy to tell a cemetery on the map.

I highly doubt anyone at Groundspeak HQ would be tasked with checking caches one-by-one against satellite imagery to locate cemetery caches. Your original comment seemed to imply that the boundary data might be available (which could be used to automate such a search), but this doesn't seem to be the case.

...it would highly PO the community by posting NA on their listings that they already know fails to meet currant guidelines.

That sounds like a caching community I'd give a wide berth. Any community that fails to use the NA log for its intended purpose, or gets up-in-arms when it's validly-used, is one that makes the whole game look bad.

Nuts, I just remembered I'm likely going to be in Tennessee next summer. Well, I'll just have to try to avoid the cemeteries! :laughing:

5.7k · September 28, 2015

And no, I'm not posting an example of a geocache in a historic cemetery in Tennessee here in the forums or posting NA on the cache page.

Once upon a time I communicated with the reviewer privatly about a existing cache.

I may be willing to share with you privately, but not publicly some examples, but you are not close to Tennessee and I am so we need to establish the fact that it would highly PO the community by posting NA on their listings that they already know fails to meet currant guidelines.

And herein lies the problem. If the caching community is unwilling to report caches (via an NA log) that are in violation of state laws, then what action do you expect? Sounds like you expect the volunteer reviewers in Tennessee to scroll through the map and look for any geocaches that are within cemetery grounds? Really?! Cache seekers need to play a role and take some responsibility for their own hobby/sport. If they see caches that will likely reflect poorly on their hobby/sport, then do something about it. Much more effective that ranting about it on a website.

What part of "I communicated with the reviewer privatly" do you not understand? :unsure:

5.7k · September 28, 2015

Nuts, I just remembered I'm likely going to be in Tennessee next summer.

If you are close, maybe we can get together and do some geocaching and Waymarking. :anibad:

3.5k · September 28, 2015

And no, I'm not posting an example of a geocache in a historic cemetery in Tennessee here in the forums or posting NA on the cache page.

Once upon a time I communicated with the reviewer privatly about a existing cache.

I may be willing to share with you privately, but not publicly some examples, but you are not close to Tennessee and I am so we need to establish the fact that it would highly PO the community by posting NA on their listings that they already know fails to meet currant guidelines.

And herein lies the problem. If the caching community is unwilling to report caches (via an NA log) that are in violation of state laws, then what action do you expect? Sounds like you expect the volunteer reviewers in Tennessee to scroll through the map and look for any geocaches that are within cemetery grounds? Really?! Cache seekers need to play a role and take some responsibility for their own hobby/sport. If they see caches that will likely reflect poorly on their hobby/sport, then do something about it. Much more effective that ranting about it on a website.

What part of "I communicated with the reviewer privatly" do you not understand?

I understand all of it just fine. What part of the NA log option do you not understand?

Just because "Once upon a time" you communicated your concerns to a reviewer, then that doesn't mean that Groundspeak blatantly ignores state laws...which is what the bulk of your comments imply.

In another post you said "I have reported a few in historic cemeterys myself that are in violation." Did you report these caches to current Reviewers? Did you report it directly to Groundspeak via their established process for reporting geocaches in unsuitable (ie, illegal) locations? Or did you simply send an email to a random email alias without enough specific details to allow the recipient to understand and act upon it?

5.7k · September 28, 2015

And no, I'm not posting an example of a geocache in a historic cemetery in Tennessee here in the forums or posting NA on the cache page.

Once upon a time I communicated with the reviewer privatly about a existing cache.

I may be willing to share with you privately, but not publicly some examples, but you are not close to Tennessee and I am so we need to establish the fact that it would highly PO the community by posting NA on their listings that they already know fails to meet currant guidelines.

And herein lies the problem. If the caching community is unwilling to report caches (via an NA log) that are in violation of state laws, then what action do you expect? Sounds like you expect the volunteer reviewers in Tennessee to scroll through the map and look for any geocaches that are within cemetery grounds? Really?! Cache seekers need to play a role and take some responsibility for their own hobby/sport. If they see caches that will likely reflect poorly on their hobby/sport, then do something about it. Much more effective that ranting about it on a website.

What part of "I communicated with the reviewer privatly" do you not understand?

I understand all of it just fine. What part of the NA log option do you not understand?

Just because "Once upon a time" you communicated your concerns to a reviewer, then that doesn't mean that Groundspeak blatantly ignores state laws...which is what the bulk of your comments imply.

In another post you said "I have reported a few in historic cemeterys myself that are in violation." Did you report these caches to current Reviewers? Did you report it directly to Groundspeak via their established process for reporting geocaches in unsuitable (ie, illegal) locations? Or did you simply send an email to a random email alias without enough specific details to allow the recipient to understand and act upon it?

Yes, I communicated with the current reviewer that had published the listing. :anitongue:

7.8k · September 28, 2015

What part of "I communicated with the reviewer privatly" do you not understand?

What was their response? You seem to have failed to give us that information throughout this discussion. Did they really tell you that they know it's illegal but refused to archive it?

Honestly, if you just man up and post an NA on one of these problem, illegal caches, I expect it would be archived within an hour or two at most.

5.7k · September 28, 2015

What part of "I communicated with the reviewer privatly" do you not understand?

What was their response?

No response at all.

3.5k · September 28, 2015

And no, I'm not posting an example of a geocache in a historic cemetery in Tennessee here in the forums or posting NA on the cache page.

Once upon a time I communicated with the reviewer privatly about a existing cache.

I may be willing to share with you privately, but not publicly some examples, but you are not close to Tennessee and I am so we need to establish the fact that it would highly PO the community by posting NA on their listings that they already know fails to meet currant guidelines.

And herein lies the problem. If the caching community is unwilling to report caches (via an NA log) that are in violation of state laws, then what action do you expect? Sounds like you expect the volunteer reviewers in Tennessee to scroll through the map and look for any geocaches that are within cemetery grounds? Really?! Cache seekers need to play a role and take some responsibility for their own hobby/sport. If they see caches that will likely reflect poorly on their hobby/sport, then do something about it. Much more effective that ranting about it on a website.

What part of "I communicated with the reviewer privatly" do you not understand?

I understand all of it just fine. What part of the NA log option do you not understand?

Just because "Once upon a time" you communicated your concerns to a reviewer, then that doesn't mean that Groundspeak blatantly ignores state laws...which is what the bulk of your comments imply.

In another post you said "I have reported a few in historic cemeterys myself that are in violation." Did you report these caches to current Reviewers? Did you report it directly to Groundspeak via their established process for reporting geocaches in unsuitable (ie, illegal) locations? Or did you simply send an email to a random email alias without enough specific details to allow the recipient to understand and act upon it?

Yes, I communicated with the current reviewer that had published the listing.

And, of course, the publishing reviewer was still an active reviewer when you communicated with them...right? :tired:

Would be interesting to hear what the reviewer's response was, as A-Team mentioned. And if the reviewer doesn't respond, then perhaps contact Groundspeak via their provided method before implying that they do not care about state laws?

Edited, since a response was posted while I was composing.

Edited September 28, 2015 by noncentric

September 28, 2015

I use google earth when reviewing Waymarks, normally it's easy to tell a cemetery on the map.

This is absolute nonsense. I know from detailed experience in 5 states (admittedly not including TN) that 85-95% of cemeteries in the eastern US are not on any map outside of the deed registry - not even on GIS. Where I am now in the midwest, it's closer to 45%, so most cemeteries are on maps, but there are still lots and lots of them not on any map or in any database.

That's why I said it had to be magic. I already knew that data was not available to anyone, anywhere, at any price.

5.7k · September 28, 2015

And no, I'm not posting an example of a geocache in a historic cemetery in Tennessee here in the forums or posting NA on the cache page.

Once upon a time I communicated with the reviewer privatly about a existing cache.

I may be willing to share with you privately, but not publicly some examples, but you are not close to Tennessee and I am so we need to establish the fact that it would highly PO the community by posting NA on their listings that they already know fails to meet currant guidelines.

And herein lies the problem. If the caching community is unwilling to report caches (via an NA log) that are in violation of state laws, then what action do you expect? Sounds like you expect the volunteer reviewers in Tennessee to scroll through the map and look for any geocaches that are within cemetery grounds? Really?! Cache seekers need to play a role and take some responsibility for their own hobby/sport. If they see caches that will likely reflect poorly on their hobby/sport, then do something about it. Much more effective that ranting about it on a website.

What part of "I communicated with the reviewer privatly" do you not understand?

I understand all of it just fine. What part of the NA log option do you not understand?

Just because "Once upon a time" you communicated your concerns to a reviewer, then that doesn't mean that Groundspeak blatantly ignores state laws...which is what the bulk of your comments imply.

In another post you said "I have reported a few in historic cemeterys myself that are in violation." Did you report these caches to current Reviewers? Did you report it directly to Groundspeak via their established process for reporting geocaches in unsuitable (ie, illegal) locations? Or did you simply send an email to a random email alias without enough specific details to allow the recipient to understand and act upon it?

Yes, I communicated with the current reviewer that had published the listing.

And, of course, the publishing reviewer was still an active reviewer when you communicated with them...right?

Would be interesting to hear what the reviewer's response was, as A-Team mentioned. And if the reviewer doesn't respond, then perhaps contact Groundspeak via their provided method before implying that they do not care about state laws?

I just went back and looked, I did post NA on the cache page and the reviewer posted the canned note about "We take all "Needs Archived Notices" very seriously".

Also what I noticed was the reviewer that published the listing is NOT our current reviewer, so that may be part of the problem on my end.

But, the NA did get posted and a reviewer note got posted and both are still on the cache page.

5.7k · September 28, 2015

I use google earth when reviewing Waymarks, normally it's easy to tell a cemetery on the map.

This is absolute nonsense. I know from detailed experience in 5 states (admittedly not including TN) that 85-95% of cemeteries in the eastern US are not on any map outside of the deed registry - not even on GIS. Where I am now in the midwest, it's closer to 45%, so most cemeteries are on maps, but there are still lots and lots of them not on any map or in any database.

That's why I said it had to be magic. I already knew that data was not available to anyone, anywhere, at any price.

Then how does GS reviewers know not to publish any new hides under their current guidelines? Magic I guess. :anibad:

I've reviewed enough Waymarks and geocaches on other listing services to have a good idea of what to look for, maybe you don't have the same experience that I do.

7.8k · September 28, 2015

Then how does GS reviewers know not to publish any new hides under their current guidelines? Magic I guess.

I've reviewed enough Waymarks and geocaches on other listing services to have a good idea of what to look for, maybe you don't have the same experience that I do.

They won't knowingly publish new hides that don't follow the guidelines. Neither Groundspeak nor the reviewers are omnipotent and they can never know every single detail about a cache or the property it's hidden on. If there was any question that it could possibly be hidden in a cemetery in Tennessee (a map indicates as such, there's a mention of a cemetery in the description, etc.), I expect it would be questioned. If there are no apparent indications, then how are they to know? Are they supposed to ask every cache owner if their cache is in a cemetery?

5.7k · September 28, 2015

Then how does GS reviewers know not to publish any new hides under their current guidelines? Magic I guess.

I've reviewed enough Waymarks and geocaches on other listing services to have a good idea of what to look for, maybe you don't have the same experience that I do.

They won't knowingly publish new hides that don't follow the guidelines. Neither Groundspeak nor the reviewers are omnipotent and they can never know every single detail about a cache or the property it's hidden on. If there was any question that it could possibly be hidden in a cemetery in Tennessee (a map indicates as such, there's a mention of a cemetery in the description, etc.), I expect it would be questioned. If there are no apparent indications, then how are they to know? Are they supposed to ask every cache owner if their cache is in a cemetery?

Most historic cemetery hides have some indication of what they are to an experienced reviewer. GS reviewers have access to maps that show archived listings in the area, so they have some great resources.

And I agree that they will not publish new hides that don't follow the guidelines. I saw a listing retracted by another reviewer a few weeks ago because of proxcimity of a cemetery. Why the Virginia reviewer published it first, I don't know. It was in Tennessee, and their reviewer stated the Virginia reviewer was unaware of the Tennessee Law.

Maybe someone reported it? I only noticed it because it was archived and I have those on my watchlist.

7.8k · September 29, 2015

Just to clarify the recent cemetery discussion, MPH sent me the GC code of the cache they logged the NA on. It seems that the NA was primarily for non-maintenance, with a vague mention thrown in about caches generally being hidden outside of cemeteries. No mention was made about legality or state laws. Consequently, the reviewer note only addressed cache maintenance. It seems that the CO has deleted all disable and enable logs, but they apparently fixed the problems and the cache is still active.

Now, even just a quick glance at a satellite image shows that the cache is undoubtedly in a cemetery. In the end, though, the Tennessee cemetery law is moot in this case, because the cache - despite being listed on this website as being in Tennessee - is actually between 150 and 200 feet into Virginia.

21.9k · September 29, 2015

With that, I think we're finished with the overly-specific focus on cemetery caches in Tennessee. Let's get back to discussing the general issue of cache placements near archaeological or historical sites as exemplified by the cache location described in the opening post. Thanks.

September 29, 2015

Edited September 29, 2015 by Uncle Alaska

September 29, 2015

I apologize for stepping into a discussion gone off-topic, but there's another consideration of this whole "geocaching is against the law in Tennessee" discussion. Specifically, it seems that (despite the unsubstantiated rumor to the contrary), geocaching actually is almost *never* illegal in Tennessee cemeteries.

First, it's important to note the context of this state law, the "Cemetery Act of 2006". It was enacted during the emotional, and horrifying, mistreatment of customers by one Clayton Smart, who is now in prison for what is likely to be the rest of his natural life. I won't go into it here, but it's some interesting reading if you would like to pursue this tangent with Google searches. He bought up multiple cemeteries in MI and TN, and then tried to renege on pre-sold burial contracts and maintenance, then trying to file BK to protect his once-significant personal assets. Not good, for anyone.

Noting the intended target of this legislation, it is important to note that this legislation specifies that:

"46-1-101.

(a) The provisions of this chapter apply to all cemeteries, community and

public mausoleums, whether operated for profit or not for profit, within the state of

Tennessee, except cemeteries exempt under §46-1-106.

... and what, you might ask, falls under the exemptions of TCA 46-1-106? Well, that would be ...

"46-1-106.

(a) The provisions of this chapter and chapter 2 of this title do not apply

to:

(1) Cemeteries owned by municipalities;

(2) Cemeteries owned by churches, associations of churches, or

church governing bodies;

(3) Cemeteries owned by religious organizations;

(4) Family burial grounds; or

(5) Cemeteries owned by general welfare corporations created by

special act of the general assembly ... "

Thus, THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO CEMETERIES RUN BY A TOWN, A CHURCH OR RELATED TO A CHURCH, A FAMILY, OR ANYBODY ELSE WITH SPECIFIC PERMISSION. Ultimately, it applied to very few operators not named "Clayton Smart", but it also penned him in so he couldn't wiggle into some new manifestation of fiduciary default.

********************

OK, so the "Cemetery Act of 2006" doesn't apply to many cemeteries. Now, what is a "game of amusement"? Let's look at a legal definition:

"Amusement game is any game that provides entertainment or amusement. Amusement games conducted as part of gaming, by licensed organizations, are usually games of chances. Prizes money may be received. The outcome is unpredictable.

The following is an example of state statute (Washington) defining the term.

Pursuant to [Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 9.46.0201] "Amusement game," as used in this chapter, means a game played for entertainment in which:

(1) The contestant actively participates;

(2) The outcome depends in a material degree upon the skill of the contestant;

(3) Only merchandise prizes are awarded;

(4) The outcome is not in the control of the operator;

(5) The wagers are placed, the winners are determined, and a distribution of prizes or property is made in the presence of all persons placing wagers at such game; and

(6) Said game is conducted or operated by any agricultural fair, person, association, or organization in such manner and at such locations as may be authorized by rules and regulations adopted by the commission pursuant to this chapter as now or hereafter amended.

Cake walks as commonly known and fish ponds as commonly known shall be treated as amusement games for all purposes under this chapter."

**************************

And finally, the actual language of the statute itself, taking into account "Game of Amusement" definition and the context of the full verbiage:

"46-1-313.

(a) No person shall willfully destroy, deface, or injure any monument,

tomb, gravestone, or other structure placed in the cemetery, or any roadway,

walk, fence or enclosure in or around the same, or injure any tree, plant or shrub

therein, or hunt or shoot therein, play at any game or amusement therein, or

loiter for lascivious or lewd purposes therein, or interfere, by words or actions,

with any funeral procession or any religious exercises.

( B )

(1) A violation of this section is a Class E felony."

**************************

In short, then, it seems that the "Tennessee Cemetery Act of 2006" specifically proscribes gambling in cemeteries owned by Clayton Smart or any other profiteering weasel. Other than that, it has no impact on geocaching in general or in historic church/town/family cemeteries in particular.

It seems that reviewers in Tennessee (particularly over here in the Memphis area, where there are still some understandably raw nerves given the recent experience with Mr. Smart) have already taken an unnecessarily cautious approach to reviewing cemetery caches. It would be an overreach for them, or anybody else, to take any further action based on the Tennessee Codes Annotated as discussed here.

Edited September 29, 2015 by MorWoods

Spotted this article on damage to a historic site.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment