Jump to content

Orange Construction Fence


mighty_felix
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

HTB1_xUqFVXXXXcNXXXXq6xXFXXX5.jpg This is a random pic, just to show what I'm talking about, this is not the actual park.

 

So there's a geocache in a park, located in an area flanked on one side by VERY tall and VERY thick grass; on one side by a pretty solid line of overgrown trees, vines, grass,etc.; on the back side by construction equipment, piles of rubble, etc.; and one one side orange some short orange construction fence. It's not a perfect square, it's a pretty large area, but anyway to the point-

 

I marked the cache as "needs maintenance" and explained how it was behind orange construction fence. Other cachers have since found it, and the cache owner said (and I'm quoting the log) "No maintenance needed here! I can't fix something that is not missing or messed up. The construction is not something I have control over. If you do go looking for this cache, just be extra careful! The cache is behind the orange stuff but not really near any construction."

 

I'm just wondering, did I do the wrong thing to point it out, and/or to mark it "needs maintenance"? Is it really ok, to go behind orange fence like this, into an obvious construction site? I mean, it's in a city park not in the middle of a bunch of traffic or something; and really there's not much danger- there's no machines going or people welding or any signs saying "keep out" or "hard hat area" or anything like that (well, the few times I've been to the park at least). Seems to me like an orange fence blocking an obvious construction site (even if the construction itself hardly ever happens) would mean, too bad cache is done for, since we're not supposed to be going into keep out/private property type areas.

 

OK, I think I got my question out. OK, thx. I really want to (and would like all cachers to) follow proper caching etiquette, but on the flip side I definitely want to find and search out as many caches as possible! Thx :)

Edited by mighty_felix
Link to comment

You did right, the CO did wrong.

 

At minimum, the CO should have disabled the cache until the work in the area is complete (or at least the cache is accessible again).

 

Part of cache maintenance is controlling when the cache is accessible, and if its not, then proper maintenance is to disable until it is accessible again.

Link to comment

Technically there is maintenance to be done, Temp Disable while the cache is in an active worksite.

 

While there may not be machines working all the time there are still likely to be other hazards, they don't block off an area just to show off their fencing skills (or lack thereof). Also as you mention anyone entering what is basically private property could be done with trespass.

 

NM was the right move.

Link to comment

If you believe the cache is in a construction area, then posting an NM is correct. Having told the CO (and any one else reading the log) about the issue, he can decide whether that information warrants any action. In order to form an opinion about whether his decision was right or wrong in this particular case, I'd need more details. I've found caches in construction areas before when access was easy and there was no actual work going on at the time. I'd prefer a CO err on the side of caution and disable the cache if it's in a construction zone, as others have suggested, but I can also see that, at least in some cases, it could be a judgement call.

Link to comment

The cache should be disabled. For the well-being of other geocachers I would recommend using a Needs Archived note to alert a reviewer to this serious cache issue. Explain in the note that the cache is in an off-limits construction zone and you feel it needs to be disabled until the fence is gone.

Link to comment

I would have placed a NM, or maybe even a note would do.

The CO could have temp-disabled the thing while construction's going on.

He already realizes he's wrong with, " The construction is not something I have control over. If you do go looking for this cache, just be extra careful! The cache is behind the orange stuff but not really near any construction.", and it could have been so simple to keep from any future issue with a TD.

 

You did the right thing. Move on...

Link to comment

I would have logged a Needs Maintenance too. After the CO said what he did, I would also be contacting a reviewer to get them to look into the matter. Acknowledging that an area has been closed to the public and then telling them to go in there anyway makes the whole geocaching community look bad, so the cache would need to be disabled one way or the other.

 

That being said, I identified the cache in question and your Needs Maintenance log was submitted back in July. Is this even an issue anymore? The cache probably should have been disabled back then, but odds are that whatever work was going on has long since been completed.

Link to comment

Adding that it's not a judgment call at all. There is a fence and it doesn't matter if/when workers and machinery are there. Geocachers can hold off until the work is done.

You're assuming that the OP is, in fact, correct that the cache is in the area cordoned off by the construction area. For example.

Link to comment

Adding that it's not a judgment call at all. There is a fence and it doesn't matter if/when workers and machinery are there. Geocachers can hold off until the work is done.

You're assuming that the OP is, in fact, correct that the cache is in the area cordoned off by the construction area. For example.

In addition, it's important to understand that orange construction fence is not always intended to keep people out. I have seen it used to disrupt so-called "social paths" across grassy areas, for example.

 

The rush to judgment in these forums, almost always against the COs, may be having the effect of making cache ownership less attractive. It certainly has had that effect on me; I am no longer very excited to put out new caches as my older ones get archived. My perception, based on these forums, is that as a cache owner I will be in for abuse at the slightest hint that my caches are not maintained to the highest possible standard.

 

Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe there are too many caches, as as a culture we should be discouraging hiding new ones. I don't know, but it's worth at least considering that the contempt held in this forum for cache owners doesn't make the activity more pleasant.

Link to comment
Adding that it's not a judgment call at all. There is a fence and it doesn't matter if/when workers and machinery are there. Geocachers can hold off until the work is done.
You're assuming that the OP is, in fact, correct that the cache is in the area cordoned off by the construction area. For example.
In addition, it's important to understand that orange construction fence is not always intended to keep people out. I have seen it used to disrupt so-called "social paths" across grassy areas, for example.
I was thinking much the same thing. The construction areas I've seen have been fenced off on all sides. The fact that this supposed construction area had orange fence on only one side seemed odd to me. So did the fact that there weren't any "keep out" signs.

 

But I don't really know for sure, since all I have to go on is the description in the original post.

Link to comment

Adding that it's not a judgment call at all. There is a fence and it doesn't matter if/when workers and machinery are there. Geocachers can hold off until the work is done.

You're assuming that the OP is, in fact, correct that the cache is in the area cordoned off by the construction area. For example.

 

The cache owner's note, if it is quoted correctly, states that the cache is behind the fence. I see no reason to assume that the forum poster is lying or otherwise deliberately mis-quoting the cache owner.

Link to comment

Adding that it's not a judgment call at all. There is a fence and it doesn't matter if/when workers and machinery are there. Geocachers can hold off until the work is done.

You're assuming that the OP is, in fact, correct that the cache is in the area cordoned off by the construction area. For example.

In addition, it's important to understand that orange construction fence is not always intended to keep people out. I have seen it used to disrupt so-called "social paths" across grassy areas, for example.

 

The rush to judgment in these forums, almost always against the COs, may be having the effect of making cache ownership less attractive. It certainly has had that effect on me; I am no longer very excited to put out new caches as my older ones get archived. My perception, based on these forums, is that as a cache owner I will be in for abuse at the slightest hint that my caches are not maintained to the highest possible standard.

 

Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe there are too many caches, as as a culture we should be discouraging hiding new ones. I don't know, but it's worth at least considering that the contempt held in this forum for cache owners doesn't make the activity more pleasant.

 

Posting a factual log note where there is a real issue of concern is not abuse.

 

I don't see it as a great loss when someone picks up his/her toys and goes home over a minor issue like this. It likely improves the game in the long run.

Link to comment

Adding that it's not a judgment call at all. There is a fence and it doesn't matter if/when workers and machinery are there. Geocachers can hold off until the work is done.

You're assuming that the OP is, in fact, correct that the cache is in the area cordoned off by the construction area. For example.

In addition, it's important to understand that orange construction fence is not always intended to keep people out. I have seen it used to disrupt so-called "social paths" across grassy areas, for example.

 

The rush to judgment in these forums, almost always against the COs, may be having the effect of making cache ownership less attractive. It certainly has had that effect on me; I am no longer very excited to put out new caches as my older ones get archived. My perception, based on these forums, is that as a cache owner I will be in for abuse at the slightest hint that my caches are not maintained to the highest possible standard.

 

Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe there are too many caches, as as a culture we should be discouraging hiding new ones. I don't know, but it's worth at least considering that the contempt held in this forum for cache owners doesn't make the activity more pleasant.

 

Posting a factual log note where there is a real issue of concern is not abuse.

 

I don't see it as a great loss when someone picks up his/her toys and goes home over a minor issue like this. It likely improves the game in the long run.

 

I'd never heard of these orange fences being used as barriers on "social paths" so I looked up that term and only got hits for sociapath. Around here, they are put in place to say "Hey,this is a short temporary construction area, do not enter" rather than put up a full chain link fence for long term construction.

 

Short term or long term, the CO should have checked out the cache site and tenp disabled it instead of replying the way he/she did. What if someone were to go out there looking for the cache while workers were beginning to do their job for the day? Think they'd be aggravated at having to halt the job in order to make sure noone else is in the area? Then again, the OP did say the orange fence was only on one side so that's confusing. Safety reports for a construction company hired by a city/county/private business are a serious matter. And, noone involved in this hobby wants to see someone hurt (even if they didn't use good judgment) it could give a bad rap for Geocaching.

 

(Sorry for the long quote. Don't know how to snip)

Link to comment
Short term or long term, the CO should have checked out the cache site and tenp disabled it instead of replying the way he/she did.

 

I disagree with the CO's handling of this situation, but I disagree even more with the "The CO should have maintained his cache in the way I want" attitude. Sorry, Mama, this is not directed only at you, but at all who pile on this this kind of thread.

 

To everyone in this thread, let me ask a few questions:

 

Do you pay for COs to place caches and maintain them for you?

 

If not, on what basis do you demand that the CO maintain the cache to your standards?

 

Do you usually treat people who do something for you for free this way? Do you complain to people who give you gifts about the quality of their gifts? Would you take to task volunteers who, for example, maintain a church's grounds because you don't like the way they planted flowers?

 

What is it about geocaching that inspires this level of contempt and ingratitude for those who place caches at no cost to you?

 

I just don't get it.

Link to comment

The cache owner's note, if it is quoted correctly, states that the cache is behind the fence. I see no reason to assume that the forum poster is lying or otherwise deliberately mis-quoting the cache owner.

Oh, for heaven's sake. There's a difference between being wrong and lying.

Link to comment

I have a letterbox cache which I have temporarily disabled due to construction outside that same orange-type plastic fence. In my case there is a new subdivision underway and the orange fencing was placed around an area which will become a public park containing a pioneer cemetery (which is in very poor, run down condition). Initially, there were no 'keep out' signs displayed on the fence but there are now. My cache was inside the orange tape which was there to show where construction machinery was not permitted. The area was previously bushland and the cache was in a log which is still there. I have removed the cache until work is complete.

Link to comment

 

What is it about geocaching that inspires this level of contempt and ingratitude for those who place caches at no cost to you?

 

I just don't get it.

 

Well... some of it could be the "online" nature of it... in forums etc people get worked up about all sorts of things which face to face they wouldn't complain about. Not just Geocaching. And some entitlement....

 

But, I do see a "valid" reason to say "The CO should or shouldn't do that" with respect to Geocaching. And that is, the actions of COs can impact the game. E.g. if cachers enter the construction zone and are "caught" (or worse, injured), it hurts the image of the game. It could cause a local government or parks commission to create anti-caching rules, for example.

 

I have seen cases myself where such a fence blocked one way to access a cache, but there were other ways to access the cache still open (and allowed). In this case, if the cache is near the fence, that seems unlikely.

Link to comment

HTB1_xUqFVXXXXcNXXXXq6xXFXXX5.jpg This is a random pic, just to show what I'm talking about, this is not the actual park.

 

So there's a geocache in a park, located in an area flanked on one side by VERY tall and VERY thick grass; on one side by a pretty solid line of overgrown trees, vines, grass,etc.; on the back side by construction equipment, piles of rubble, etc.; and one one side orange some short orange construction fence. It's not a perfect square, it's a pretty large area, but anyway to the point-

 

I marked the cache as "needs maintenance" and explained how it was behind orange construction fence. Other cachers have since found it, and the cache owner said (and I'm quoting the log) "No maintenance needed here! I can't fix something that is not missing or messed up. The construction is not something I have control over. If you do go looking for this cache, just be extra careful! The cache is behind the orange stuff but not really near any construction."

 

I'm just wondering, did I do the wrong thing to point it out, and/or to mark it "needs maintenance"? Is it really ok, to go behind orange fence like this, into an obvious construction site? I mean, it's in a city park not in the middle of a bunch of traffic or something; and really there's not much danger- there's no machines going or people welding or any signs saying "keep out" or "hard hat area" or anything like that (well, the few times I've been to the park at least). Seems to me like an orange fence blocking an obvious construction site (even if the construction itself hardly ever happens) would mean, too bad cache is done for, since we're not supposed to be going into keep out/private property type areas.

 

OK, I think I got my question out. OK, thx. I really want to (and would like all cachers to) follow proper caching etiquette, but on the flip side I definitely want to find and search out as many caches as possible! Thx :)

 

Looks like the co answered your question. Wazzabigdeal ?

Link to comment

You did right in pointing it out and a Needs maintenance is not out of the question but it's not the way I'd go.

 

I would have posted a note on the cache page explaining the situation. May even send the CO a quick e-mail.

 

I would hope the cache owner would respond and temporarily disable the cache until the construction has been completed.

 

A needs archive is a little over the top here.

Link to comment
Short term or long term, the CO should have checked out the cache site and tenp disabled it instead of replying the way he/she did.

 

I disagree with the CO's handling of this situation, but I disagree even more with the "The CO should have maintained his cache in the way I want" attitude. Sorry, Mama, this is not directed only at you, but at all who pile on this this kind of thread.

 

To everyone in this thread, let me ask a few questions:

 

Do you pay for COs to place caches and maintain them for you?

 

If not, on what basis do you demand that the CO maintain the cache to your standards?

 

Do you usually treat people who do something for you for free this way? Do you complain to people who give you gifts about the quality of their gifts? Would you take to task volunteers who, for example, maintain a church's grounds because you don't like the way they planted flowers?

 

What is it about geocaching that inspires this level of contempt and ingratitude for those who place caches at no cost to you?

 

I just don't get it.

 

Disabling a cache that is evidently off-limits (in the cache owner's words) is hardly a monumental task for the cache owner.

 

While I don't agree with much of the crying that goes on in here about caches being too small, a bit damp, not full of swag, or whatever else is the personal preference complaint du jour, I do expect cache owners to acknowledge and deal with construction sites, angry cache property owners (before I get attacked, I am sorry for the mistype), and other documented hazards that can cause trouble for finders.

 

In this case, the cache owner's own words say the cache is behind the fence. That either needs a bit more clarification from the cache owner if the cache is still legally accessible, or it needs to be disabled until the fence is gone.

 

Cache maintenance can be demanding and inconvenient. I know it comes as a surprise to some that we can't just toss these things out there and forget about them. I am sure the cache owner didn't expect to be inconvenienced by the sudden appearance of a construction fence, but that is how the game goes sometimes.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

That type of fencing is meant to indicate a temporary zone that is off limits to the general public. While I doubt people would be prosecuted or held for questioning if they were caught passing it, they would likely be asked to stay behind it...especially if work in the area is in progress. Now, we've all seen that stuff surrounding areas that are undisturbed or in an area that doesn't seem to be getting any activity...so I imagine it's more of a case-by-case thing and the best a cache owner can be expected to do is warn cachers of the potential problem and, best case, disable it temporarily.

 

I don't think a 'Needs Maintenance' log is appropriate. A note and message to the CO is what I personally would have done. After that, I figure the information is there and people cache at their own risk at that point.

Link to comment

... I figure the information is there and people cache at their own risk at that point...

 

It's simple, the person uses their senses to decide if they want to go for it. It's not a DMZ with watch towers and machine guns. Its kind of funny that an orange fence is getting this mutch attention and hand wringing.

Link to comment

Ultimately, with things like this, I would just really hate to see it end with some park authority banning geocaching in a city's park system because people couldn't keep themselves out of a construction zone for a few weeks. Over the years we've seen too many situations end that way and it's entirely avoidable.

Link to comment

... I figure the information is there and people cache at their own risk at that point...

 

It's simple, the person uses their senses to decide if they want to go for it. It's not a DMZ with watch towers and machine guns. Its kind of funny that an orange fence is getting this mutch attention and hand wringing.

 

It's simple, You don't cross the orange fence. Find another geocache to do and come back to this one when whatever's going on is done.

 

You can speculate all you want as to why the fence is there but what ever the reason the land owner or land manager doesn't want anyone on the other side of it.

Link to comment

Well... some of it could be the "online" nature of it... in forums etc people get worked up about all sorts of things which face to face they wouldn't complain about.

This is an interesting case for me, since sitting at home discussing it on line, I'd want a cache in a construction zone disabled, but in practice out in the field, I'll shrug my shoulders and go into the construction zone if I don't see any problem with ignoring the orange fence. Sure, I'll mention it in my log for sure, and if there's a real problem, I'll post an NM or even an NA. But since I decided it was safe and did go find the cache, I can't really object to the CO deciding to keep the cache enabled. But I can see other people getting all worked up because of the technical issue even as I recognize the same issue but am willing to ignore it.

Link to comment

You did right in pointing it out and a Needs maintenance is not out of the question but it's not the way I'd go.

 

I would have posted a note on the cache page explaining the situation. May even send the CO a quick e-mail.

If you're going to report that the cache needs maintenance, then post it with a Needs Maintenance log. Posting a note to report a problem makes no sense. And keeping the problem secret by sending private e-mail makes even less sense. (I think you're saying you'd post a note and possibly send e-mail, but I'm responding just in case anyone reads you as suggesting e-mail alone is a choice.)

 

In this case, I agree an NA doesn't seem called for, but I can imagine cases where NA would be the right log, too.

Link to comment

... I figure the information is there and people cache at their own risk at that point...

 

It's simple, the person uses their senses to decide if they want to go for it. It's not a DMZ with watch towers and machine guns. Its kind of funny that an orange fence is getting this mutch attention and hand wringing.

 

It's simple, You don't cross the orange fence. Find another geocache to do and come back to this one when whatever's going on is done.

 

You can speculate all you want as to why the fence is there but what ever the reason the land owner or land manager doesn't want anyone on the other side of it.

 

I didn't say that. :-)

Link to comment

... I figure the information is there and people cache at their own risk at that point...

 

It's simple, the person uses their senses to decide if they want to go for it. It's not a DMZ with watch towers and machine guns. Its kind of funny that an orange fence is getting this mutch attention and hand wringing.

 

It's simple, You don't cross the orange fence. Find another geocache to do and come back to this one when whatever's going on is done.

 

You can speculate all you want as to why the fence is there but what ever the reason the land owner or land manager doesn't want anyone on the other side of it.

I agree with this. You can speculate all you want, but the land manager doesn't want you to cross or go into that part of the property, for whatever reason.

 

I had one of these once, in a state park that bordered a national forest. A small piece of caution tape across the trail. No note to explain why. Easy enough to go around, or duck under. The cache was only 168 feet away. It was part of a GeoTour that I desperately wanted to complete, and I had driven over 500 miles to do it. I agonized over this for about 5 minutes; in the end, I couldn't bring myself to go after that cache. Later, I found out the trail was closed due to aerial fire training. Good thing I didn't go in, with the risk of a tanker dropping a load of water or fire retardant on me.

 

If we as geocachers don't respect the land managers wishes, we run the risk of ruining geocaching for others, and possible injury to ourselves. (Both of which look bad when you apply for the "professional geocacher" badge. :D )

Link to comment

Its kind of funny that an orange fence is getting this mutch attention and hand wringing.

Consider the situation from the viewpoint of the person/organization that erected the fencing. You presumably erected it to keep people out of that particular area, right? Now, wouldn't you find it irritating to learn that someone online was telling people it's fine to cross your fence and enter that area to play their game? Might you be tempted to ban that particular game from being played in that area if that's the way they're going to act?

 

Is it really worth it for cachers to "poke the bear" and potentially irritate land owners/managers rather than simply disable the cache while the area is fenced off? Believe it or not, geocaching has been banned from areas for less.

Link to comment

Its kind of funny that an orange fence is getting this mutch attention and hand wringing.

Consider the situation from the viewpoint of the person/organization that erected the fencing. You presumably erected it to keep people out of that particular area, right? Now, wouldn't you find it irritating to learn that someone online was telling people it's fine to cross your fence and enter that area to play their game? Might you be tempted to ban that particular game from being played in that area if that's the way they're going to act?

 

Is it really worth it for cachers to "poke the bear" and potentially irritate land owners/managers rather than simply disable the cache while the area is fenced off? Believe it or not, geocaching has been banned from areas for less.

 

Agreed.

 

I'm not speaking for anyone except myself here and can tell you I'm not getting worked up over this or "piling on" or wringing hands. The OP did the right thing, IMO. The CO may have not known, otherwise (or cared to read a "write note" type log versus an NM). In any case, people can and will do what they want with their caches and seekers can do as they wish as well. Until GS steps in.

 

I only hope that what others decide to do doesn't have a negative impact on the hobby.

Link to comment

The problem that I have with cachers continuing the seek the cache is that the increase the likeliness that the cache gets taken.

 

I had a cache in a similar situation, a construction fence was put up that blocked access to GZ. I didn't know this until a cacher was so determined to find the cache so they went to a construction worker, explained geocaching, then went and found the cache per their permission. Following the find, the construction people took the cache and said that no one else could be coming in there to look for it. I was never able to get my cache back and I don't skimp on my containers, so I lost a Mighty Mega bison.

 

I just can't get over cachers who are extremely determined to look for every cache they set their compass on, that they endanger the cache by purposely exposing it to muggles.

Edited by fbingha
Link to comment

You did right in pointing it out and a Needs maintenance is not out of the question but it's not the way I'd go.

 

I would have posted a note on the cache page explaining the situation. May even send the CO a quick e-mail.

If you're going to report that the cache needs maintenance, then post it with a Needs Maintenance log. Posting a note to report a problem makes no sense. And keeping the problem secret by sending private e-mail makes even less sense. (I think you're saying you'd post a note and possibly send e-mail, but I'm responding just in case anyone reads you as suggesting e-mail alone is a choice.)

 

In this case, I agree an NA doesn't seem called for, but I can imagine cases where NA would be the right log, too.

 

The OP doesn't mention if they actually found the cache or not so how can you post a NM?

 

A note warning potential cachers of the possible issue of the fence. An e-mail to the cache owner just in case they miss my note.

Link to comment

Its kind of funny that an orange fence is getting this mutch attention and hand wringing.

Consider the situation from the viewpoint of the person/organization that erected the fencing. You presumably erected it to keep people out of that particular area, right? Now, wouldn't you find it irritating to learn that someone online was telling people it's fine to cross your fence and enter that area to play their game? Might you be tempted to ban that particular game from being played in that area if that's the way they're going to act?

 

Is it really worth it for cachers to "poke the bear" and potentially irritate land owners/managers rather than simply disable the cache while the area is fenced off? Believe it or not, geocaching has been banned from areas for less.

 

Again, it depends on the circumstances. Common sense instead of blanket generalities.

Link to comment

Its kind of funny that an orange fence is getting this mutch attention and hand wringing.

Consider the situation from the viewpoint of the person/organization that erected the fencing. You presumably erected it to keep people out of that particular area, right? Now, wouldn't you find it irritating to learn that someone online was telling people it's fine to cross your fence and enter that area to play their game? Might you be tempted to ban that particular game from being played in that area if that's the way they're going to act?

 

Is it really worth it for cachers to "poke the bear" and potentially irritate land owners/managers rather than simply disable the cache while the area is fenced off? Believe it or not, geocaching has been banned from areas for less.

 

Again, it depends on the circumstances. Common sense instead of blanket generalities.

 

Actual common sense should dictate that you put away the sense of entitlement and don't cross a construction fence to play a game.

Link to comment
Actual common sense should dictate that you put away the sense of entitlement and don't cross a construction fence to play a game.
From the description in the original post, it wasn't clear that one needed to cross a construction fence to reach GZ. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I've seen such temporary fences used to force people to follow a different route to their destination by blocking unofficial trails, when the destination itself wasn't off-limits in any way.
Link to comment
Actual common sense should dictate that you put away the sense of entitlement and don't cross a construction fence to play a game.
From the description in the original post, it wasn't clear that one needed to cross a construction fence to reach GZ. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I've seen such temporary fences used to force people to follow a different route to their destination by blocking unofficial trails, when the destination itself wasn't off-limits in any way.

 

The quote from the cache owner suggests that this isn't the case.

 

Common sense should still dictate caution when the area appears to be under construction, whether or not access to the cache is completely blocked. It's a game. Use common sense and find the cache later.

Link to comment

The OP doesn't mention if they actually found the cache or not so how can you post a NM?

What does finding the cache have to do with posting an NM? If the cache is in a construction zone, it needs maintenance. I don't have to find it -- or even look for it -- to know that. I don't know where this idea that "needs maintenance" can only be posted to report physical problems, but it's wrong.

Link to comment

Its kind of funny that an orange fence is getting this mutch attention and hand wringing.

Consider the situation from the viewpoint of the person/organization that erected the fencing. You presumably erected it to keep people out of that particular area, right? Now, wouldn't you find it irritating to learn that someone online was telling people it's fine to cross your fence and enter that area to play their game? Might you be tempted to ban that particular game from being played in that area if that's the way they're going to act?

 

Is it really worth it for cachers to "poke the bear" and potentially irritate land owners/managers rather than simply disable the cache while the area is fenced off? Believe it or not, geocaching has been banned from areas for less.

 

Again, it depends on the circumstances. Common sense instead of blanket generalities.

 

Actual common sense should dictate that you put away the sense of entitlement and don't cross a construction fence to play a game.

 

The only posts I've seen mentioning crossing a fence, are the posts that want the cache disabled. There are a lot of assumptions in this thread.

Edited by ohgood
Link to comment

The OP doesn't mention if they actually found the cache or not so how can you post a NM?

What does finding the cache have to do with posting an NM? If the cache is in a construction zone, it needs maintenance. I don't have to find it -- or even look for it -- to know that. I don't know where this idea that "needs maintenance" can only be posted to report physical problems, but it's wrong.

 

What if the orange fence has nothing to do with reaching the cache?

Link to comment

Its kind of funny that an orange fence is getting this mutch attention and hand wringing.

Consider the situation from the viewpoint of the person/organization that erected the fencing. You presumably erected it to keep people out of that particular area, right? Now, wouldn't you find it irritating to learn that someone online was telling people it's fine to cross your fence and enter that area to play their game? Might you be tempted to ban that particular game from being played in that area if that's the way they're going to act?

 

Is it really worth it for cachers to "poke the bear" and potentially irritate land owners/managers rather than simply disable the cache while the area is fenced off? Believe it or not, geocaching has been banned from areas for less.

 

Again, it depends on the circumstances. Common sense instead of blanket generalities.

 

Actual common sense should dictate that you put away the sense of entitlement and don't cross a construction fence to play a game.

 

The only posts I've seen mentioning crossing a fence, are the posts that want the cache disabled. There are a lot of assumptions in this thread.

 

The quote from the cache owner says the cache is behind the fence.

 

When a geocacher finds that an area appears to be under construction, common sense dictates leaving it alone and coming back later. Someone with common sense doesn't climb over the construction fence or create excuses for entering a construction zone to play a game.

Link to comment

Well... some of it could be the "online" nature of it... in forums etc people get worked up about all sorts of things which face to face they wouldn't complain about.

This is an interesting case for me, since sitting at home discussing it on line, I'd want a cache in a construction zone disabled, but in practice out in the field, I'll shrug my shoulders and go into the construction zone if I don't see any problem with ignoring the orange fence. Sure, I'll mention it in my log for sure, and if there's a real problem, I'll post an NM or even an NA. But since I decided it was safe and did go find the cache, I can't really object to the CO deciding to keep the cache enabled. But I can see other people getting all worked up because of the technical issue even as I recognize the same issue but am willing to ignore it.

That sums it up well for me. Sure, I wouldn't mind seeing the CO disable the cache, but based on this:

 

"The cache is behind the orange stuff but not really near any construction." (As per the CO)

 

And...

 

- really there's not much danger- there's no machines going or people welding or any signs saying "keep out" or "hard hat area" or anything like that.

 

If I approached ground zero and felt my going for the cache is a "no harm, no foul" situation I would use my judgement and decide whether to find it or not. I don't necessarily need the CO to make the decision for me by disabling the cache. I don't necessarily think anyone did anything wrong in this case, the CO or the OP.

Link to comment

Well... some of it could be the "online" nature of it... in forums etc people get worked up about all sorts of things which face to face they wouldn't complain about.

This is an interesting case for me, since sitting at home discussing it on line, I'd want a cache in a construction zone disabled, but in practice out in the field, I'll shrug my shoulders and go into the construction zone if I don't see any problem with ignoring the orange fence. Sure, I'll mention it in my log for sure, and if there's a real problem, I'll post an NM or even an NA. But since I decided it was safe and did go find the cache, I can't really object to the CO deciding to keep the cache enabled. But I can see other people getting all worked up because of the technical issue even as I recognize the same issue but am willing to ignore it.

That sums it up well for me. Sure, I wouldn't mind seeing the CO disable the cache, but based on this:

 

"The cache is behind the orange stuff but not really near any construction." (As per the CO)

 

And...

 

- really there's not much danger- there's no machines going or people welding or any signs saying "keep out" or "hard hat area" or anything like that.

 

If I approached ground zero and felt my going for the cache is a "no harm, no foul" situation I would use my judgement and decide whether to find it or not. I don't necessarily need the CO to make the decision for me by disabling the cache. I don't necessarily think anyone did anything wrong in this case, the CO or the OP.

 

With no additional information, it is impossible to determine there's "no harm, no foul." Is it blocked off because of a hazard that isn't easily seen? Noxious plants? Pesticide application? Sensitive habitat? A great big hole in the ground? All we know is that the orange fence is there, and it probably means we aren't supposed to be behind it.

 

It is the cache owner's responsibility to respond to the issue. In all likelihood the cache should be disabled. At the very least, the cache owner should ask the park authority why the fence is there before telling cachers it's okay to cross it.

Link to comment

There are a lot of assumptions in this thread.

Yes, and the assumptions are about the situation at GZ even though that wasn't the question. The explicit question was whether an NM should have been posted (I say yes), and the implicit question is whether the CO reacted reasonable to the NM when he didn't disable the cache (and I say yes here, too).

 

With no additional information, it is impossible to determine there's "no harm, no foul."

I, on the other hand, think I have the definite answer to whether the cache can be sought: the CO didn't disable it. Sure, it's possible that the CO made a mistake, but it's impossible that we have more information about the situation than the CO.

Link to comment

There are a lot of assumptions in this thread.

Yes, and the assumptions are about the situation at GZ even though that wasn't the question. The explicit question was whether an NM should have been posted (I say yes), and the implicit question is whether the CO reacted reasonable to the NM when he didn't disable the cache (and I say yes here, too).

 

With no additional information, it is impossible to determine there's "no harm, no foul."

I, on the other hand, think I have the definite answer to whether the cache can be sought: the CO didn't disable it. Sure, it's possible that the CO made a mistake, but it's impossible that we have more information about the situation than the CO.

 

The CO's answer isn't very reassuring in that regard. It seems to take "Needs Maintenance" too literally. The cache itself may be in perfect condition, but if it's behind the fence and can't reasonably be accessed without crossing the fence, it needs maintenance, i.e. probably needs to be disabled, or at least needs clarification from the people who put the fence there.

 

The cache owner's note does not indicate anything close to due diligence here. If the CO can't be bothered to find out why the fence is there, fine, he/she should just disable the cache until it isn't.

 

Too often these situations end with the cache being removed by the land manager because cachers are interfering where they don't belong. Then the cache owner blames the seekers (something stupid about stealth, usually) and never learns to take responsibility for his/her caches.

 

Finders, for their part, should apply better judgment. If an area has been fenced off like that, don't go there even if the cache owner lazily shrugs it off.

Link to comment

Finders, for their part, should apply better judgment. If an area has been fenced off like that, don't go there even if the cache owner lazily shrugs it off.

Meh. I would never say anything like that because I know I'm not going to be that rigid myself in the field: I'll decide whether to cross the line based on local conditions, not because of some rule against going to the other side of a construction fence no matter how long it's been forgotten by whoever put it there.

 

But, anyway, your point just supports the CO: the seeker has to make their own decision, so even though you can imagine (without any proof) many ways the CO might be making a mistake, it's still not the end of the world that he didn't disable the cache.

Link to comment

Finders, for their part, should apply better judgment. If an area has been fenced off like that, don't go there even if the cache owner lazily shrugs it off.

Meh. I would never say anything like that because I know I'm not going to be that rigid myself in the field: I'll decide whether to cross the line based on local conditions, not because of some rule against going to the other side of a construction fence no matter how long it's been forgotten by whoever put it there.

 

But, anyway, your point just supports the CO: the seeker has to make their own decision, so even though you can imagine (without any proof) many ways the CO might be making a mistake, it's still not the end of the world that he didn't disable the cache.

 

It is possible for COs and finders to be negligent at the same time.

 

It may not be the end of the world; things rarely are. There is a strong possibility that poor behaviour like what you've described will lead to the end of the cache in that park and possibly greater consequences.

Link to comment

Its kind of funny that an orange fence is getting this mutch attention and hand wringing.

Consider the situation from the viewpoint of the person/organization that erected the fencing. You presumably erected it to keep people out of that particular area, right? Now, wouldn't you find it irritating to learn that someone online was telling people it's fine to cross your fence and enter that area to play their game? Might you be tempted to ban that particular game from being played in that area if that's the way they're going to act?

 

Is it really worth it for cachers to "poke the bear" and potentially irritate land owners/managers rather than simply disable the cache while the area is fenced off? Believe it or not, geocaching has been banned from areas for less.

 

Again, it depends on the circumstances. Common sense instead of blanket generalities.

 

Actual common sense should dictate that you put away the sense of entitlement and don't cross a construction fence to play a game.

 

The only posts I've seen mentioning crossing a fence, are the posts that want the cache disabled. There are a lot of assumptions in this thread.

 

The quote from the cache owner says the cache is behind the fence.

 

When a geocacher finds that an area appears to be under construction, common sense dictates leaving it alone and coming back later. Someone with common sense doesn't climb over the construction fence or create excuses for entering a construction zone to play a game.

 

so far, you are the only person talking about climbing a fence. i'm not.

 

the construction zone can be completely closed, the cache behind the fence, and still completely accessible. think about it.

 

the longer this thread goes, the more i think there should be a puzzle cache that has a orange fence between itself and the road. just to make some heads spin. maybe i could wrap the cache in orange fence. nuclear meltdown time ! lol

Link to comment

Finders, for their part, should apply better judgment. If an area has been fenced off like that, don't go there even if the cache owner lazily shrugs it off.

Meh. I would never say anything like that because I know I'm not going to be that rigid myself in the field: I'll decide whether to cross the line based on local conditions, not because of some rule against going to the other side of a construction fence no matter how long it's been forgotten by whoever put it there.

 

But, anyway, your point just supports the CO: the seeker has to make their own decision, so even though you can imagine (without any proof) many ways the CO might be making a mistake, it's still not the end of the world that he didn't disable the cache.

 

Couldn't disagree more. What makes you think you even have a choice here? The fence is a clear indication that the owner doesn't want anyone in the area. How can you interpret that as "I'll decide" whether or not to cross it?

Link to comment

Its kind of funny that an orange fence is getting this mutch attention and hand wringing.

Consider the situation from the viewpoint of the person/organization that erected the fencing. You presumably erected it to keep people out of that particular area, right? Now, wouldn't you find it irritating to learn that someone online was telling people it's fine to cross your fence and enter that area to play their game? Might you be tempted to ban that particular game from being played in that area if that's the way they're going to act?

 

Is it really worth it for cachers to "poke the bear" and potentially irritate land owners/managers rather than simply disable the cache while the area is fenced off? Believe it or not, geocaching has been banned from areas for less.

 

Again, it depends on the circumstances. Common sense instead of blanket generalities.

 

Actual common sense should dictate that you put away the sense of entitlement and don't cross a construction fence to play a game.

 

The only posts I've seen mentioning crossing a fence, are the posts that want the cache disabled. There are a lot of assumptions in this thread.

 

The quote from the cache owner says the cache is behind the fence.

 

When a geocacher finds that an area appears to be under construction, common sense dictates leaving it alone and coming back later. Someone with common sense doesn't climb over the construction fence or create excuses for entering a construction zone to play a game.

 

so far, you are the only person talking about climbing a fence. i'm not.

 

the construction zone can be completely closed, the cache behind the fence, and still completely accessible. think about it.

 

the longer this thread goes, the more i think there should be a puzzle cache that has a orange fence between itself and the road. just to make some heads spin. maybe i could wrap the cache in orange fence. nuclear meltdown time ! lol

 

As long as you have permission from the land owner to construct a fence on their property, I don't really see what the issue is. My concern is that cache owners who put up structures usually don't get permission first and that leads to problems.

 

I suppose it might also be a bit of a nuisance for the cache owner, as responsible geocachers would frequently DNF, report back that the fence is there, and possibly post NM logs about it. That tends to be how it goes with these hides that are simply meant to be antagonistic jokes on other geocachers. Either the CO has to give up the joke on the cache page, or put up with constant log maintenance from people who don't get the joke.

 

I recommend not putting nuclear materials in a cache.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...