Owner of house may of moved... permission change?

[+psychpineapple]

I have a cache near me that is pretty cool and I want to go and find. The problem is, it is in a front yard in some trees. On the cache page it says that they had permission from that owner to place the cache on their property, but the last cacher that found it said that there was a sold sign on that yard. That post was from the middle of March. I was around there today and there was no sign but I was concerned about if the owners had moved. The CO has not been active, according to their stats page, in several years. It says that they were on the website a year ago but haven't found a cache since 2017. I am not sure if I should do something. I was debating about logging a note or a nm and suggesting that the CO look into if the original owner of the house was still there, or do nothing since there was no sign when I was by there today. I assume that if I log a nm, it will not ever get fixed because the CO hasn't been active in several years. What do you guys think I should do? The cache is still alive and well (I was unable to do it because I didn't have a tool).

[+on4bam]

Since it's near you, you know the house was sold. Any other cacher would not know that and just go for it. It then depends on the owner of the house what happens. In Belgium you might have someone come out asking what you're doing, is "some" countries you might get shot . Depending where you are, there's another approach.

To be sure, contact the CO, they may no longer be active but still read/answer their mail. You can knock on the new owners door and ask if they know about the cache and still allow it to be there (not your responsibility but it may ease your mind).

Worst case, post a NA stating property has changed hands and permission may no longer be valid (but you don't know that for certain).

 

[+GeoElmo6000]

My suggestion would be to knock on the door of the house and ask if they are the owners of the cache.  If they aren't, explain what's in their yard, and ask if they would like it there.  If they don't, ask if you can find the cache, remove it, and notify the reviewer to archive it so that no one else returns.  

[+cerberus1]

Awkward when the same question's posted in two spots...

I'd email the CO and see.   Possible a kid, and mom n dad allowed it while there ?

Others may not be in tune with this cache as you and stop by, maybe creating a trespass issue if it's not "fixed" one way or the other soon.

I'd log a NM in the meantime, as a "heads-up" to others that there may be an issue (explaining why you feel it warrants it). 

 - If it isn't an issue, the CO can do an OM to clear things up.  

 

[+cerberus1]

35 minutes ago, HoochDog said:

The reviewer in my region says that "Needs Maintenance" should only be logged if you actually found a cache, and there is a problem with it. 

 

 I recently ran into a similar cache that was on private property.  Even if a cache is on private property with an owner's permission, you can never trust that the hider got the coordinates correct (if it's a new cache). 

The other cacher I was with and I knocked on the door to let him know what we were doing.  In this particular case, he saw us through a window and told us to go away.  Maybe he thought we were some kind of cult.   We logged a DNF and indeed the CO put the coordinates on the wrong house.

 

An average cache anywhere else, I'd agree.         This situation is unique, that the OP is aware of a possible issue others aren't. 

 

Your example even had a person tell you to "go away".  Lucky for you that's all that occurred...

Rather than get into an unnecessary confrontation ,  I feel that NM is simply the safest option.   

Our Reviewers are pretty understanding, and if it really bugged me, I'd consider an email, asking what they felt was a good option.

[+TriciaG]

I'd consider either knocking on the door or else writing a detailed note (including an explanation of what geocaching is) with my contact information and leaving it in their mailbox (or if that's illegal in your area, sliding it under their windshield wiper blade or putting it somewhere else where they'll find it).

 

Personally, I don't answer the door to strangers, so if I were the new homeowner, the only way I'd get info is if they left it in my mailbox.

 

In the meantime, I'd NM it or log a note. Then if/when I got an answer, follow up on the cache page with either a Found It, another note, or an NA. :)

[+psychpineapple]

Hey thank you everyone for the posts. I want to clarify something. I only know about the sold sign from March because of the last post. I am not in the area often so I would of had no idea about the sold sign if it wasn't for the last finder. When I went there yesterday, there was no sign or anything on their lawn. But...since the post was a month and a half ago, I don't know what happened. I don't know if the new owners moved in, or if there was any change at all. I think the best thing would be to message the owner, but since they don't appear to be active I am not sure if it will go anywhere. Cache is still there in their front yard. 

[+barefootjeff]

18 minutes ago, psychpineapple said:

Hey thank you everyone for the posts. I want to clarify something. I only know about the sold sign from March because of the last post. I am not in the area often so I would of had no idea about the sold sign if it wasn't for the last finder. When I went there yesterday, there was no sign or anything on their lawn. But...since the post was a month and a half ago, I don't know what happened. I don't know if the new owners moved in, or if there was any change at all. I think the best thing would be to message the owner, but since they don't appear to be active I am not sure if it will go anywhere. Cache is still there in their front yard. 

 

If you do an on-line search for the property address, it should bring up any recent real estate listings for it which would confirm that it's been up for sale.

[+dprovan]

5 hours ago, HoochDog said:

The reviewer in my region says that "Needs Maintenance" should only be logged if you actually found a cache, and there is a problem with it. 

I have no idea why a reviewer would arbitrarily rule out 90% of the things an NM is good for. Physically observing a problem with a functional cache is very uncommon and probably the least important thing that one might log an NM about. This case is a good example when you can try to sort out an issue by posting an NM even though you didn't look for the cache.

[+barefootjeff]

3 minutes ago, dprovan said:

5 hours ago, HoochDog said:

The reviewer in my region says that "Needs Maintenance" should only be logged if you actually found a cache, and there is a problem with it. 

I have no idea why a reviewer would arbitrarily rule out 90% of the things an NM is good for. Physically observing a problem with a functional cache is very uncommon and probably the least important thing that one might log an NM about. This case is a good example when you can try to sort out an issue by posting an NM even though you didn't look for the cache.

 

I'm not sure why a reviewer would be concerned about the reasons for logging NM since, from what I understand, reviewers aren't notified of NM logs, only NAs. Isn't an NM supposed to be a heads-up to the cache owner about a problem with the cache (including its listing)?

[+colleda]

7 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

My suggestion would be to knock on the door of the house and ask if they are the owners of the cache.  If they aren't, explain what's in their yard, and ask if they would like it there.  If they don't, ask if you can find the cache, remove it, and notify the reviewer to archive it so that no one else returns.  

You're quite right.

It is possible that the occupant of the house was not the owner, just renting, and may still live there. Either way, a knock on the door should resolve things.

[+dprovan]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm not sure why a reviewer would be concerned about the reasons for logging NM since, from what I understand, reviewers aren't notified of NM logs, only NAs. Isn't an NM supposed to be a heads-up to the cache owner about a problem with the cache (including its listing)?

That's my impression, but I've seen this report about a reviewer telling someone NMs are only appropriate after actually finding the cache a few times now. I can't tell whether it's a single clueless reviewer or something GS is promoting. I hope the former, but a clueless reviewer are very hard for me to imagine.

[+Goldenwattle]

7 hours ago, HoochDog said:

The reviewer in my region says that "Needs Maintenance" should only be logged if you actually found a cache, and there is a problem with it.

You can't find a cache that is missing. That's a reason to log a NM, after a string of DNFs.

[+colleda]

7 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

You can't find a cache that is missing. That's a reason to log a NM, after a string of DNFs.

Also,  cachers logging a DNF are sometimes accompanied by a previous finder. NM is justified IMO.

[+Goldenwattle]

4 minutes ago, colleda said:

Also,  cachers logging a DNF are sometimes accompanied by a previous finder. NM is justified IMO.

I should have then added, if after a month the CO has not checked, then log a NA.

[+barefootjeff]

34 minutes ago, dprovan said:

That's my impression, but I've seen this report about a reviewer telling someone NMs are only appropriate after actually finding the cache a few times now. I can't tell whether it's a single clueless reviewer or something GS is promoting. I hope the former, but a clueless reviewer are very hard for me to imagine.

 

If it's something GS is promoting, why is there still the canned "cache might be missing" NM on the website? Or for that matter, why is "Report a Problem" still an option for anything other than a Found It log?

[Keystone]

48 minutes ago, HoochDog said:

I was told that Georgia and North Carolina are 2 states in the US that are under an experiment to more aggressively police caches so that there is a higher quality of caches in the field.

 

The experiment you're referencing was limited in scope.  Cache owners in GA and NC who had not been active on Geocaching.com for more than five years received logs disabling certain of their caches, asking the owners to confirm they were still active.  If there was no reply after 30 days, those caches were archived.

 

In all other respects, the Reviewers in Georgia and North Carolina follow the same protocols for monitoring cache owners' adherence to the "Cache Maintenance" provisions of the Geocache Hiding Guidelines, namely:

• responding to "Needs Archived" logs
• reminding cache owners about cache pages that have been temporarily disabled for a long time; and
• disabling cache pages with a "Low Health Score," if there's a confirmed maintenance need and the cache owner doesn't take action within a reasonable time after receiving the automated email from Geocaching HQ.

Regarding cache maintenance expectations in the current environment, please see the HQ's Response to COVID-19 information page:

 

Quote

[R]eviewers will provide extra time for addressing maintenance issues on existing caches. HQ has temporarily suspended the automated emails to cache owners with low Health Score caches.

 

[55_sebastian]

Thank you for volunteering!!!