Does This Sign At Trailhead Prohibit Geocaching?

[+JL_HSTRE]

On vacation out of state, I stopped for a cache in a community with greenspace that had several geocaches. At the trailhead I found the following sign (emphasis added):

 

"The trails at [COMMUNITY] are not public property. They are owned by the [COMMUNITY] Property Owners Association and maintained by the Nature Foundation of [COMMUNITY]. They are available for the enjoyment of [COMMUNITY] Property Owners and guests."

 

Would this kind of restricted access prohibit geocaches? At the very least I would think this is a case where explicit permission would be required and would need to be stated on the cache page.

 

Most of the caches are over a decade old so may predate the signage being placed. However, the cache I was seeking was placed earlier this year and the description makes no mention of permission, limited access, or the sign (which is located at the suggested trailhead waypoint).

Edited May 25, 2021 by JL_HSTRE

[+Max and 99]

5 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

On vacation out of state, I stopped for a cache in a community with greenspace that had several geocaches. At the trailhead I found the following sign (emphasis added):

 

"The trails at [COMMUNITY] are not public property. They are owned by the [COMMUNITY] Property Owners Association and maintained by the Nature Foundation of [COMMUNITY]. They are available for the enjoyment of [COMMUNITY] Property Owners and guests."

 

Would this kind of restricted access prohibit geocaches? At the very least I would think this is a case where explicit permission would be required and would need to be stated on the cache page.

 

Most of the caches are over a decade old so may predate the signage being placed. However, the cache I was seeking was placed earlier this year and the description makes no mention of permission, limited access, or the sign (which is located at the suggested trailhead waypoint).

In my opinion, yes, the sign prohibits geocaching there. We have quite a few of those in my town. A local geocacher asked me to adopt his cache since he was moving away. It had been several years since I had found it so I went back to take a look and discovered new signs just like the ones you described. I declined the offer. I felt it indicated that I should not be hiding caches nor finding geocaches there.

[+CheekyBrit]

I have a few of my caches in a BLM spot of land that is potentially being transferred to a phosphorus processing plant (fertilizer). When the transfer is made, I'll be reaching out to the new land manager and re-obtaining permission or pulling those geocaches. There is a network of trails that the public uses around the area but I'm taking an abundance of caution to avoid geocaching leaving a bad taste in anyone's mouths. Also this will avoid any geocachers looking for my caches getting into trouble.

 

Here are my controversial and cheeky thoughts for your area:
If you were a friend/guest of one of the community then you could appeal to the community managers. Better still, convert one of the many muggles in the community, get them hooked on geocaching and then see if the community manager would be comfortable considering all geocachers the 'guests' of that person.

Vague language could possibly be used, like, "Hey Diane, I'm going to have some mates from all over coming and hiking that forest to see some old landmarks, is that ok?" There were these things called geocaches out there long before this property, can you believe that!? We wanted to check them out. Is that ok?"
Once that is accepted, perhaps incrementally it could be opened up to geocachers going on their own as unaccompanied guests. It could list in the cache page to announce yourself as a guest of [converted muggle] if challenged on the property.

[+dprovan]

I don't know whether such signs do or don't, but I generally take the attitude that the CO must be one of the "property owners and guest", and they are enjoying the area by placing caches in it for me to find. And that makes me a guest. Then I try to be a good guest so no one has reason to question me. So far, I've never had to apologize for "accidentally" using their land.

 

In the end, it has nothing to do with caches for me. If I'm taking a walk and my route takes me through a place like that, I'll tend to walk in, anyway, even when there's no cache. I figure there are legal or procedural or even just emotional reasons the power in charge had to put up those signs, but it's very unlikely any individual I meet on the path will mind if I politely use their greenspace.

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

I don't know whether such signs do or don't, but I generally take the attitude that the CO must be one of the "property owners and guest", and they are enjoying the area by placing caches in it for me to find. And that makes me a guest. Then I try to be a good guest so no one has reason to question me. So far, I've never had to apologize for "accidentally" using their land.

 

Unless I knew the CO well enough to know their real-world name, so I'd be able to tell a would-be Property Owners' Association enforcer that I was a guest of Joe Bloggs, I'd likely steer clear. I've had a couple of unpleasant property run-ins that I recall, once at an amateur radio field day I was attending many years ago when, in pursuit of the "fox", I crossed an unfenced unsignposted bushland block only to be yelled at for tresspassing on Aboriginal Land Council land, and the second when scouting out waterfalls in a national park for some virtual multi waypoints, a woman with two big angry dogs in the back of her car accused me of tresspassing on her land, even though her property boundary was several kilometres further down the road.

 

For me, caching is about having fun and these sorts of encounters aren't much fun even if I'm technically in the right. For much the same reason I avoid front yard caches, as even if I know the CO in person, I'm unlikely to know their neighbours.

[+cerberus1]

We used to see a lot of "community" parks with caches in them.  

Most were members of the community (time shares, or a coupla weekends in summer).  Some were the kids of the actual member.

Cache descriptions say that "guests" are welcome, and that if anyone asks you're a "guest of (fill in a name)".

Not telling managers of the property, (permission...) and residents there not knowing about it of course caused some problems.

 -  I feel it depends how the finder acts in a situation like that if questioned.   Knuckleheads ruin it for everybody.

Our business property has trespass "hour" signs to cover our can for insurance.  Kids ride their bikes there all the time.

[+MNTA]

Take a picture and file a NM asking if permission has been granted if no response file a NA.

 

Just because it is old does not mean it is grandfathered. I hate wasting my time going to caches like these. You are obviously not welcome unless permission has been granted. 

 

There is no precedence for placement, our local parks department recently forced our local reviewer to disable all caches that do not meet their requirements. Which is for CO to certify it is obtainable without leaving the trail. Three caches from from 2002 will eventually be archived and are fabulous caches but the COs are long gone and also they are off on now a side geotrail. My favorite from 2006 unfortunately will go away an old car wreck or abandoned who knows back when the dirt road was open to cars. But it is at the bottom of a ravine definitely not on the trail.

 

 

Honestly we should all be filing NM/NA on caches that don't follow the rules. If we want to keep this thing going we need to be good stewards of the land we have fun on private or public. Otherwise parks will close to us all.

[+Goldenwattle]

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

 

That's amazing. Here cars just rust away; they don't grow gardens .

[+JL_HSTRE]

12 hours ago, MNTA said:

Honestly we should all be filing NM/NA on caches that don't follow the rules. If we want to keep this thing going we need to be good stewards of the land we have fun on private or public. Otherwise parks will close to us all.

 

The problem with getting people to do that is the same as getting them to follow any other guidelines, rules, or laws. For many people, cool or fun or "I want" takes precedence over "should" or "what is right." Consequences be damned. Somebody else's problem. YOLO.

 

With NM/NA in particular lots of geocachers are afraid of being chastised by the CO or the community. They're afraid of being seen as the "bad guy."

[+Ragnemalm]

Ask for permission, and get it, including instructions on what kind of cache is welcome. In the ideal case, the cache should be a welcome addition in some way.

 

Make it clear in the description that you have permission, and maybe even state a contact person (or where to ask) if anyone want to be sure. They cachers will count as guests.

 

No permission, then no cache.

[+MotorZen10]

I had a fun little cache https://coord.info/GC26J10 that I had looked in to on the local property maps, it was tagged as 'open area', I erroneous thought it was a public space. After a few years a sign was posted that it was was a HOA space with NO TRESSPASSING on the sign. I archived the cache. I guess I could have got in touch with the HOA president to get permission, but the cache wasn't that important to me, nor any cache seeker to go there. I respect the signs that state HOA members only, then move on to some other cache.     

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 5/27/2021 at 3:52 AM, Ragnemalm said:

Ask for permission, and get it, including instructions on what kind of cache is welcome. In the ideal case, the cache should be a welcome addition in some way.

 

Make it clear in the description that you have permission, and maybe even state a contact person (or where to ask) if anyone want to be sure. They cachers will count as guests.

 

No permission, then no cache.

 

Your response is based on how the CO or prospective CO should handle it. My original question was from the perspective of a seeker.

[+hzoi]

Sometimes, when I have seen caches hidden in places like these, there is a justification along the lines of, "There is a sign at the trailhead that the property is only open to [community] property owners and guests. I am a [community] property owner, and you are my guest."

 

Does that mean it's actually been cleared with the HOA? I suspect not. Otherwise the blurb in the description would say so.

 

I wouldn't hide a cache there, even if I lived in the community, without getting actual permission. But if I was coming by to find a cache there, the sign wouldn't make me drive away without looking the way an explicit "No Trespassing" sign would. While tenuous, the language on the cache page at least gives me a leg to stand on if someone asks if I live there. So in the grand scheme of things, it has better "adequate permission" than most commercial parking lot micros.

[+ras_oscar]

Everybody has their own viewpoint, this is mine:

When a cache is published, the hider checks a box that confirms they have received "adequate permission" That means that I as a seeker have been extended permission to be on that  property to search for the cache. Having said that, there is always the possibility of miscommunication between the land owner and the hider. Perhaps the person that gave permission was not the true land owner. Perhaps ownership has changed and the CO was not informed. Perhaps access permission has changed temporarily or permanently due to local events( trail washing out) When I get on GZ i get a Spidey sense as to whether I belong there or not. I do my skulking around visually before I unlatch the door to the geomobile. Once I open the door I'm out and back as efficiently as possible. You know, like I was invited to be there. I always have an ready answer to the question " what are you doing here" Having that answer ready means I virtually never need to use it. Of course the exception is LEOs, they always get the unvarnished truth. That's just how I roll.