Illegal Caches

1.2k · July 6, 2004

Scenario: A cache is hidden and approved in an area off limits to pedestrians. Lets say a trail head has a sign that reads, Hikers must stay on paved trails, but the cache owner didn't notice the sign and hid the cache 100 feet off the trail. A few cachers (who also didn't notice the sign) find the cache and log Finds. Eventually someone notices the sign, doesn't look for the cache, and notifies the cache owner, who promptly archives the cache.

Since the cache was placed illegally, are the Finds logged technically legal finds? Should they be left as-is, or should they be deleted by the cache owner with an email to the finders explaining why?, or should the finders change their Finds to Notes?

I'm curious to hear what others think? I'd also be curious to hear the opinion of an Admin.

(Not pointing fingers at anyone or any cache. Names and caches have been withheld to protect the innocent). [ :blink: ]

2.3k · July 6, 2004

We got laws now? I thought we only had 'guidelines'.

The finds should stay.

July 6, 2004

as long as it was some where and some one found it, it should stay.

If you want to change found its, to notes, go target the cache owners who post FOUND ITs on the OWN caches when they do maintenance! thats irretating.

aj

3k · July 6, 2004

Scenario: A cache is hidden and approved in an area off limits to pedestrians. Lets say a trail head has a sign that reads, Hikers must stay on paved trails, but the cache owner didn't notice the sign and hid the cache 100 feet off the trail. A few cachers (who also didn't notice the sign) find the cache and log Finds. Eventually someone notices the sign, doesn't look for the cache, and notifies the cache owner, who promptly archives the cache.

Your scenario had it exactly right ...the finds should stay; the cache should go.

Edited July 6, 2004 by BassoonPilot

7.3k · July 6, 2004

I think that they found the cache, and that is all that matters to gc.com. Once the cache is archived, no one else can find it.

A find is a find, whether or not it was in a good place.

3k · July 6, 2004

Once the cache is archived, no one else can find it.

That's a false statement.

7.3k · July 6, 2004

You are so right. They can log on the site as a find, but they can't physically find the cache anymore, since it is gone. If they logged it as a find, they would be lying, because it is not there anymore.

3k · July 6, 2004

You are so right. They can log on the site as a find, but they can't physically find the cache anymore, since it is gone. If they logged it as a find, they would be lying, because it is not there anymore.

Not necessarily. Just because a cache has been archived, does not guarantee it has been removed. Cache owners have been known to archive their caches without having removed them, and website administrators have been known to archive caches without having determined the actual status of those caches.

1.4k · July 6, 2004

It was placed and found...smells like a find to me.

My pops used to say, "Quack Quack, Waddle Waddle"

1.8k · July 6, 2004

Since the cache was placed illegally, are the Finds logged technically legal finds? Should they be left as-is, or should they be deleted by the cache owner with an email to the finders explaining why?, or should the finders change their Finds to Notes?

Scenario #1 - TPTB have long ago decided to keep gc as clean as possible in the eyes of the world - they then correct the problem (cache must go), they give a special attaboy award to that most-ethical cacher who informed them. Good job. Case closed.

Scenario #2 - TPTB have long ago decided that they are the last bastion of all righteousness and truth, with an entrenched value so pure that they must wipe away all evidencce of this heinous infringement. Cache must go, records must go, finds must go, I Think Not.

6.4k · July 6, 2004

Just because a cache has been archived, does not guarantee it has been removed. Cache owners have been known to archive their caches without having removed them, and website administrators have been known to archive caches without having determined the actual status of those caches.

And just because a cache is archived on this listing service doesn't mean it's not still listed and active on another listing service, or on a mailing list, or on someone's personal website.

The responsibility of removing a cache that is no longer wanted falls squarely on the cache owner. Any effort by the community and/or site administrators to help with that is just that; help. The only person who should be required to physically remove a cache is the cache owner.

38.2k · July 6, 2004

If its a legit find, I agree that the log should stay, followed by a SBA log if the owner hasn't already.

Edited July 6, 2004 by briansnat

July 6, 2004

A find is a find whether is was somewhere the person was allowed to travel or not. Just because a hider poorly placed it or a sign was posted after the fact doesn't negate the fact that they did indeed find the cache.

Thorin

3k · July 6, 2004

And just because a cache is archived on this listing service doesn't mean it's not still listed and active on another listing service, or on a mailing list, or on someone's personal website.

That's true, and I'm SURE the Groundspeak admins. take the time to cross-check this. :blink:

For the record, NONE of the "archived-but-not-removed" caches I have come across were ever listed on the "other" major listing service. Would you please cite an example or two of caches from our region that were archived by an admin. that continue to accrue finds on another site?

I will say that the "other" major listing service appears to have the opposite problem ... very few cache pages over there ever get archived. Apparently so few people use the site as their primary source of cache info, though, that nobody notices.

6.4k · July 6, 2004

And just because a cache is archived on this listing service doesn't mean it's not still listed and active on another listing service, or on a mailing list, or on someone's personal website.

That's true, and I'm SURE the Groundspeak admins. take the time to cross-check this.

For the record, NONE of the "archived-but-not-removed" caches I have come across were ever listed on the "other" major listing service. Would you please cite an example or two of caches from our region that were archived by an admin. that continue to accrue finds on another site?

I will say that the "other" major listing service appears to have the opposite problem ... very few cache pages over there ever get archived. Apparently so few people use the site as their primary source of cache info, though, that nobody notices.

Since this is really offtopic for this thread, I gave it it's own topic here.

3k · July 6, 2004

The only person who should be required to physically remove a cache is the cache owner.

Oh, I like that. :blink: Here's a similarly impractical statement that fits that mindset:

Everyone except the cache owner should be prohibited from archiving any cache after it has been approved and listed. :lol:

2.8k · July 6, 2004

My take - it's a find that stays.

As for the cache, unless there's a danger to someone, illegal (as in the law, not a guideline) or the cacher receives permission from the owner to remove the cache container, I'd leave it. I'd contact the cache owner too.

It's the cache owners property and responsibility to maintain that property.

David

3.1k · July 6, 2004

I've logged a few archived caches in my time. There is plenty of geolitter out there.

7.2k · July 6, 2004

Scenario: A cache is hidden and approved in an area off limits to pedestrians. Lets say a trail head has a sign that reads, Hikers must stay on paved trails, but the cache owner didn't notice the sign and hid the cache 100 feet off the trail. A few cachers (who also didn't notice the sign) find the cache and log Finds. Eventually someone notices the sign, doesn't look for the cache, and notifies the cache owner, who promptly archives the cache.

Almost the exact same thing has happened to me several times.

Recently, a section of a multi was in a legal spot but was placed on a ruin (not fenced off and you can walk around inside of it). I found the part of the multi and then expressed my opinion to the cache owner that I thought the placement was improper and could lead to friction with a friendly park organization. We discussed it in private at one of our Association Meetings a few days after I found the cache. He agreed and moved that part of the multi slightly. I had posted a find on the cache page on that one. All the early finds were OK.

Another example was also a multi-cache. Part one was fine, but the second part of the multi was several miles away. One of the first finders emailed me with concerns that it might be in an NPS area. The cache was close to me so I went to find it. Part 2 was indeed in an NPS Recreation Area that has allowed us to have existing caches there, but no new ones are suppose to be listed. I posted a note on the cache page and mentioned that the cache must be moved or archived. The cache owner apologized and moved the cache the next day. I went back to stage 1 again and got the new coordinates for the final. It was actually in a better place and then I got to post my find.

38.2k · July 6, 2004

As for the cache, unless there's a danger to someone, illegal (as in the law, not a guideline) or the cacher receives permission from the owner to remove the cache container, I'd leave it. I'd contact the cache owner too.

It's the cache owners property and responsibility to maintain that property.

It is their property, but there are cases where the owner obviously has abandoned the cache. The question then becomes, do we as a community, have the obligation to remove these?

Edited July 6, 2004 by briansnat

7.2k · July 6, 2004

As for the cache, unless there's a danger to someone, illegal (as in the law, not a guideline) or the cacher receives permission from the owner to remove the cache container, I'd leave it. I'd contact the cache owner too.

It's the cache owners property and responsibility to maintain that property.

It is their property, but there are cases where the owner obviously has abandoned the cache. The question then becomes, do we as a community, have the obligation to remove these?

Very good point. A new topic has formed regarding that. I would post your message over there.

2.8k · July 6, 2004

As for the cache, unless there's a danger to someone, illegal (as in the law, not a guideline) or the cacher receives permission from the owner to remove the cache container, I'd leave it. I'd contact the cache owner too.

It's the cache owners property and responsibility to maintain that property.

It is their property, but there are cases where the owner obviously has abandoned the cache. The question then becomes, do we as a community, have the obligation to remove these?

That's an excellent point. I guess if the owner isn't active (we have one in our area that is the case) and the cache needs to be archived (what is the reason?) I can see a cacher removing it. But I guess if it's missing there's nothing to remove, and if the cache is fine, why remove it, so it would be a reported case by a prev cacher of a cache which needs maintenance, it's still physically there, but the cache owner is MIA.

7.2k · July 6, 2004

This is drifting from the original post and a new topic has formed regarding the tangent this topic is taking.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=74788

Let's bring this topic back to the original discussion from the original post.

July 6, 2004

Back to the illegal cache topic:

There's a popular multicache near here listed as a night cache. The problem is there is a sign at the entrance saying that those who enter after dark will be prosecuted... many cachers have been questioned by the police.

It sounds like a fun cache, but I don't want to do it if it's illegal. I'd hate to log a "DNF because I was handcuffed in the back of a police car." :blink:

38.2k · July 6, 2004

There's a popular multicache near here listed as a night cache. The problem is there is a sign at the entrance saying that those who enter after dark will be prosecuted... many cachers have been questioned by the police.

This certainly sounds like the kind of situation Should Be Archived logs are meant for.

2.8k · July 6, 2004

It sounds like a fun cache, but I don't want to do it if it's illegal. I'd hate to log a "DNF because I was handcuffed in the back of a police car."

I agree - it should be archived, but the owner should be contacted first. If no response in a reasonable time, post a note and that it needs archiving and explain why.

As for the handcuff problem, check out >>FLITS<< aka Speed Trapped and maybe you can log a Locationless cache instead :lol:

July 6, 2004

Scenario: A cache is hidden and approved in an area off limits to pedestrians. Lets say a trail head has a sign that reads, Hikers must stay on paved trails, but the cache owner didn't notice the sign and hid the cache 100 feet off the trail. A few cachers (who also didn't notice the sign) find the cache and log Finds. Eventually someone notices the sign, doesn't look for the cache, and notifies the cache owner, who promptly archives the cache.

Since the cache was placed illegally, are the Finds logged technically legal finds? Should they be left as-is, or should they be deleted by the cache owner with an email to the finders explaining why?, or should the finders change their Finds to Notes?

I'm curious to hear what others think? I'd also be curious to hear the opinion of an Admin.

(Not pointing fingers at anyone or any cache. Names and caches have been withheld to protect the innocent). []

Put yourself in the finder's boots. If you noticed the sign, and chose to go for the cache anyway, logged the find in the book and then was told you can't have the find, would it piss you off?

It would piss me off.

3.9k · July 6, 2004

Back to the illegal cache topic:

There's a popular multicache near here listed as a night cache. The problem is there is a sign at the entrance saying that those who enter after dark will be prosecuted... many cachers have been questioned by the police.

It sounds like a fun cache, but I don't want to do it if it's illegal. I'd hate to log a "DNF because I was handcuffed in the back of a police car."

Hey, no risk, no reward. :lol:

Back on topic;

I don't care if the cache is located on NPS property on an active RR, if you find it you find it. Take the find and use the SBA feature.

July 6, 2004

You are so right. They can log on the site as a find, but they can't physically find the cache anymore, since it is gone. If they logged it as a find, they would be lying, because it is not there anymore.

NOt nessasarily. The cache owner could leave the container and people could put the cache on their watch list or something and still know the coords and just log the cache on a date before the archive.

July 6, 2004

This certainly sounds like the kind of situation Should Be Archived logs are meant for.

Right, and then I would be ousted from the local geocaching community... why do you think I'm posting with this account? :blink:

38.2k · July 6, 2004

This certainly sounds like the kind of situation Should Be Archived logs are meant for.

Right, and then I would be ousted from the local geocaching community... why do you think I'm posting with this account?

Hey, you can always post your SBA from your sock puppet acct.

July 6, 2004

My first two caches were accused of being illegally placed on private property. The accusation was inaccurate (and I suspect malicious) and was made directly to GC.com rather than in a log or email to me. TPTB, taking no chances (which I understand) and also without contacting me (which I'm still a little irked about) archived both caches. The finds stand, as well they should.

2.1k · July 6, 2004

Scenario: A cache is hidden and approved in an area off limits to pedestrians. Lets say a trail head has a sign that reads, Hikers must stay on paved trails, but the cache owner didn't notice the sign and hid the cache 100 feet off the trail. A few cachers (who also didn't notice the sign) find the cache and log Finds. Eventually someone notices the sign, doesn't look for the cache, and notifies the cache owner, who promptly archives the cache.

Since the cache was placed illegally, are the Finds logged technically legal finds? Should they be left as-is, or should they be deleted by the cache owner with an email to the finders explaining why?, or should the finders change their Finds to Notes?

I'm curious to hear what others think? I'd also be curious to hear the opinion of an Admin.

(Not pointing fingers at anyone or any cache. Names and caches have been withheld to protect the innocent). []

Are you concerned about the SCORE - that someone logged a find that some might not believe is legal because of the hide?

I thought the idea was to get out and find caches. Am I new and naive?

:lol:

July 6, 2004

Hey, you can always post your SBA from your sock puppet acct.

True... but that sounds even lower than me not having the guts to mention it in the forum with my real account.

Back on topic... if this illegal cache I'm speaking of were to be archived... I say all the finds so far stand as finds.... because they FOUND it.

38.2k · July 6, 2004

Hey, you can always post your SBA from your sock puppet acct.

True... but that sounds even lower than me not having the guts to mention it in the forum with my real account.

Back on topic... if this illegal cache I'm speaking of were to be archived... I say all the finds so far stand as finds.... because they FOUND it.

Sometimes you just have to suck it up and be a coward. :blink:

7.3k · July 6, 2004

You are so right. They can log on the site as a find, but they can't physically find the cache anymore, since it is gone. If they logged it as a find, they would be lying, because it is not there anymore.

Not necessarily. Just because a cache has been archived, does not guarantee it has been removed. Cache owners have been known to archive their caches without having removed them, and website administrators have been known to archive caches without having determined the actual status of those caches.

So sorry. Again you are right.

I got caught up in the wrong thinking, because I know the cache that started this whole thread, and I know that that cache was physically removed by the owner as soon as they were made aware that they had placed it incorrectly. They are new to the sport. They immediately rehid it nearby in a better spot.

But it raised a point that Navigatorz were curious about, and so he posted the question hypothetically to see what people thought would be the appropriate thing to do in this situation, and also in any other situation that may occur that is similar to this one.

Since I knew the situation, I was only thinking of it. But you are correct in pointing out that many times that cache is still there, and people could still find it, and still log it.

July 6, 2004

Since the cache was placed illegally, are the Finds logged technically legal finds? Should they be left as-is, or should they be deleted by the cache owner with an email to the finders explaining why?, or should the finders change their Finds to Notes?

Yes they are legal finds.

The cache was active when they found it. They found the cache and signed the logbook.

Just because the cache is archived now because of placement issues, doesn't mean those cachers that found it should be punished. They drove to the area, did the hike and found the cache...it's a valid find in my book!

1.2k · July 6, 2004

Thanks for all the good responses (some of them off topic, but oh well). The opinions seem unanimous...the Finds should remain, even though a cache is improperly placed and is subsequently archived. I agree. I just wanted to see what others thought. Lesson for me: Go find the cache, log the Find, then notify the cache owner.

Illegal Caches

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