Local Cache in Private Park?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

...I had to spend time discussing with people how the game works--from the guidelines on down to how caches are Reviewed, and how they can get in touch with Groundspeak to voice concerns or report unauthorized caches on their land, etc. It took a long time to get that all out in front of them, but most still think it's easier to avoid all of the bad examples by simply banning them altogether.

 

You see, this is more to my point about perception. Perception is a big part of this game, and even if there is sound science behind the idea that screws are less invasive to long term tree growth than rope or zip ties, it doesn't matter. If people see things attached to trees, they might think it ok to drill into a tree, insert long screws or lag bolts, cut branches to make hidden nanos, or who knows what else. And other geocachers might just use rope or zip ties, but won't think down the road like an arborist or forester might when it comes to adjusting the rope or attaching new zip ties the next spring; most caches are placed and the "zip ties" or "screws" are never adjusted in the 10-15 years the caches have been in place. ...

NeverSummer,

 

After assessing facts, methods and opinions on this thread, it's time for me to take action. This weekend, I'll contact the CO and ask him to either temporarily disable the cache until he's gotten permission from the HOA and made provision in the cache details online about how to download a printable permit allowing geocachers on that land or simply archive the cache. I suspect he will take the simplest action and archive.

 

Thanks for helping me make a decision. I appreciate your additional insight with regards to perception of the game.

 

Chris

 

P.S. I didn't see anything in the online cache logs about being in someone's yard for the cache I'm looking at. I didn't feel like I was in someone's yard when I was there. I think you may be looking at a different cache. I don't think there is the same stigma attached to DNF and NM as there might be to NA. The paid app doesn't seem to allow posting NM or DNF. What's up with that? I have to report those from the web at home.

C

 

You could also point him to this discussion.

 

That may be the best idea yet. But that still would leave open the question of what to do if he chose to keep the cache open.

 

I agree. Don't feel like you're alone against the CO on the LoW. You might explain that you've have this conversation, were convinced that something should be done about it, and that you're just acting as a messenger.

[+LaughterOnWater]

I've just emailed the CO. It's entirely possible he may join the discussion, but he has not previously posted in the forum. I await his response via email.

 

Chris

[+LaughterOnWater]

I've received this response:

Thanks for your concern.

 

I do not want to continue this conversation.

I have not responded. I will tell the reviewer next and let him handle it.

 

Chris

 

My email to the CO:

Hello <name>,

 

I’ve been fretting about emailing you, but decided after a long chat with people who probably know better, that I needed to contact you about the Two Ponds cache. Rules change, and places change. Perhaps since the cache was established either the “No Trespassing” sign was installed, or the “No Trespassing” rule went into effect. Either way, the Two Ponds cache violates a rule that’s the least “bendy” of all the rules of the game. I know a lot of caches bend the rules a bit, but this one actually encourages an illegal act: trespass. Any local LEO just on random rounds could arrest a trespasser because he’s technically not a guest of anyone in the HOA and you don’t have express permission from the HOA to allow geocachers into the park. It would only take one bad apple to annoy one or more of your neighbors, and hence bring you into an unpleasant spotlight. From there, it could spiral to make it so that no geocaching is allowed in your neighborhood. Other neighborhoods will only hear bad things about it, and the ill-will could spread. It’s tinder waiting for a match.

 

It makes sense to either temporarily disable the cache on geocaching.com so you can get the proper HOA permission and post a valid downloadable/printable permit for geocachers so they can legally tread between those lovely Two Ponds, or alternatively and more simply, archive the cache.

 

I have respectfully discussed the cache at length on the groundspring forum, but have not revealed the cache ID. I felt it was important to contact you directly, and not “rat you out” to the cache reviewer, since we’ve had previous contact. It would be cowardly of me to simply hand it over to a stranger. I’d rather you be in control of what you plan to do. Personally, I would love it if you could approach your HOA, get permission, create a downloadable/printable official HOA-approved geocaching permit available from a link in the cache description online and allow the game to continue. Until then, it’s probably best to disable the cache at geocaching.com.

 

Apologies, if I’ve ruined your weekend. I hope you can understand where I’m coming from. It’s a fun game, but it’s got to be legal, eh?

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Chris ...

Edited May 30, 2015 by LaughterOnWater

[+L0ne.R]

I've received this response:

Thanks for your concern.

 

I do not want to continue this conversation.

I have not responded. I will tell the reviewer next and let him handle it.

 

Chris

 

My email to the CO:

Hello <name>,

 

I've been fretting about emailing you, but decided after a long chat with people who probably know better, that I needed to contact you about the Two Ponds cache. Rules change, and places change. Perhaps since the cache was established either the "No Trespassing" sign was installed, or the "No Trespassing" rule went into effect. Either way, the Two Ponds cache violates a rule that's the least "bendy" of all the rules of the game. I know a lot of caches bend the rules a bit, but this one actually encourages an illegal act: trespass. Any local LEO just on random rounds could arrest a trespasser because he's technically not a guest of anyone in the HOA and you don't have express permission from the HOA to allow geocachers into the park. It would only take one bad apple to annoy one or more of your neighbors, and hence bring you into an unpleasant spotlight. From there, it could spiral to make it so that no geocaching is allowed in your neighborhood. Other neighborhoods will only hear bad things about it, and the ill-will could spread. It's tinder waiting for a match.

 

It makes sense to either temporarily disable the cache on geocaching.com so you can get the proper HOA permission and post a valid downloadable/printable permit for geocachers so they can legally tread between those lovely Two Ponds, or alternatively and more simply, archive the cache.

 

I have respectfully discussed the cache at length on the groundspring forum, but have not revealed the cache ID. I felt it was important to contact you directly, and not "rat you out" to the cache reviewer, since we've had previous contact. It would be cowardly of me to simply hand it over to a stranger. I'd rather you be in control of what you plan to do. Personally, I would love it if you could approach your HOA, get permission, create a downloadable/printable official HOA-approved geocaching permit available from a link in the cache description online and allow the game to continue. Until then, it's probably best to disable the cache at geocaching.com.

 

Apologies, if I've ruined your weekend. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from. It's a fun game, but it's got to be legal, eh?

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Chris ...

 

Really well said. I'm impressed.

[+LaughterOnWater]

I'm going to wait a day to see if he changes his mind.

[+AustinMN]

The paid app doesn't seem to allow posting NM or DNF. What's up with that? I have to report those from the web at home.

 

That may be to give someone time to think it over, which you obviously have.

 

I know there have been times when, after slapping deer flies, picking off ticks, donating two pints of blood to the mosquitoes, chasing geo-bounce, treating a few thorn scrapes, and fussing with a wet log that I'm ready to archive every cache in the county and turn in my GPS. But when I get home (I only log via the web), I report that the log was wet, mention the mosquitoes and add a few scenic photos.

 

Austin

[+AustinMN]

I've received this response:

Thanks for your concern.

 

I do not want to continue this conversation.

I have not responded. I will tell the reviewer next and let him handle it.

 

Chris

 

My email to the CO:

Hello <name>,

 

I've been fretting about emailing you, but decided after a long chat with people who probably know better, that I needed to contact you about the Two Ponds cache. Rules change, and places change. Perhaps since the cache was established either the "No Trespassing" sign was installed, or the "No Trespassing" rule went into effect. Either way, the Two Ponds cache violates a rule that's the least "bendy" of all the rules of the game. I know a lot of caches bend the rules a bit, but this one actually encourages an illegal act: trespass. Any local LEO just on random rounds could arrest a trespasser because he's technically not a guest of anyone in the HOA and you don't have express permission from the HOA to allow geocachers into the park. It would only take one bad apple to annoy one or more of your neighbors, and hence bring you into an unpleasant spotlight. From there, it could spiral to make it so that no geocaching is allowed in your neighborhood. Other neighborhoods will only hear bad things about it, and the ill-will could spread. It's tinder waiting for a match.

 

It makes sense to either temporarily disable the cache on geocaching.com so you can get the proper HOA permission and post a valid downloadable/printable permit for geocachers so they can legally tread between those lovely Two Ponds, or alternatively and more simply, archive the cache.

 

I have respectfully discussed the cache at length on the groundspring forum, but have not revealed the cache ID. I felt it was important to contact you directly, and not "rat you out" to the cache reviewer, since we've had previous contact. It would be cowardly of me to simply hand it over to a stranger. I'd rather you be in control of what you plan to do. Personally, I would love it if you could approach your HOA, get permission, create a downloadable/printable official HOA-approved geocaching permit available from a link in the cache description online and allow the game to continue. Until then, it's probably best to disable the cache at geocaching.com.

 

Apologies, if I've ruined your weekend. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from. It's a fun game, but it's got to be legal, eh?

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Chris ...

 

Really well said. I'm impressed.

 

+1

[+GeoBain]

I'm not sure when it was added, but the CO has a statement on the cache listing stating that he is a member of the HOA and to please respect private property lines and gives coords for appropriate parking. He probably feels this is sufficient.

Edited May 30, 2015 by GeoBain

[knowschad]

The paid app doesn't seem to allow posting NM or DNF. What's up with that? I have to report those from the web at home.

 

That may be to give someone time to think it over, which you obviously have.

 

I know there have been times when, after slapping deer flies, picking off ticks, donating two pints of blood to the mosquitoes, chasing geo-bounce, treating a few thorn scrapes, and fussing with a wet log that I'm ready to archive every cache in the county and turn in my GPS. But when I get home (I only log via the web), I report that the log was wet, mention the mosquitoes and add a few scenic photos.

 

Austin

 

He said Needs Maintenance and DNF, not NA. I think you probably read that wrong.

[+K13]

How in blue blazes can the paid app NOT allow for the posting of DNF?? Logging your DNF is an important part of the game. Surely that is available, maybe you just haven't figured out how to locate that log type?

[+narcissa]

I would prefer to have someone "rat me out" to a real reviewer than receive an email like that from a non-reviewer.

[+K13]

If I had received an email from a two-week cacher, I can only hope I would have replied in the manner of the CO. The cache has been around for a couple of years, without incident...likely because other finders began their search from the trailhead at the parking coordinates, instead of from the route taken by the OP.

[+L0ne.R]

The paid app doesn't seem to allow posting NM or DNF. What's up with that? I have to report those from the web at home.

C

 

It's there, but it's hidden. Click the arrow next to Found it!.

 

 

[+AustinMN]

The paid app doesn't seem to allow posting NM or DNF. What's up with that? I have to report those from the web at home.

 

That may be to give someone time to think it over, which you obviously have.

 

I know there have been times when, after slapping deer flies, picking off ticks, donating two pints of blood to the mosquitoes, chasing geo-bounce, treating a few thorn scrapes, and fussing with a wet log that I'm ready to archive every cache in the county and turn in my GPS. But when I get home (I only log via the web), I report that the log was wet, mention the mosquitoes and add a few scenic photos.

 

Austin

 

He said Needs Maintenance and DNF, not NA. I think you probably read that wrong.

 

Yes, I did. And as demonstrated, it is there.

[+AustinMN]

I'm not sure when it was added, but the CO has a statement on the cache listing stating that he is a member of the HOA and to please respect private property lines and gives coords for appropriate parking. He probably feels this is sufficient.

 

This may add a whole new wrinkle. I'm wondering if the cache really isn't on HOA property or in the HOA "private park" after all. While it is entirely possible that the HOA posted the front door but not the back, it is also possible that the cache is not on HOA property but accessible from both sides.

 

Because nobody has seen fit to share (that I've noticed) which cache, there is no way for most of us to investigate.

 

Austin

[+GeoBain]

I'm not sure when it was added, but the CO has a statement on the cache listing stating that he is a member of the HOA and to please respect private property lines and gives coords for appropriate parking. He probably feels this is sufficient.

 

This may add a whole new wrinkle. I'm wondering if the cache really isn't on HOA property or in the HOA "private park" after all. While it is entirely possible that the HOA posted the front door but not the back, it is also possible that the cache is not on HOA property but accessible from both sides.

 

Because nobody has seen fit to share (that I've noticed) which cache, there is no way for most of us to investigate.

 

Austin

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCQJAW

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I'm not sure when it was added, but the CO has a statement on the cache listing stating that he is a member of the HOA and to please respect private property lines and gives coords for appropriate parking. He probably feels this is sufficient.

 

This may add a whole new wrinkle. I'm wondering if the cache really isn't on HOA property or in the HOA "private park" after all. While it is entirely possible that the HOA posted the front door but not the back, it is also possible that the cache is not on HOA property but accessible from both sides.

 

Because nobody has seen fit to share (that I've noticed) which cache, there is no way for most of us to investigate.

 

Austin

 

After the OP posted which cache it was in the copy of the message that he sent to the CO I looked it up. Just looking at it on the map it appears to be in an area surrounded on all sides by homes in the HOA. The only place I could see where one could get to the location without walking through someones property was at the suggested parking location in the cache description. Looking at those coordinates in google street view one can see a sign that would be very hard to miss when when going to the cache from the parking spot. Unfortunately, the text is unreasonable but I suspect that was the no-trespassing sign that the OP talks about.

 

Someone else posted a link to the GIS site for the area. I looked up the parcel and it *is* owned by the owners association.

[knowschad]

I'm not sure when it was added, but the CO has a statement on the cache listing stating that he is a member of the HOA and to please respect private property lines and gives coords for appropriate parking. He probably feels this is sufficient.

 

This may add a whole new wrinkle. I'm wondering if the cache really isn't on HOA property or in the HOA "private park" after all. While it is entirely possible that the HOA posted the front door but not the back, it is also possible that the cache is not on HOA property but accessible from both sides.

 

Because nobody has seen fit to share (that I've noticed) which cache, there is no way for most of us to investigate.

 

Austin

 

Oh, it is. Here's the Clarke County GIS site if you wish to do your own research: http://qpublic7.qpublic.net/qpmap4/map.php?county=ga_clarke&layers=parcels+roads+lakes+buildings

 

Or just check out the property description here: http://qpublic7.qpublic.net/ga_display.php?county=ga_clarke&KEY=243A9%20B008A

[knowschad]

I'm not sure when it was added, but the CO has a statement on the cache listing stating that he is a member of the HOA and to please respect private property lines and gives coords for appropriate parking. He probably feels this is sufficient.

 

This may add a whole new wrinkle. I'm wondering if the cache really isn't on HOA property or in the HOA "private park" after all. While it is entirely possible that the HOA posted the front door but not the back, it is also possible that the cache is not on HOA property but accessible from both sides.

 

Because nobody has seen fit to share (that I've noticed) which cache, there is no way for most of us to investigate.

 

Austin

 

http://www.geocachin...geocache/GCQJAW

 

Can't say for sure, of course, but I suspect the "private property" he is referring to is the actual homeowner's lots. His email to the OP made it clear that he knows that it is on HOA property.

[+LaughterOnWater]

I would prefer to have someone "rat me out" to a real reviewer than receive an email like that from a non-reviewer.

This is good feedback. Thank you. It might have been a more prudent method.

[+LaughterOnWater]

This may add a whole new wrinkle. I'm wondering if the cache really isn't on HOA property or in the HOA "private park" after all. While it is entirely possible that the HOA posted the front door but not the back, it is also possible that the cache is not on HOA property but accessible from both sides.

...

Austin

This is the sign at the far end of the park -- the entrance I found. The sign clear in its intent.

 

 

I didn't see a sign at the parking lot, but google street view suggests there is a similar sign at the gate there.

 

The CO told me he is a member of the HOA, but he did not ask permission from the HOA to host a cache in the park. The CO lives generally across the street from the designated parking area.

[+LaughterOnWater]

The paid app doesn't seem to allow posting NM or DNF. What's up with that? I have to report those from the web at home.

C

 

It's there, but it's hidden. Click the arrow next to Found it!.

 

Your image looks quite a bit different from what I see on a tablet. The arrow is just a tiny shading in the extreme corner. In full sunlight it's just about invisible. Thanks. Now I know how.

 

C

[+LaughterOnWater]

Can't say for sure, of course, but I suspect the "private property" he is referring to is the actual homeowner's lots. His email to the OP made it clear that he knows that it is on HOA property.

The cache is in the park. The park HOA owned, and is clearly posted, "No Trespassing."

 

C

[+LaughterOnWater]

I still feel awful about this. I'll hand it over to the reviewer tomorrow. If he thinks its still fine, I'm good with that. If not, he's a charter member and a moderator, so nobody can say he's unqualified to archive. Good night.

 

C

[+AustinMN]

Can't say for sure, of course, but I suspect the "private property" he is referring to is the actual homeowner's lots. His email to the OP made it clear that he knows that it is on HOA property.

The cache is in the park. The park HOA owned, and is clearly posted, "No Trespassing."

 

C

 

This cache is NOT in H.O.A. common property. A careful examination of the Athens-Clark County GIS records show it to be on the private lot of J*** J*** E & J*** G J*** TRUST by about 50 feet (15 meters). While the plot is within the bounds of the HOA, it is owned privately.

 

* Name redaction is mine. While the owner's names are a matter of public record, I'd rather respect their privacy. If you want to find the info, you can go look it up.

 

Austin

[knowschad]

Can't say for sure, of course, but I suspect the "private property" he is referring to is the actual homeowner's lots. His email to the OP made it clear that he knows that it is on HOA property.

The cache is in the park. The park HOA owned, and is clearly posted, "No Trespassing."

 

C

 

This cache is NOT in H.O.A. common property. A careful examination of the Athens-Clark County GIS records show it to be on the private lot of J*** J*** E & J*** G J*** TRUST by about 50 feet (15 meters). While the plot is within the bounds of the HOA, it is owned privately.

 

* Name redaction is mine. While the owner's names are a matter of public record, I'd rather respect their privacy. If you want to find the info, you can go look it up.

 

Austin

 

You're right... its worse than that. Although the the cache owner clearly believes that it is HOA property, as he stated to the OP in his email:

So I've emailed the CO. He responded and said that he lives within a 500 yards of the cache. He said that so long as I'm respectful of other people's property, I'll be fine. He's a member of the HOA, though he has not expressly asked permission, fearing they would not understand. The cache has been there for years, and cache logs suggest others have visited it without problems.

 

rather, it is on an individual's private property. And again, based on the cache owner's communication with the OP, I would seriously doubt it is the cache owner's own property. Moreover, where you park to get to the cache appears to be HOA property, based on the sign posted above.

 

[+LaughterOnWater]

This cache is NOT in H.O.A. common property. A careful examination of the Athens-Clark County GIS records show it to be on the private lot of J*** J*** E & J*** G J*** TRUST by about 50 feet (15 meters). While the plot is within the bounds of the HOA, it is owned privately.

 

* Name redaction is mine. While the owner's names are a matter of public record, I'd rather respect their privacy. If you want to find the info, you can go look it up.

 

Austin

Hmmm... and "Trust" is not the name of the cache owner. The CO's land is not adjacent to the park itself. Additionally, the canopy is thick enough in summer that the CO may have had a margin of error of as much as 90 feet when placing the recent replacement cache on 2014.07.30. Except there is a path that could well be on McEachern and Trust properties on that side of the ponds. The approximate width of the park at that juncture is about 120 feet. You have to cross the bridge according to several who found it more recently. That bridge is on McEachern property before you get to Trust property. So regardless of how you approach this, unwarranted visitors are trespassing not only on HOA land but also the land of Trust and McEachern. The CO may not have known the bridge is mostly on McEachern property and the hide is on Trust property, not HOA property. So three counts of trespass. Yikes. Edited May 31, 2015 by LaughterOnWater

[+WarNinjas]

I am with you on this is probably in a place it shouldn't be. After reviewing all the new info I see it has been there for almost 10 years with almost 200 finds. It looks like you could enjoy a walk along the ponds without much problems. You are well within your rights to report it to a reviewer but I don't really see the point when it has been there for so long. I kind of feel like it is grandfathered in. If it was a big problem that would have probably came up years ago. My feeling is the CO knows the place and knows it is fine for people to go there without hassle. To bring up the problem 10 years later seems a bit extreme to me. Those signs could be more for not fishing and swimming then anything else. I could be wrong and I am sure they probably don't want others wandering around but think it might not be as bad as you are thinking.

[+LaughterOnWater]

I am with you on this is probably in a place it shouldn't be. After reviewing all the new info I see it has been there for almost 10 years with almost 200 finds. It looks like you could enjoy a walk along the ponds without much problems. You are well within your rights to report it to a reviewer but I don't really see the point when it has been there for so long. I kind of feel like it is grandfathered in. If it was a big problem that would have probably came up years ago. My feeling is the CO knows the place and knows it is fine for people to go there without hassle. To bring up the problem 10 years later seems a bit extreme to me. Those signs could be more for not fishing and swimming then anything else. I could be wrong and I am sure they probably don't want others wandering around but think it might not be as bad as you are thinking.

WarNingjas,

I'll tell the reviewer and let him decide.

 

C

[knowschad]

I am with you on this is probably in a place it shouldn't be. After reviewing all the new info I see it has been there for almost 10 years with almost 200 finds. It looks like you could enjoy a walk along the ponds without much problems. You are well within your rights to report it to a reviewer but I don't really see the point when it has been there for so long. I kind of feel like it is grandfathered in. If it was a big problem that would have probably came up years ago. My feeling is the CO knows the place and knows it is fine for people to go there without hassle. To bring up the problem 10 years later seems a bit extreme to me. Those signs could be more for not fishing and swimming then anything else. I could be wrong and I am sure they probably don't want others wandering around but think it might not be as bad as you are thinking.

 

It is also possible that the area was not even built upon ten years ago and those signs not erected yet.

 

The clearly sign says "No Trespassing" before it adds No Fishing, No Boating. Therefore, the No Fishing and No Boating clauses would be for those that already are not trespassing (the residents).

[+LaughterOnWater]

The original reviewer has retired from reviewing. He has offered no suggestions. I don't know who would review it now. This experience has left a bitter taste in my mouth.

 

So I'm not going to pursue this any further. I request that others respectfully and similarly do not pursue this matter any further. I've gone as far as I'm willing to take it. The onus for any future difficulties with the cache remains squarely with the CO.

 

My entire reason for going through this process was to find out just how bendy geocaching.com's rules are. Apparently very bendy. And that's okay. I hope it will give others perspective too, when it comes to the pliability of game guidelines, even when it comes to illegal trespass. I have succeeded in showing that there is a lot of give in the system. Most of us will continue traveling at the speed of the surrounding traffic, even if it's faster than the posted speed limit. The world will continue to turn. Life goes on.

 

Thanks, everyone, for helping learn a lot about the nuances and history of geocaching.

 

Chris

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The original reviewer has retired from reviewing. He has offered no suggestions. I don't know who would review it now. This experience has left a bitter taste in my mouth.

 

So I'm not going to pursue this any further. I request that others respectfully and similarly do not pursue this matter any further. I've gone as far as I'm willing to take it. The onus for any future difficulties with the cache remains squarely with the CO.

 

 

I agree that you've done about as much as you could. One can only hope that keeping the status quo with the cache won't lead to an incident between future seekers, the HOA, or law enforcement. In any case, I think the thread has fostered some interesting discussion and that despite taking a lot of heat early on you should be commended for how you've responded.

 

 

My entire reason for going through this process was to find out just how bendy geocaching.com's rules are. Apparently very bendy. And that's okay. I hope it will give others perspective too, when it comes to the pliability of game guidelines, even when it comes to illegal trespass. I have succeeded in showing that there is a lot of give in the system. Most of us will continue traveling at the speed of the surrounding traffic, even if it's faster than the posted speed limit. The world will continue to turn. Life goes on.

 

Thanks, everyone, for helping learn a lot about the nuances and history of geocaching.

 

Chris

 

I would draw conclusions regarding the bendiness of the rules based solely on the outcome related to that specific cache. Personally, I think one of the reasons caches like this continue to exist is that sometimes it seems like geocachers will see how far the rules will bend without breaking. There are many guidelines and requirements that are open to interpretation and they pretty much have to be to have one set of guidelines that works for this globally played game. Even when a guideline is not bendy sometimes things slip through the cracks, and that where we, as geocachers are put into the position of being a cache cop, so that reviewers can become aware of one that did slip past the reviewer.

 

From my point of view, this particular cache is one that could have been published and continue to remain active within the guidelines but is perhaps one that *should not* remain active due to the potential of future encounters between cachers, home owners, the HOA, and even law enforcement.

 

 

 

 

[+on4bam]

Since it's there without problems for 10 years, why not let this rest. Making waves is bound to create problems where there were none before. 164 logs in 10 years is less than 2 cachers per month.

[Cascade Reviewer]

Actually, there have been problems with the cache, but the logs have been deleted. I can't tell if they were deleted by the people who logged the cache, or by the CO, but I assume it was by the CO. It's just several logs over the years, but one of them stated that they were stopped by a "rent a cop" for parking nearby.

[knowschad]

Actually, there have been problems with the cache, but the logs have been deleted. I can't tell if they were deleted by the people who logged the cache, or by the CO, but I assume it was by the CO. It's just several logs over the years, but one of them stated that they were stopped by a "rent a cop" for parking nearby.

Thanks for the insider's viewpoint! Doesn't surprise me in the least.

 

Meanwhile, can we get an insider's viewpoint over in this thread, too, by any chance?

[+AustinMN]

Since it's there without problems for 10 years, why not let this rest. Making waves is bound to create problems where there were none before. 164 logs in 10 years is less than 2 cachers per month.

 

I wonder if anybody noticed that the cache was moved about 10 months ago? I haven't taken the time to check the old co-ords against the GIS, but it may not have been on private property at the time.

 

Austin

[+LaughterOnWater]

I wonder if anybody noticed that the cache was moved about 10 months ago? I haven't taken the time to check the old co-ords against the GIS, but it may not have been on private property at the time.

 

Austin

It was. The old coords are 20 feet closer to the Trust home.

[+wmpastor]

I wonder if anybody noticed that the cache was moved about 10 months ago? I haven't taken the time to check the old co-ords against the GIS, but it may not have been on private property at the time.

 

Austin

It was. The old coords are 20 feet closer to the Trust home.

It's good to see there's progress - both with the cache and with the investigation.

[+wmpastor]

Has anyone considered that since the CO lives in the development and is actually in the homeowners' association he has the insider's feel for the neighborhood and the *actual* rules of the area?

 

For example, it is common the HOAs require the host member to accompany his guests as they use the amenities. However, that rule is not universal. Does anyone actually know if that is the rule here and if it is a real, enforced rule? (Or hasn't the "investigation" gotten that far?)

 

Also, since the CO is an insider, in the *highly* unlikely event the HOA questioned the cache, he'd work things out.

[knowschad]

Has anyone considered that since the CO lives in the development and is actually in the homeowners' association he has the insider's feel for the neighborhood and the *actual* rules of the area?

 

For example, it is common the HOAs require the host member to accompany his guests as they use the amenities. However, that rule is not universal. Does anyone actually know if that is the rule here and if it is a real, enforced rule? (Or hasn't the "investigation" gotten that far?)

 

Also, since the CO is an insider, in the *highly* unlikely event the HOA questioned the cache, he'd work things out.

 

What you say is true. The CO is an insider and has an insider's feel for the neighborhood and the HOA:

 

He's a member of the HOA, though he has not expressly asked permission, fearing they would not understand.

 

As far as the rules go... NO TRESPASSING is clearly written on that sign.

[+WarNinjas]

This experience has left a bitter taste in my mouth.

I hope it has not left such a bitter taste that you decide to stop caching and I hope none of my responses added to that. From what I have seen most of us try to play by the rules as much as possible. If you wanted you could figure out the reviewer in your area and ask. I would suggest you just keep caching and if you feel like it maybe hide some and see what responses come with it. Then after a few months or so see how you feel about this one and then jump in.

[+on4bam]

Time to get a posse together, get some rope... we can't have that.... this 10 year old cache has to go...

I wonder which cache will be next to investigate.

 

Sad really, the way this has been going.

[+LaughterOnWater]

...I agree that you've done about as much as you could. One can only hope that keeping the status quo with the cache won't lead to an incident between future seekers, the HOA, or law enforcement. In any case, I think the thread has fostered some interesting discussion and that despite taking a lot of heat early on you should be commended for how you've responded.

...

I would draw conclusions regarding the bendiness of the rules based solely on the outcome related to that specific cache. Personally, I think one of the reasons caches like this continue to exist is that sometimes it seems like geocachers will see how far the rules will bend without breaking. There are many guidelines and requirements that are open to interpretation and they pretty much have to be to have one set of guidelines that works for this globally played game. Even when a guideline is not bendy sometimes things slip through the cracks, and that where we, as geocachers are put into the position of being a cache cop, so that reviewers can become aware of one that did slip past the reviewer.

 

From my point of view, this particular cache is one that could have been published and continue to remain active within the guidelines but is perhaps one that *should not* remain active due to the potential of future encounters between cachers, home owners, the HOA, and even law enforcement.

Thanks, NYPaddleCacher

 

Since it's there without problems for 10 years, why not let this rest. Making waves is bound to create problems where there were none before. 164 logs in 10 years is less than 2 cachers per month.

I'm fine with leaving it alone.

 

Actually, there have been problems with the cache, but the logs have been deleted. I can't tell if they were deleted by the people who logged the cache, or by the CO, but I assume it was by the CO. It's just several logs over the years, but one of them stated that they were stopped by a "rent a cop" for parking nearby.

Thanks, Cascade Reviewer. I suppose there's no way to retrieve the deleted logs?

 

Actually, there ...

Thanks for the insider's viewpoint! Doesn't surprise me in the least.

...

knowschad, I'm not surprised either.

 

It's good to see there's progress - both with the cache and with the investigation.

wmpastor, I'm good with letting sleeping dogs lie. No continued investigation necessary.

 

Has anyone considered that since the CO lives in the development and is actually in the homeowners' association he has the insider's feel for the neighborhood and the *actual* rules of the area?

 

For example, it is common the HOAs require the host member to accompany his guests as they use the amenities. However, that rule is not universal. Does anyone actually know if that is the rule here and if it is a real, enforced rule? (Or hasn't the "investigation" gotten that far?)

 

Also, since the CO is an insider, in the *highly* unlikely event the HOA questioned the cache, he'd work things out.

This is getting a little meta. Rules, real rules, laws. Let's put them in order. First, there's the law. Trespass of the sort we're talking about may not be a criminal offense. It's probably a civil offense. A sign is posted, "No Trespassing." That takes precedent over any game rules. Then, we have how well the law is upheld -- wmpastor's *actual* rules of the area. Then we have game rules, and then we have the bendiness of the game rules. Law's aren't supposed to be broken. Most of us break laws to some extent every day, with my example of everyone speeding on I-85 without police intervention because of the likelihood of more traffic problems and the detrimental effect on the city's economy. This is mirrored in the game rules. Many people get away with bending the rules. It's just life.

 

What you say is true. The CO is an insider and has an insider's feel for the neighborhood and the HOA:

 

He's a member of the HOA, though he has not expressly asked permission, fearing they would not understand.

 

As far as the rules go... NO TRESPASSING is clearly written on that sign.

Agreed.

 

I hope it has not left such a bitter taste that you decide to stop caching and I hope none of my responses added to that. From what I have seen most of us try to play by the rules as much as possible. If you wanted you could figure out the reviewer in your area and ask. I would suggest you just keep caching and if you feel like it maybe hide some and see what responses come with it. Then after a few months or so see how you feel about this one and then jump in.

Nothing anyone has said so far has offended me. Thread participants have been engaged, focused and civil. Who could ask more? There are lessons here for all of us.

 

Time to get a posse together, get some rope... we can't have that.... this 10 year old cache has to go...

I wonder which cache will be next to investigate.

 

Sad really, the way this has been going.

I'd be glad if we didn't pursue Two Ponds any further. I'm not so sure that there is anything wrong with the way things are going. This is just the way things are.

 

All,

 

My original reason for posting was because I was seeing so much rule bending, and was wondering whether this was normal or not. I brought up this one in particular because it was the only one I'd found that breached an actual law, and not just game rules. Apparently, to the surprise of many in this thread, the rules are pretty bendy.

 

All I know is that making waves (i.e. trying to enforce existing rules) under the current ruleset is discouraged if not thwarted at all levels, as mirrored in this one example, Two Ponds. So people don't report offenders. The problem is, the longer rules stay as they are, the more people will bend them. That's why rules have to be amendable. And if enough people are bending them, maybe it's time for some changes to the rules.

 

For example, why not gamify the finding of rule infractors? Give members five dollars toward their next premium membership renewal for each major infraction (where actual laws are broken) and a dollar for each minor infraction. That would quickly clear up rule infractors. For for perpetual infractors, clear out all their favorites after the first ten infractions, clear out half their cache finds after twenty infractions, and remove their membership after thirty infractions. People who post too many bogus infractions would be banned from posting infractions, or maybe banned from the game.

 

Of course these rules could be too harsh, but there is the germ of an idea there, and some form of change along these lines might breathe a little change into the community. It might also breed a little anger in people with old caches that have been flouting laws and rules for a long time, but new caches would be doubly-sure not to bend the rules.

 

People would be more likely to fully read the rules before creating caches.

 

This might be a bad idea, but it's an idea. There might be better ideas. Anything positive that makes people want to not bend the rules could make the game better.

 

I will continue to geocache. I've already lost my keys on one trip. Not a stellar day for geocaching, but stuff happens.

 

Chris

[+narcissa]

My original reason for posting was because I was seeing so much rule bending, and was wondering whether this was normal or not. I brought up this one in particular because it was the only one I'd found that breached an actual law, and not just game rules. Apparently, to the surprise of many in this thread, the rules are pretty bendy.

 

All I know is that making waves (i.e. trying to enforce existing rules) under the current ruleset is discouraged if not thwarted at all levels, as mirrored in this one example, Two Ponds. So people don't report offenders. The problem is, the longer rules stay as they are, the more people will bend them. That's why rules have to be amendable. And if enough people are bending them, maybe it's time for some changes to the rules.

 

For example, why not gamify the finding of rule infractors? Give members five dollars toward their next premium membership renewal for each major infraction (where actual laws are broken) and a dollar for each minor infraction. That would quickly clear up rule infractors. For for perpetual infractors, clear out all their favorites after the first ten infractions, clear out half their cache finds after twenty infractions, and remove their membership after thirty infractions. People who post too many bogus infractions would be banned from posting infractions, or maybe banned from the game.

 

Of course these rules could be too harsh, but there is the germ of an idea there, and some form of change along these lines might breathe a little change into the community. It might also breed a little anger in people with old caches that have been flouting laws and rules for a long time, but new caches would be doubly-sure not to bend the rules.

 

People would be more likely to fully read the rules before creating caches.

 

This might be a bad idea, but it's an idea. There might be better ideas. Anything positive that makes people want to not bend the rules could make the game better.

 

I will continue to geocache. I've already lost my keys on one trip. Not a stellar day for geocaching, but stuff happens.

 

Chris

 

I know you mean well, but you need to understand a couple of things:

 

1. Geocaching.com is a listing site. They do their best to manage the quality/legitimacy of geocaches listed on their site, but there is a limit to what they can do. Reviewers are volunteers who do what they can with the information they have. They are not cops.

 

2. The rules need to be a little bendy. This is an international game, and there are innumerable factors that cannot be adequately covered by the guidelines without making them thousands of pages long. That's why there are regional reviewers who can familiarize themselves with the issues specific to particular places.

 

3. As a geocacher, it is not your responsibility to police others. If you feel uncomfortable going somewhere to find a geocache, move on. If you encounter an obstacle like a NO TRESPASSING sign or an angry homeowner, get out of dodge and report the cache using the NA attribute, or, if you're uncomfortable with that, figure out who the current local reviewer is and tell them about it privately.

 

4. I would recommend caching a bit longer before coming up with any grand schemes for redesigning the game.

[knowschad]

Time to get a posse together, get some rope... we can't have that.... this 10 year old cache has to go...

I wonder which cache will be next to investigate.

 

Sad really, the way this has been going.

You really think that way? A cache on marked private property, where they care enough about their privacy to post custom made signs? And the cache owner clearly states that he suspects that the HOA would have problems with his cache if they were aware of it? What boggles my mind is that it actually took 10 years for this to get to this point!

[+on4bam]

You really think that way? A cache on marked private property, where they care enough about their privacy to post custom made signs? And the cache owner clearly states that he suspects that the HOA would have problems with his cache if they were aware of it? What boggles my mind is that it actually took 10 years for this to get to this point!

 

I thought it would be pretty clear what I thought. Let's be clear about it, I think this discussion went to far, lighten up, it's a hobby and nothing is black or white only. If there were serious problems the cache wouldn't have been around for so long.

 

The fact it took 10 years for this thread to appear means that it's not a big deal. 164 found in 10 years... it's not like it's on a power trail with heaps of people invading the area.

[+J Grouchy]

For a little perspective:

I didn't realize this is a Georgia cache. Not that it makes much difference...but the oldest cache in Georgia is 'Beaver Cache' in Snellville and sits inside a subdivision on HOA property. Because of its age and popularity as the oldest GA cache, it obviously has drawn fire over the years. The caretakers have to walk a fine line with the HOA - who tolerates its presence - and disable the cache during periods where large caching events come to town ("town" being pretty much anywhere within 150 miles or so) to prevent an influx of large numbers of cachers to the relatively quiet area.

 

This cache (from the OP) likely doesn't draw much traffic and the few times a year that people do come by, having a problem with the locals and LEO are a rare occurrence. Problem comes when the CO both "hides" the existence of the cache from the HOA and, in his own words, encourages lying to security/law enforcement regarding the person's reason for being on private HOA property. That's what bothers me most about the whole thing. I probably wouldn't go for this hide no matter what just because I don't enjoy wandering into subdivisions and traipsing into areas that may or may not be someone's back yard. Knowing the CO's attitude toward it ensures I wouldn't even consider it.

Edited June 1, 2015 by J Grouchy

[+LaughterOnWater]

I know you mean well, but you need to understand a couple of things:

 

1. Geocaching.com is a listing site. They do their best to manage the quality/legitimacy of geocaches listed on their site, but there is a limit to what they can do. Reviewers are volunteers who do what they can with the information they have. They are not cops.

 

2. The rules need to be a little bendy. This is an international game, and there are innumerable factors that cannot be adequately covered by the guidelines without making them thousands of pages long. That's why there are regional reviewers who can familiarize themselves with the issues specific to particular places.

 

3. As a geocacher, it is not your responsibility to police others. If you feel uncomfortable going somewhere to find a geocache, move on. If you encounter an obstacle like a NO TRESPASSING sign or an angry homeowner, get out of dodge and report the cache using the NA attribute, or, if you're uncomfortable with that, figure out who the current local reviewer is and tell them about it privately.

 

4. I would recommend caching a bit longer before coming up with any grand schemes for redesigning the game.

narcissa,

After posting, I realized that too about the website. They would have to hire people to verify money transactions. It's a multiple-revenue-loss approach, and basically an unfundable ruleset. Yep... Bad idea. And I've said all along, I'm loathe to be a cache cop.

 

Geocaching.com started as someone's grand scheme, so maybe grand schemes are okay, as long as we abandon the ones that won't work. But let's not stop coming up with them, eh?

 

In your experience, has rule flouting gotten better, worse or remained the same since the game began? Are there things you would change?

 

Chris

[knowschad]

You really think that way? A cache on marked private property, where they care enough about their privacy to post custom made signs? And the cache owner clearly states that he suspects that the HOA would have problems with his cache if they were aware of it? What boggles my mind is that it actually took 10 years for this to get to this point!

 

I thought it would be pretty clear what I thought. Let's be clear about it, I think this discussion went to far, lighten up, it's a hobby and nothing is black or white only. If there were serious problems the cache wouldn't have been around for so long.

 

The fact it took 10 years for this thread to appear means that it's not a big deal. 164 found in 10 years... it's not like it's on a power trail with heaps of people invading the area.

 

Trespassing is not a hobby, for most of us, at least.

 

A reviewer has stated that there have been issues with Rent-a-cops in that 10 years but the cache owner (apparently) has erased that bit of history.

[+LaughterOnWater]

...wandering into subdivisions and traipsing...

Just an interesting aside:

Merriam Webster's definition of 'to traipse': to walk or travel about without apparent plan but with or without a purpose.'

 

I particularly like this term for what geocachers do because from the perspective of the puzzled, uninformed muggle, that's exactly what we're doing.

 

We are all wayward traipsers.

 

C