Local Cache in Private Park?

May 26, 2015

I was not too certain about finding a cache at a local park with a sign that said:

This area is restricted for use of <blah blah> homeowners association members only. No trespassing. No swimming. No fishing. No boating.

I couldn't find the cache, as GZ was in the middle of a bramble I wasn't willing to go through. While it was beautiful, I've never seen so much goose poop in all my life.

Nothing says "Geocachers allowed." I didn't exactly feel like it was appropriate to be there. There are a lot of caches that aren't exactly geokosher in the area, but a "no trespassing" sign was one hurdle I felt was too high. Should this cache be flagged for archive?

Cheers,

Chris

P.S.: Hey, I just coined "geokosher"!

3.7k · May 26, 2015

I've found a similar cache before: http://coord.info/GLG623Q8

I felt a LITTLE safer since nobody had posted about being told to leave...though one person actually wrote in his log:

As for the private property matter, if there's no gate or security guard and it isn't in someone's front or back yard, then game on.

<_<

3.8k · May 26, 2015

I was not too certain about finding a cache at a local park with a sign that said:

This area is restricted for use of <blah blah> homeowners association members only. No trespassing. No swimming. No fishing. No boating.

I couldn't find the cache, as GZ was in the middle of a bramble I wasn't willing to go through. While it was beautiful, I've never seen so much goose poop in all my life.

Nothing says "Geocachers allowed." I didn't exactly feel like it was appropriate to be there. There are a lot of caches that aren't exactly geokosher in the area, but a "no trespassing" sign was one hurdle I felt was too high. Should this cache be flagged for archive?

Cheers,

Chris

P.S.: Hey, I just coined "geokosher"!

Perhaps the owner, who may or may not live there, has permission?

Anyway, what does it matter? If you feel uncomfortable, unsafe, whatever, then don't look for the cache. There's 2 million+ caches, so there's always more to find.

Edited May 26, 2015 by T.D.M.22

14k · May 26, 2015

I was not too certain about finding a cache at a local park with a sign that said:

This area is restricted for use of <blah blah> homeowners association members only. No trespassing. No swimming. No fishing. No boating.

I couldn't find the cache, as GZ was in the middle of a bramble I wasn't willing to go through. While it was beautiful, I've never seen so much goose poop in all my life.

Nothing says "Geocachers allowed." I didn't exactly feel like it was appropriate to be there. There are a lot of caches that aren't exactly geokosher in the area, but a "no trespassing" sign was one hurdle I felt was too high. Should this cache be flagged for archive?

Cheers,

Chris

P.S.: Hey, I just coined "geokosher"!

Perhaps the owner, who may or may not live there, has permission?

Anyway, what does it matter? If you feel uncomfortable, unsafe, whatever, then don't look for the cache. There's 2 million+ caches, so there's always more to find.

Whether or not the OP feels comfortable or not doesn't change the fact that it should be archived if the cache was placed on private property (and that there are no tresspassing signs) without permission. Ignoring a cache that violates the guidelines because one doesn't feel comfortable finding it just means that the cache is still there and could potentially cause problems for others.

19k · May 26, 2015

If it was placed by permission, then it should say so on the cache page. You could always email the reviewer privately and simply ask if he/she is aware that the cache is on posted private property.

4.6k · May 26, 2015

The CO should just mention in the listing there's permission to go find the cache. It's not the first cache on private property and it won't be the last. However, if there's no mention of permission and there's a "private" sign, I would gladly move on to the next one (BTDT).

19k · May 26, 2015

The CO should just mention in the listing there's permission to go find the cache. It's not the first cache on private property and it won't be the last. However, if there's no mention of permission and there's a "private" sign, I would gladly move on to the next one (BTDT).

But the question the OP is asking is "Should this cache be flagged for archive?" Personally, I would say "yes". That, or email the reviewer, if that's what they're more comfortable with.

13.7k · May 26, 2015

P.S.: Hey, I just coined "geokosher"!

Wanna bet? :laughing:

3.8k · May 26, 2015

I was not too certain about finding a cache at a local park with a sign that said:

This area is restricted for use of <blah blah> homeowners association members only. No trespassing. No swimming. No fishing. No boating.

I couldn't find the cache, as GZ was in the middle of a bramble I wasn't willing to go through. While it was beautiful, I've never seen so much goose poop in all my life.

Nothing says "Geocachers allowed." I didn't exactly feel like it was appropriate to be there. There are a lot of caches that aren't exactly geokosher in the area, but a "no trespassing" sign was one hurdle I felt was too high. Should this cache be flagged for archive?

Cheers,

Chris

P.S.: Hey, I just coined "geokosher"!

Perhaps the owner, who may or may not live there, has permission?

Anyway, what does it matter? If you feel uncomfortable, unsafe, whatever, then don't look for the cache. There's 2 million+ caches, so there's always more to find.

Whether or not the OP feels comfortable or not doesn't change the fact that it should be archived if the cache was placed on private property (and that there are no tresspassing signs) without permission. Ignoring a cache that violates the guidelines because one doesn't feel comfortable finding it just means that the cache is still there and could potentially cause problems for others.

I see nothing indicating there's no permission. For that reason, I'm against logging a NA. An email to the reviewer stating the OP'S concerns, sure. But remember, we all state that we have permission when sending the page in for review, and that's good enough for me, I don't need to be told 3 different times. Just my point of view...

4.6k · May 26, 2015

But the question the OP is asking is "Should this cache be flagged for archive?" Personally, I would say "yes". That, or email the reviewer, if that's what they're more comfortable with.

Why not ask the CO first instead of "going over his/her head" to a reviewer. NA is certainly not necessary as it might well be there is permission and thus nothing wrong with the cache.

Most of the NA I see around here is if nothing happens after a few NM (mostly because CO's are no longer active or interested). I see NA as a last resort.

7.8k · May 26, 2015

But the question the OP is asking is "Should this cache be flagged for archive?" Personally, I would say "yes". That, or email the reviewer, if that's what they're more comfortable with.

Why not ask the CO first instead of "going over his/her head" to a reviewer. NA is certainly not necessary as it might well be there is permission and thus nothing wrong with the cache.

Most of the NA I see around here is if nothing happens after a few NM (mostly because CO's are no longer active or interested). I see NA as a last resort.

This gets my vote. The order in which I'd attempt communication would be as follows:

Contact the CO and ask if permission was obtained from the homeowners association, advising that it would be good to state that in the description if they did.
If the CO doesn't respond after a reasonable amount of time or gives some variation of "I don't care" or "Get stuffed", either contact a reviewer or log a Needs Archive (depending on your comfort level).

Doing nothing is not an option. IMO, looking the other way and potentially letting someone else be the victim of a bad encounter is just being a bad geocaching community member. If you see a potential problem, do your best to deal with it. That will help keep geocaching in a good light and your fellow cachers out of sticky situations.

3.3k · May 27, 2015

P.S.: Hey, I just coined "geokosher"!

Wanna bet?

Uh-huh! Looks more like "geokosher" was *pirated*. And that ain't geokosher!

3.1k · May 27, 2015

But the question the OP is asking is "Should this cache be flagged for archive?" Personally, I would say "yes". That, or email the reviewer, if that's what they're more comfortable with.

Why not ask the CO first instead of "going over his/her head" to a reviewer. NA is certainly not necessary as it might well be there is permission and thus nothing wrong with the cache.

Most of the NA I see around here is if nothing happens after a few NM (mostly because CO's are no longer active or interested). I see NA as a last resort.

This gets my vote. The order in which I'd attempt communication would be as follows:

Contact the CO and ask if permission was obtained from the homeowners association, advising that it would be good to state that in the description if they did.

If the CO doesn't respond after a reasonable amount of time or gives some variation of "I don't care" or "Get stuffed", either contact a reviewer or log a Needs Archive (depending on your comfort level).

Doing nothing is not an option. IMO, looking the other way and potentially letting someone else be the victim of a bad encounter is just being a bad geocaching community member. If you see a potential problem, do your best to deal with it. That will help keep geocaching in a good light and your fellow cachers out of sticky situations.

This.

I'd actually ping the owner first, AND email your local Reviewer to just give a notice that you're working on it with the owner as a "CC" to assist if there are appeals or things start heading south with interacting with the cache owner. The Reviewer can choose to respond, watchlist the cache, just sit back and wait to hear more, or whatever. Then you can escalate with a NA if need be, and the Reviewer will already have some background to work with the situation. JM2C :anicute:

14k · May 27, 2015

I was not too certain about finding a cache at a local park with a sign that said:

This area is restricted for use of <blah blah> homeowners association members only. No trespassing. No swimming. No fishing. No boating.

I couldn't find the cache, as GZ was in the middle of a bramble I wasn't willing to go through. While it was beautiful, I've never seen so much goose poop in all my life.

Nothing says "Geocachers allowed." I didn't exactly feel like it was appropriate to be there. There are a lot of caches that aren't exactly geokosher in the area, but a "no trespassing" sign was one hurdle I felt was too high. Should this cache be flagged for archive?

Cheers,

Chris

P.S.: Hey, I just coined "geokosher"!

Perhaps the owner, who may or may not live there, has permission?

Anyway, what does it matter? If you feel uncomfortable, unsafe, whatever, then don't look for the cache. There's 2 million+ caches, so there's always more to find.

Whether or not the OP feels comfortable or not doesn't change the fact that it should be archived if the cache was placed on private property (and that there are no tresspassing signs) without permission. Ignoring a cache that violates the guidelines because one doesn't feel comfortable finding it just means that the cache is still there and could potentially cause problems for others.

I see nothing indicating there's no permission. For that reason, I'm against logging a NA. An email to the reviewer stating the OP'S concerns, sure. But remember, we all state that we have permission when sending the page in for review, and that's good enough for me, I don't need to be told 3 different times. Just my point of view...

Okay, let's assume that the CO obtained permission from "someone". What do you think the odds are that everyone within the community under the homeowners association is aware of the geocache? If the cache is in an area posted with a no tresspassing sign, all it takes is one of them to dial 911, or the local LEO watching a geocacher go into the park, and that geocacher would be subject to being arrested.

Sure, contact the CO, but I'd be pretty quick on pulling the N/A trigger if I didn't get a quick response.

10.1k · May 27, 2015

NA. "No Trespassing" sign. The area is not open to the general public.

But then again I contacted my local reviewer about a cache that is obviously on the grounds on the local military arsenal. He said: "There is no 'no trespassing' sign." Of course, since then, the Interstate and State Highway were closed due to a perceived threat to the arsenal.

But, in the cited instance, there is a "No Trespassing" sign. NA.

May 27, 2015

But the question the OP is asking is "Should this cache be flagged for archive?" Personally, I would say "yes". That, or email the reviewer, if that's what they're more comfortable with.

Why not ask the CO first instead of "going over his/her head" to a reviewer. NA is certainly not necessary as it might well be there is permission and thus nothing wrong with the cache.

Most of the NA I see around here is if nothing happens after a few NM (mostly because CO's are no longer active or interested). I see NA as a last resort.

I think I would log a DNF, specifically showing the text of the sign (or a photo) and asking for an update to the cache page that the hider and the seekers have permission to be there.

DNF logs are emailed to the CO, so that should get a response, no?

If I don't get a response and come back later to clear out the non-smiley's; and the page has not been updated, I might log a NM.

O.T. People here keep saying to email the reviewer. How do you find the reviewer, in order to send an email?

May 27, 2015

No trespassing sign = No Cache.

May 27, 2015

Thanks for all the responses. I'll start with the CO as suggested by on4bam.

I suppose it was too much to expect I'd have been first to the term "geokosher".

Cheers, all,

Chris

13.7k · May 27, 2015

O.T. People here keep saying to email the reviewer. How do you find the reviewer, in order to send an email?

Just look at the bottom of most (some COs delete 'em) cache pages.

That guy with the "Reviewer" name and the (often) first log saying published is the one you're looking for.

1.4k · May 27, 2015

I am in no way saying you are not right on this situation as it sounds like you are. I just see that you are new to playing. One thing to remember if you stick with this game as time goes on you get to know the other local cachers. We have become close friends with most of the local cachers around. We see them at events, going for FTF's, have group outings and fun chats on facebook. We even hang out with some of them not caching. We spent one Christmas with one cacher and are going to another local cachers wedding in a couple of months not to mention fishing trips and other stuff. We might even take a trip out of state and stay at a cachers house we met from caching.

I would recommend contacting the CO before the reviewer just to see where they are at in this. Who knows this guy/girl might be your best friend in a few months. If this was a friend you knew would you be contacting the reviewer to try and have there cache archived or would you talk to them? I have no idea what cache you are questioning but I would look to see how many hides and finds they have. It might just be someone who just heard of the game and placed one but if they are active players I wouldn't want them to have a chip on there shoulder every time I showed up to a event or every time someone talked about us to them....they would say...oh that guy who got my cache archived.

Just a thought as when we first started caching I didn't put the hide with a person who was hiding it. Most are really cool people who are just having fun with the game. If the cache is in a place it shouldn't be I wouldn't let the friendship make me not add a NA but I would think about it first.

May 27, 2015

I had a similar situation: a newly moved-in cacher in (neighbour) village, with >1000 finds placed a cache near me. Going out there I found it buried. I said in the log that I didn't like that.

No reaction. Not sure about the owner having permission to bury there, I contacted the reviewer by mail. He told me he's not interested and I should sort that out with the CO. OK, I contacted the owner, had a personal discussion (with all those lousy arguments, weighing his "experience" against my lousy few hundred finds, and threats against my and other caches), he admit not having permission, finally totally agreed with me and promised to find a better solution. I informed the reviewer of this outcome, but it didn't interest him. Nothing happened since then. We occasionally meet at events and make fun about buried caches. Ha.

So, reviewer not interested, CO not reliable, cache still buried. A local reviewer even visited the place under his cacher name and did nothing. Don't know what I should think of that...

By buried I mean a ~1m tube digged vertically into the ground containing a large linnen cloth for painting as logbook (and therefore getting a lot of favourite points, for this "unique creative idea"...). If the forest ranger finds this cache he surely won't be happy. I did a bit of research: It's not only against GS guidelines but additionally against state geocaching rules (it's a state forest). Geocaching and what could be done against it already was topic in a meeting of a village council here, driven by another cache.

Now it's a very uncomfortable situation for me, anytime I think of this cache and anytime I meet this cacher. So, be sure: Next time I won't discuss with the owner but post an "official" NA, so the reviewer can't get out of this, and let it go. Simple, clean and rule based, shielding danger (AKA authority involvement) from our hobby.

[beside that, my respect for reviewers (and especially those two being involved in that case) has ceased a lot. Same with my believe in general geocacher's ethics.]

Edited May 27, 2015 by Ben0w

3k · May 27, 2015

Ben0w did you provide photos to your Reviewer? Also, can you elaborate on what you mean he is "not interested"?

As for the OP: I would post a NA with a photo of the sign. You could go quietly to the Reviewer and/or CO with this, but I think it is an issue that should be publicly addressed on the cache; either the cache page should be updated to reflect permission or the CO doesn't have permission and needs to get it or remove the cache. It is relevant to everyone who seeks the cache. Maybe the CO missed the sign or it was added later?

Edited May 27, 2015 by Joshism

3.7k · May 27, 2015

Similar issue came up that I posted about before: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=330235&st=0&p=5479534&fromsearch=1entry5479534

I had emailed the CO but never got a response. I assume he just thought that ignoring it would make it go away...?

13.7k · May 27, 2015

I had a similar situation: a newly moved-in cacher in (neighbour) village, with >1000 finds placed a cache near me. Going out there I found it buried. I said in the log that I didn't like that.

No reaction. Not sure about the owner having permission to bury there, I contacted the reviewer by mail. He told me he's not interested and I should sort that out with the CO. OK, I contacted the owner, had a personal discussion (with all those lousy arguments, weighing his "experience" against my lousy few hundred finds, and threats against my and other caches), he admit not having permission, finally totally agreed with me and promised to find a better solution. I informed the reviewer of this outcome, but it didn't interest him. Nothing happened since then. We occasionally meet at events and make fun about buried caches. Ha.

So, reviewer not interested, CO not reliable, cache still buried. A local reviewer even visited the place under his cacher name and did nothing. Don't know what I should think of that...

By buried I mean a ~1m tube digged vertically into the ground containing a large linnen cloth for painting as logbook (and therefore getting a lot of favourite points, for this "unique creative idea"...). If the forest ranger finds this cache he surely won't be happy. I did a bit of research: It's not only against GS guidelines but additionally against state geocaching rules (it's a state forest). Geocaching and what could be done against it already was topic in a meeting of a village council here, driven by another cache.

Now it's a very uncomfortable situation for me, anytime I think of this cache and anytime I meet this cacher. So, be sure: Next time I won't discuss with the owner but post an "official" NA, so the reviewer can't get out of this, and let it go. Simple, clean and rule based, shielding danger (AKA authority involvement) from our hobby.

[beside that, my respect for reviewers (and especially those two being involved in that case) has ceased a lot. Same with my believe in general geocacher's ethics.]

Wow.

In a different thread, one in another European Country acted surprised that we don't have buried containers here, and stated the same - that the Reviewers are fully aware.

Really surprised that one of the few rules isn't being followed, and if Groundspeak's aware, that they're okay with it "over there".

19k · May 27, 2015

I was not too certain about finding a cache at a local park with a sign that said:

This area is restricted for use of <blah blah> homeowners association members only. No trespassing. No swimming. No fishing. No boating.

I couldn't find the cache, as GZ was in the middle of a bramble I wasn't willing to go through. While it was beautiful, I've never seen so much goose poop in all my life.

Nothing says "Geocachers allowed." I didn't exactly feel like it was appropriate to be there. There are a lot of caches that aren't exactly geokosher in the area, but a "no trespassing" sign was one hurdle I felt was too high. Should this cache be flagged for archive?

Cheers,

Chris

P.S.: Hey, I just coined "geokosher"!

Perhaps the owner, who may or may not live there, has permission?

Anyway, what does it matter? If you feel uncomfortable, unsafe, whatever, then don't look for the cache. There's 2 million+ caches, so there's always more to find.

Whether or not the OP feels comfortable or not doesn't change the fact that it should be archived if the cache was placed on private property (and that there are no tresspassing signs) without permission. Ignoring a cache that violates the guidelines because one doesn't feel comfortable finding it just means that the cache is still there and could potentially cause problems for others.

I see nothing indicating there's no permission. For that reason, I'm against logging a NA. An email to the reviewer stating the OP'S concerns, sure. But remember, we all state that we have permission when sending the page in for review, and that's good enough for me, I don't need to be told 3 different times. Just my point of view...

On the other hand, we have seen numerous threads here in this forum about caches hidden in gated communities causing problems. The OP doesn't explictly state that it is a gated community, but implies it by the "homeowners association members only. No trespassing. No swimming. No fishing. No boating." sign. Signs like that aren't generally put up because they want outsiders coming in to play a game. It is highly doubtful that one home owner would be able to get that sort of permission.

And remember, posting a NA is not archiving a cache. I still wish they would change the verbiage to "Needs [reviewer's] Attention". A lot of the stigma of posting what really should be posted would go away.

19k · May 27, 2015

But the question the OP is asking is "Should this cache be flagged for archive?" Personally, I would say "yes". That, or email the reviewer, if that's what they're more comfortable with.

Why not ask the CO first instead of "going over his/her head" to a reviewer. NA is certainly not necessary as it might well be there is permission and thus nothing wrong with the cache.

Most of the NA I see around here is if nothing happens after a few NM (mostly because CO's are no longer active or interested). I see NA as a last resort.

Because of the "No trespassing" sign. The time taken by posting a NM and waiting is not justified. The reviewer needs to be made aware of the situation. As I just posted, a NA is not archiving a cache. It is letting the reviewer know that there may be something to take a look at.

19k · May 27, 2015

But the question the OP is asking is "Should this cache be flagged for archive?" Personally, I would say "yes". That, or email the reviewer, if that's what they're more comfortable with.

Why not ask the CO first instead of "going over his/her head" to a reviewer. NA is certainly not necessary as it might well be there is permission and thus nothing wrong with the cache.

Most of the NA I see around here is if nothing happens after a few NM (mostly because CO's are no longer active or interested). I see NA as a last resort.

This gets my vote. The order in which I'd attempt communication would be as follows:

Contact the CO and ask if permission was obtained from the homeowners association, advising that it would be good to state that in the description if they did.

If the CO doesn't respond after a reasonable amount of time or gives some variation of "I don't care" or "Get stuffed", either contact a reviewer or log a Needs Archive (depending on your comfort level).

Doing nothing is not an option. IMO, looking the other way and potentially letting someone else be the victim of a bad encounter is just being a bad geocaching community member. If you see a potential problem, do your best to deal with it. That will help keep geocaching in a good light and your fellow cachers out of sticky situations.

This.

I'd actually ping the owner first, AND email your local Reviewer to just give a notice that you're working on it with the owner as a "CC" to assist if there are appeals or things start heading south with interacting with the cache owner. The Reviewer can choose to respond, watchlist the cache, just sit back and wait to hear more, or whatever. Then you can escalate with a NA if need be, and the Reviewer will already have some background to work with the situation. JM2C

OK, this, I could get on board with. Notify both the cache owner and the reviewer. The reviewer does need to know about this ASAP before somebody gets in trouble.

19k · May 27, 2015

I am in no way saying you are not right on this situation as it sounds like you are. I just see that you are new to playing. One thing to remember if you stick with this game as time goes on you get to know the other local cachers. We have become close friends with most of the local cachers around. We see them at events, going for FTF's, have group outings and fun chats on facebook. We even hang out with some of them not caching. We spent one Christmas with one cacher and are going to another local cachers wedding in a couple of months not to mention fishing trips and other stuff. We might even take a trip out of state and stay at a cachers house we met from caching.

I would recommend contacting the CO before the reviewer just to see where they are at in this. Who knows this guy/girl might be your best friend in a few months. If this was a friend you knew would you be contacting the reviewer to try and have there cache archived or would you talk to them? I have no idea what cache you are questioning but I would look to see how many hides and finds they have. It might just be someone who just heard of the game and placed one but if they are active players I wouldn't want them to have a chip on there shoulder every time I showed up to a event or every time someone talked about us to them....they would say...oh that guy who got my cache archived.

Just a thought as when we first started caching I didn't put the hide with a person who was hiding it. Most are really cool people who are just having fun with the game. If the cache is in a place it shouldn't be I wouldn't let the friendship make me not add a NA but I would think about it first.

Excellent point!

Of course, I still maintain that we need to get over the "tattle-tale" stigma that comes with posting an NA.

4.6k · May 27, 2015

Because of the "No trespassing" sign. The time taken by posting a NM and waiting is not justified.

Still, there may be permission. I know a a few caches on private property where it's stated on the cache page. Most of the time the "private property" is the CO's or one of his relatives/friends.

Owner's association/gated community is something you'll have a hard time finding here <_<

19k · May 27, 2015

I had a similar situation: a newly moved-in cacher in (neighbour) village, with >1000 finds placed a cache near me. Going out there I found it buried. I said in the log that I didn't like that.

No reaction. Not sure about the owner having permission to bury there, I contacted the reviewer by mail. He told me he's not interested and I should sort that out with the CO. OK, I contacted the owner, had a personal discussion (with all those lousy arguments, weighing his "experience" against my lousy few hundred finds, and threats against my and other caches), he admit not having permission, finally totally agreed with me and promised to find a better solution. I informed the reviewer of this outcome, but it didn't interest him. Nothing happened since then. We occasionally meet at events and make fun about buried caches. Ha.

So, reviewer not interested, CO not reliable, cache still buried. A local reviewer even visited the place under his cacher name and did nothing. Don't know what I should think of that...

By buried I mean a ~1m tube digged vertically into the ground containing a large linnen cloth for painting as logbook (and therefore getting a lot of favourite points, for this "unique creative idea"...).

... snip...

You don't say when this was. The "buried" concept has evolved steadily over the years. There was a time when few would have batted an eye at a 1mm tube "digged" (or pushed) into the ground. At that time, it was assumed that you actually dug a hole (using a shovel, trowel, or other "pointy object"). Today, some reviewers take that guideline to the extent of not allowing a metal fence post to be pushed into the ground to attach a cache to.

3.7k · May 27, 2015

I still wish they would change the verbiage to "Needs [reviewer's] Attention". A lot of the stigma of posting what really should be posted would go away.

I agree...except that changing the name of the log type may invite abuse. Wouldn't folks be more likely to post needless logs that are better served by a 'Needs Maintenance' log? NA logs should be a last resort, so I figure they named it that to prevent folks from constantly telling reviewers that the containers are cracked or the log sheets are full.

7.5k · May 27, 2015

But the question the OP is asking is "Should this cache be flagged for archive?" Personally, I would say "yes". That, or email the reviewer, if that's what they're more comfortable with.

Why not ask the CO first instead of "going over his/her head" to a reviewer. NA is certainly not necessary as it might well be there is permission and thus nothing wrong with the cache.

Most of the NA I see around here is if nothing happens after a few NM (mostly because CO's are no longer active or interested). I see NA as a last resort.

Because of the "No trespassing" sign. The time taken by posting a NM and waiting is not justified. The reviewer needs to be made aware of the situation. As I just posted, a NA is not archiving a cache. It is letting the reviewer know that there may be something to take a look at.

I still wish they would change the verbiage to "Needs [reviewer's] Attention". A lot of the stigma of posting what really should be posted would go away.

+1. I like to preface my NA with Needs Attention, seems to placate most cache owners except the few unbalanced COs out there.

I was also thinking that it's highly possible that a kid may have hidden the cache. Lots of autonomous kids (no parental supervision) hide caches and don't read or understand the importance of the guidelines or the authority of a housing association. I think most people assume an adult is hiding a cache.

13.7k · May 27, 2015

I was also thinking that it's highly possible that a kid may have hidden the cache. Lots of autonomous kids (no parental supervision) hide caches and don't read or understand the importance of the guidelines or the authority of a housing association. I think most people assume an adult is hiding a cache.

+1

Many of ours in HOAs (tourists have moved in...) turn out to be kids placing hides in the association's park/picnic/pool, etc areas.

We see a lot in the leased campgrounds around here too (vacation caches mostly).

Again, placed where only the residents are (really) allowed.

May 27, 2015

Have contacted CO. Waiting to hear back.

Chris

14k · May 27, 2015

Because of the "No trespassing" sign. The time taken by posting a NM and waiting is not justified.

Still, there may be permission. I know a a few caches on private property where it's stated on the cache page. Most of the time the "private property" is the CO's or one of his relatives/friends.

Owner's association/gated community is something you'll have a hard time finding here

As I mentioned earlier, even if there was permission, a local policeman patrolling the area seeing someone in the park could question that person and arrest them for trespassing. Even with permission, not every home owner may be aware that permission was granted to *hide* the cache, and a call to 911 if they saw someone they didn't recognize in the park.

At the very least the cache listing should be updated to indicate that permission was granted (assuming that it was). Then at least those that enjoy searching in brambles and stepping in goose poop would be able to show a LEO the cache listing which *might* sway them from writing a summons.

7.5k · May 27, 2015

I'm perplexed at why people want to spare a cache that's in a gated type of community. Is this really a cache worth encouraging people to visit?

1.4k · May 27, 2015

Because of the "No trespassing" sign. The time taken by posting a NM and waiting is not justified.

Still, there may be permission. I know a a few caches on private property where it's stated on the cache page. Most of the time the "private property" is the CO's or one of his relatives/friends.

Owner's association/gated community is something you'll have a hard time finding here

As I mentioned earlier, even if there was permission, a local policeman patrolling the area seeing someone in the park could question that person and arrest them for trespassing. Even with permission, not every home owner may be aware that permission was granted to *hide* the cache, and a call to 911 if they saw someone they didn't recognize in the park.

At the very least the cache listing should be updated to indicate that permission was granted (assuming that it was). Then at least those that enjoy searching in brambles and stepping in goose poop would be able to show a LEO the cache listing which *might* sway them from writing a summons.

If the HOA bylaws allow them to grant permission, and the CO has the proper permission from them, the local LEO would not be able to give a summons. You would not be trespassing.

I have seen a few caches in private parks. My standard is, if the cache has permission from the HOA, and it is clearly stated on the cache page, I will look for it.(seen a couple like that.) If the cache page just says permission has been granted, but doesn't say by who, I skip it.(also seen a couple like that.) If there is nothing on the cache page about permission, I follow the info on the signs, and skip it.

4.6k · May 27, 2015

Is this really a cache worth encouraging people to visit?

If that were a criterion there would be lots of white space on the gc map

7.5k · May 27, 2015

If there is nothing on the cache page about permission, I follow the info on the signs, and skip it.

Many wouldn't.

May 27, 2015

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.

I'm just a noob, and as others have pointed out, I must live with my neighbors. Also as others have pointed out, what is seen in the real world is not a truly iron-clad adherence to geocaching.com rules. I will not be reporting the cache. However, there are plenty of other caches out there for me to explore. Should I decide to go out there again, if I were accosted by a LEO, I could simply say I'm the guest of a member and give the officer his name and number.

I esspecially appreciate so many disparate-yet-civil viewpoints. This is an awesome thread. Thanks!

Chris

7.5k · May 27, 2015

Of course, I still maintain that we need to get over the "tattle-tale" stigma that comes with posting an NA.

I definitely agree that no one should be shy about using NA when appropriate. One way to help minimize the stigma is to take the advice even when logging an NA: express the concerns as if the CO were your best friend, fully prepared to hear back that the concerns were unfounded.

(In the OP's case, though, because he's new and the cache is old, private e-mail to the CO was the best approach, and it sounds like it worked out fine.)

7.8k · May 27, 2015

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.

Huh? If he fears the HOA wouldn't understand if he asked them for permission, how does he think they'll react if they find out he hid the cache without their permission? If there are going to be any issues with the HOA, it would be far better for the CO to deal with it at the beginning (and potentially not hide the cache at all), rather than wait until an unsuspecting visitor is confronted with a sticky situation at a later date.

As for the fact that there haven't been any problems so far, the standard investment legal disclaimer fits here: "Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results".

Personally, I would have continued the communication in such a case, but that's just me. If the OP is satisfied, then that's fine.

May 27, 2015

...

By buried I mean a ~1m tube digged vertically into the ground containing a large linnen cloth for painting as logbook (and therefore getting a lot of favourite points, for this "unique creative idea"...).

... snip...

You don't say when this was. The "buried" concept has evolved steadily over the years. There was a time when few would have batted an eye at a 1mm tube "digged" (or pushed) into the ground. At that time, it was assumed that you actually dug a hole (using a shovel, trowel, or other "pointy object"). Today, some reviewers take that guideline to the extent of not allowing a metal fence post to be pushed into the ground to attach a cache to.

It was placed/published in December 2013. Not a 1mm tube but a ~1 meter = ~3 feet long tube of around 10 centimeter (4 inches) in diameter, digged vertically (1 meter down) into the solid ground in the forest, the opening at ground level camouflaged by a loose tree stump (where a small sign is nailed to). In very clear violation of the rules at that time and up to today, no doubt.

That time I still was feeling new to the game, started just 2 years before and having just ~200 founds. That was the reason why I choosed the defensive approach, just informing the reviewer by mail and directly contacting the CO. It resulted in a harsh discussion (imagine the usual "buried" forum discussion, but in real life). Before the CO finally agreed with me and promised to find another hide (today I know it just was to finish the discussion) he treathened me to harm other's and especially my caches plus giving me a bad time in the regional caching community. Effectively nothing has changed since then, it still is buried (reviewer was informed, but didn't react).

So, it stays a PITA up to now and I see no chance to solve the situation without CO's or reviewers help. Maybe it's just me, since all other cachers don't even mention it in their logs but give FPs. But then, I'm the only one of all those cachers who has his house in the affected village boundaries and owns most of the other caches out there. If the village council comes up with that one example of bad geocaching habit, I'm the one in trouble, not all the other visiting cachers. A similar public discussion already happened in a neighbouring village, so it's not that far fetched. Yes, those reasons were brought to both, the CO and the reviewer. I'm still searching for a way out of this situation (OK, have to admit: to stay sane, mostly I try to ignore it meanwhile).

Since then I learned a lot about caching, good and bad hides. Today I would instantly log a NA on a cache like this, without hesitating, just using the given instruments on geocaching.com and playing along the rules. Would have me saved a lot of trouble. This just is my advice to the thread opener!

7.8k · May 27, 2015

reviewer was informed, but didn't react

In a case like that where it appears that a reviewer is willfully ignoring a guideline violation, I'd report it to Groundspeak in a heartbeat. I can accept reviewers looking the other way on some grey-area issues, but the one you describe seems to be clear-cut and violates one of the few guidelines that's really more of a rule.

Reviewers like that need their hand smacked and/or need to be educated regarding how the guidelines should be interpreted. The buried guideline is one of the fundamental ones that has been around for a long time for good reason, so the reviewer really doesn't have an excuse for not enforcing it.

13.7k · May 27, 2015

reviewer was informed, but didn't react

In a case like that where it appears that a reviewer is willfully ignoring a guideline violation, I'd report it to Groundspeak in a heartbeat. I can accept reviewers looking the other way on some grey-area issues, but the one you describe seems to be clear-cut and violates one of the few guidelines that's really more of a rule.

Reviewers like that need their hand smacked and/or need to be educated regarding how the guidelines should be interpreted. The buried guideline is one of the fundamental ones that has been around for a long time for good reason, so the reviewer really doesn't have an excuse for not enforcing it.

I agree, but in this thread, another said the same thing goes on there too (and even supplied an example) .

May 28, 2015

Regarding rules, so far only about a a fifth of the caches I've found in the area really follow the guidelines precisely. Some are quite popular, but blatantly do not follow some rules. CO's generally follow the rules, but I seriously doubt most of them actually asked permission of the various owners/entities in order to place their caches. Case in point are most lamp post caches. Yeah, you could ask Lowes or Walmart for permission to hide a cache, but they'll likely tell you to ask permission of the parking lot owner, a lessor who probably doesn't even live in your state.

All of the caches I've found so far have been around for years. Some of them look pretty raggedy. Others are sharp, clean and well-tended.

I have not visited a single cache in which burying was involved. Most are nearly in plain site, or if they're in a tree trunk or between rocks, they might be covered with 'unnaturally-arranged' sticks or a pile of brick. Some are clever magnetic hides, even painted or camouflaged to look like some manufactured part of the structure they're on.

In just a few weeks, I've learned a lot about places where I live that I'd never have seen if I weren't playing the game. I imagine realtors get a similar enjoyment.

If the first rule is to have fun, for now, I'll just vote with my feet where something seems sketchy.

May 28, 2015

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.

I would suggest he needs to either get permission or archive the cache. They will certainly understand this: He is inviting non-members to trespass.

Austin

7.4k · May 28, 2015

Yeah, you could ask Lowes or Walmart for permission to hide a cache, but they'll likely tell you to ask permission of the parking lot owner, a lessor who probably doesn't even live in your state.

So then don't place the cache. It's pretty simple.

May 28, 2015

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.

I would suggest he needs to either get permission or archive the cache. They will certainly understand this: He is inviting non-members to trespass.

Austin

Austin,

I entirely agree with you. However, as I said earlier, I'm a noob. For me to come in and start acting like Mister-Know-It-All-Rent-A-Cache-Cop will only estrange me from other geocachers that I would prefer to befriend.

This game is like a microcosm of real life. For example, there are times when everyone speeds on I-85 between 316 and Spaghetti Junction in Atlanta, even when signs expressly say 55MPH. People often find themselves traveling at 80MPH. If you don't speed along with all the other traffic, you're likely to become an accident victim as others attempt to drive around you. Every time that stretch of I-85 is blocked by a major accident, the city's economy loses millions of dollars in revenue. For local LEO's to stop everyone every time they speed, it would actually cause a huge economic loss to the city. So they make sure people are at least safe. And they do it well.

Life isn't always about following rules, but adapting to how the rules are bent right now.

Chris

4.6k · May 28, 2015

Regarding rules, so far only about a a fifth of the caches I've found in the area really follow the guidelines precisely. Some are quite popular, but blatantly do not follow some rules. CO's generally follow the rules, but I seriously doubt most of them actually asked permission of the various owners/entities in order to place their caches. Case in point are most lamp post caches. Yeah, you could ask Lowes or Walmart for permission to hide a cache, but they'll likely tell you to ask permission of the parking lot owner, a lessor who probably doesn't even live in your state.

All of the caches I've found so far have been around for years. Some of them look pretty raggedy. Others are sharp, clean and well-tended.

I have not visited a single cache in which burying was involved. Most are nearly in plain site, or if they're in a tree trunk or between rocks, they might be covered with 'unnaturally-arranged' sticks or a pile of brick. Some are clever magnetic hides, even painted or camouflaged to look like some manufactured part of the structure they're on.

In just a few weeks, I've learned a lot about places where I live that I'd never have seen if I weren't playing the game. I imagine realtors get a similar enjoyment.

If the first rule is to have fun, for now, I'll just vote with my feet where something seems sketchy.

That pretty much sums it up. There are "rules", "guidelines", "laws"... then there's common sense. It's clear that nobody want to break any laws but rules and guidelines are not carved in stone and should be treated as such. As already mentioned, things change and what used to be commonplace can now be in violation of the guidelines. If permission is required for everything I doubt there would any caches left unless placed on the CO's own property.

Think multi, tags are placed on a lot of stuff. What do you think a city or other governing body will answer if you ask if placing a small dymo type tag on a roadsign, guardrail or utility pole is OK? Try to ask if you can place that magnetic nano on the back of the park infoboard.

On the other hand, it's good to see some people reacting that it's against guidelines and that a NA is in order and reviewers have to be contacted as these are the law abiding citizens we need, no traffic violations, no cutting corners in anything they do and on top of that even reporting others that may (or may not) have done something not 100% by the book

As with the burying of caches, if it's ok with the landowner and the CO then why not. No-one is going to complain as all involved agree it's OK.

Local Cache in Private Park?

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

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