NEED HELP, issues with a troublesome cacher in our area

[+spankybrandonf]

Hey guys, figured I would get some opinions on a issue, My friends and I are starting a annual event in our town, and we have been working closely with the city, county, forest, and parks departments in our area, and at our last meeting I found out a new cacher has been placing caches all over town, and the representative for the city said, he does not have permissions, and hasn't even requested permissions for all of them but one, he was granted permissions for one of them, but the rest he didn't even ask, and their all on city land, BEFORE anyone gets idea that I'm a snitch or anything, the only reason this concerns me is the city rep. told me that this person doing this is ruining the cities opinion of cachers, and may harm the chances of anyone else ever getting permissions to place caches, and may harm our having the first annual event we have been planning, because the city office and few others in charge aren't happy about this guy. I did write the local reviewer, and he said he wont do anything unless the city reports this guy, but the city wanted me to find out what to do, before they contact Groundspeak, because at that point, then all cachers may get future denials, and caches that are already placed by others with permission may be asked to be removed.

So how do i handle this without it going that far??????

Sincerely,

spankybrandonf

[+blackdog7]

My first thought is that while I can sympathize with you on caches being placed without proper permissions (I'm a stickler for permissions), there are any number of public places that quite simply do not require a city representatives permission, unless the city has some sort of code against it, which it sounds like they do not.

 

Is the city you're talking about Antigo, WI?

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Public land should be just that.....I like the old " Frisbee rule ".

[+niraD]

Has anyone (you or someone from the city) contacted this cache owner?

[+The_Incredibles_]

I would send a very carefully worded email to the cache owner. I would give him/her the benefit of the doubt. It's not uncommon for people to place caches without permission, while assuming it should be OK as long as it's public land.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I would send a very carefully worded email to the cache owner. I would give him/her the benefit of the doubt. It's not uncommon for people to place caches without permission, while assuming it should be OK as long as it's public land.

This is what I would do, as well. Plus, it sounds like they did have permission on their first hide...and then assumed that permission was granted for all future hides. Not really a "troublesome" CO, just one who made the mistake of making an assumption.

[+GeoLog81]

It's nice from idea you're seeking the permissions for placing the caches, but it seems, the things are going in bad direction from your side, because the city folks think now everyone needs permission to place a cache.

 

If the geocaching were to be converted in 'permission game' in your area, then in my opinion that what you're doing is more problematic. Better to keep geocaching underground game, than make 'coming out' and turn it in 'permission game'. It would kill the spirit of geocaching and many people would quit or move to alternative platforms.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

With the greatest of respect you have to look at this objectively. While cache find count does not mean you are an idiot if you have a few and a genius if you have thousands ... It certainly does speak to the level of exposure you have had to the things you may encounter within the geocaching community. As you find more you begin to realise who has good coordinates. Who is nice. Who does not maintain their caches etc ... so what I would say is, you have not found that many. In all probability your geocaching community will have a much better idea of who is who and what is what. If this cacher is as you complain an "issue" they will surely be aware of it. But you have answered your own question here

 

I did write the local reviewer, and he said he wont do anything unless the city reports this guy, but the city wanted me to find out what to do, before they contact Groundspeak

 

You have done your bit as per how Groundspeak works. You have brought the situation to the attention of your local reviewer. You have no idea if what the city says is true that the cacher has no permissions. You have no idea if permissions were required. You know so little about it you risk alienating yourself from your local caching community by publicly outing them on here and circumnavigating your reveiwers decision. We are a community and as such we work together. Leave it to your reveiwers and those in your community who will have dealt with any local authority, years before you brought this here.

[+L0ne.R]

If permission is required, I hope you can help him get the permission he needs as opposed to getting his caches archived.

Edited April 17, 2015 by L0ne.R

[+JL_HSTRE]

Ask the city official to email the Reviewer to explain where they want to require permission. Email the cacher in question to alert them that the city official in question wants to approve all caches in town.

 

This seems like an odd situation and maybe the city official is overzealous, but if someone in the local government is unhappy with this issue ignoring it is unlikely to make it go away.

 

Note that the city has the right to demand permission on their property like parks; I don't think they can require approval of every cache in city limits!

 

Also, I assume the city representative is from the city parks department and the one responsible for approving caches?

 

Last but not least: don't use your connections to intentionally block other cachers from placing caches in town unless they are part of your event group. That is a good way to upset the geocaching community.

[+Keelmann And Cici]

Normally a geocacher would ask a city for a geocaching policy, or permission to place geocaches in general. This is likely what the cacher did, or how he understood it. Since the city was able to find one instance of permission, they should review that wording, and get back to the individual cacher to clarify that permission is needed for every individual cache. Now this makes for a very restrictive and unfortunate local cache policy, but it may be too late to fix that.

 

This is between the city, the local cacher, and potentially a local reviewer. You should simply stay out of it. Why did you bring it up the the city official in the first place?

[Pup Patrol]

Hey guys, figured I would get some opinions on a issue, My friends and I are starting a annual event in our town, and we have been working closely with the city, county, forest, and parks departments in our area, and at our last meeting I found out a new cacher has been placing caches all over town, and the representative for the city said, he does not have permissions, and hasn't even requested permissions for all of them but one, he was granted permissions for one of them, but the rest he didn't even ask, and their all on city land, BEFORE anyone gets idea that I'm a snitch or anything, the only reason this concerns me is the city rep. told me that this person doing this is ruining the cities opinion of cachers, and may harm the chances of anyone else ever getting permissions to place caches, and may harm our having the first annual event we have been planning, because the city office and few others in charge aren't happy about this guy. I did write the local reviewer, and he said he wont do anything unless the city reports this guy, but the city wanted me to find out what to do, before they contact Groundspeak, because at that point, then all cachers may get future denials, and caches that are already placed by others with permission may be asked to be removed.

So how do i handle this without it going that far??????

Sincerely,

spankybrandonf

 

You've done your part. Now it's up to the proper city officials to get in touch with Groundspeak, or the local Reviewer.

 

There's no way of knowing what communications the cacher had with the city prior to placing those caches. He/she may have gotten "blanket" permission, or it might be a misunderstanding. Without knowing exactly what was communicated, there's no way of knowing what is going on.

 

And who knows who gave any permission. City officials in one department don't necessarily know what another department has done.

 

You need to tell the concerned party about how to contact Groundspeak/local Reviewer, and then step away from the issue.

 

Help Center

Legal/Land Managers

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.book&id=20

 

 

B.

Edited April 17, 2015 by Pup Patrol

[+cerberus1]

Please explain how the "city representative" found out about this other guys extra caches in the first place.

No offense, but (to me) it seems you might have (maybe) indirectly stirred up this issue, with the guy possibly interfering in your "first annual event" and all...

After you mailed the Reviewer (and got a reply...), that could have been the end of it for you.

[+Walts Hunting]

You need to go back to the city guy and ask him to show you the written policy that requires caches to be approved by the city. Without that he has no authority to require that. It is quite possible you are dealing with an overzealous government employee.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

It's nice from idea you're seeking the permissions for placing the caches, but it seems, the things are going in bad direction from your side, because the city folks think now everyone needs permission to place a cache.

 

If the geocaching were to be converted in 'permission game' in your area, then in my opinion that what you're doing is more problematic. Better to keep geocaching underground game, than make 'coming out' and turn it in 'permission game'. It would kill the spirit of geocaching and many people would quit or move to alternative platforms.

 

I agree here.....geocaching was indeed more fun in the early years when it was an " underground game ".

[+Mudfrog]

Please explain how the "city representative" found out about this other guys extra caches in the first place.

No offense, but (to me) it seems you might have (maybe) indirectly stirred up this issue, with the guy possibly interfering in your "first annual event" and all...

After you mailed the Reviewer (and got a reply...), that could have been the end of it for you.

 

No doubt there is more to this than we've been told. The "troublesome" cacher could be intentionally hiding caches in city managed areas just to stir things up, but i have a feeling this is not the case. I suppose there could be cities that have all kinds of strict ordinances as well, some specifically aimed at geocaching, but i somehow doubt this is what is going on here either. Except for the OP's group maybe wanting to hide their own caches for their annual event, i can't imagine how this other guy's caches can be causing any grief.

 

No matter, i think the OP needs to step back and let things take their course. If this is a big deal for this city's rep, then he/she can go ahead and contact Groundspeak. Things will sort out...

[+AustinMN]

I really don't get you people telling him to sit back and wait. The city official threatened to cancel his event, which they can do if it is on city property.

 

Austin

[+Mudfrog]

It's nice from idea you're seeking the permissions for placing the caches, but it seems, the things are going in bad direction from your side, because the city folks think now everyone needs permission to place a cache.

 

If the geocaching were to be converted in 'permission game' in your area, then in my opinion that what you're doing is more problematic. Better to keep geocaching underground game, than make 'coming out' and turn it in 'permission game'. It would kill the spirit of geocaching and many people would quit or move to alternative platforms.

 

I agree here.....geocaching was indeed more fun in the early years when it was an " underground game ".

 

I agree too! Maybe not underground but, it was much more fun when geocaching wasn't so well known and hadn't yet changed to the fill up every space/tftc/numbers game it is today..

[Pup Patrol]

I really don't get you people telling him to sit back and wait. The city official threatened to cancel his event, which they can do if it is on city property.

 

Austin

 

The problem is that this is 3rd hand info. The OP does not know what transpired between the other cacher and the city. He is making assumptions.

 

Only the city and the other cacher truly know what has been communicated. No one else knows, without being able to read any emails, communications, etc.

 

Is the event a geocaching event? If it is, then the threat to cancel it is petty and based on insufficient information. If this is how this city promotes tourism, community, etc, then they need to take a step back and look at how they function.

 

So, it is only appropriate that the city take it upon itself to contact the other cacher and Groundspeak and figure this all out.

 

The rest of us are guessing, making assumptions, etc. That is is a bad way to promote geocaching.

 

Basing actions on "I heard, I think, I'm guessing" is a bad way to proceed with anything in life.

 

B.

[+AustinMN]

I really don't get you people telling him to sit back and wait. The city official threatened to cancel his event, which they can do if it is on city property.

 

Austin

 

The problem is that this is 3rd hand info.

 

The threat to cancel the event is not third hand info. The city official told him his event was in jeopardy.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Definitely, if you're working with the city, you'll want to work out a geocaching policy. Depending on the size of your city, it might not be practical for cachers to get permission for each cache they place without making alot of work for someone.

[+GeoLog81]

I really don't get you people telling him to sit back and wait. The city official threatened to cancel his event, which they can do if it is on city property.

 

How did you get them? Assuming the OP is coming from democratic country, you need no approval for an event happening on public ground. You might need to inform city about it, but there's no way the city can forbid a group of people to meet in park or sth. similar.

 

What might be the case, is that OP got some financial support from the city for an event. In that case the things go more nefarious, but it's often the case when the money goes together with geocaching. However, we can't say that unless the OP presents some more details.

[Pup Patrol]

I really don't get you people telling him to sit back and wait. The city official threatened to cancel his event, which they can do if it is on city property.

 

Austin

 

The problem is that this is 3rd hand info.

 

The threat to cancel the event is not third hand info. The city official told him his event was in jeopardy.

 

The threat was based on 3rd hand info. If you're going to jump in on something, please make sure you read all the relevant information. Disjointed quoting, cutting out the pertinent remarks, leads to misunderstandings and jumping to wrong conclusions. Sort of like what lead to the OP in the first place, eh?

 

Pretty bad way for the city to act, no? When one doesn't know all the details, why threaten someone else?

 

Why threaten anyone at all? "Someone you don't know is making us unhappy. Rather than take a business-like approach, and find out all the information for ourselves, we will hold YOU responsible, and to spite you, we will punish YOU."

 

Poor reaction on the city's side.

 

B.

[+spankybrandonf]

With the greatest of respect you have to look at this objectively. While cache find count does not mean you are an idiot if you have a few and a genius if you have thousands ... It certainly does speak to the level of exposure you have had to the things you may encounter within the geocaching community. As you find more you begin to realise who has good coordinates. Who is nice. Who does not maintain their caches etc ... so what I would say is, you have not found that many. In all probability your geocaching community will have a much better idea of who is who and what is what. If this cacher is as you complain an "issue" they will surely be aware of it. But you have answered your own question here

 

I did write the local reviewer, and he said he wont do anything unless the city reports this guy, but the city wanted me to find out what to do, before they contact Groundspeak

 

You have done your bit as per how Groundspeak works. You have brought the situation to the attention of your local reviewer. You have no idea if what the city says is true that the cacher has no permissions. You have no idea if permissions were required. You know so little about it you risk alienating yourself from your local caching community by publicly outing them on here and circumnavigating your reveiwers decision. We are a community and as such we work together. Leave it to your reveiwers and those in your community who will have dealt with any local authority, years before you brought this here.

Alienating is why i didnt mention who or where, and Im not circumventing the reviewers decision, i did not include his full words, which were to either have city contact him or Groundspeak, or for me to write cache owner, and handle things respectively between cachers. Thats main reason I wanted opinions in here, to get a better idea of my course of action, because I believe in fixing things without bringing big brother (Groundspeak) into it, but i wanted to know others opinions first, but we have been working on our first annual event in our area for awhile and dont want that jeopardized either, since we have many involved.

Your opinions helped alot, i knew what i had to do by writing him nicely, and now with your opinions, my wanting to write him, sounds like best idea..THANK YOU

[+KC2WI]

It would not really be great to have the city require permission for every cache. Plus it seems like overkill and a lot of make-work for both the city and COs.

 

However, given the fact that areas have been evacuated and the bomb squad called in when someone finds a "suspicious container," I can see that there is justification for it.

 

I've also seem some hides that might be questionable from the city's point of view. Like maybe a fake electrical plate on a lamp post that leads cache hunters to pry off real ones, and is dangerous if people are poking their fingers in to potentially live wires. Or a cache hidden in a flower garden or other planting that causes people to trample through and cause damage.

 

It makes sense for any entity administering public land to have a geocaching policy. Geocaching is no longer a somewhat obscure activity with only a few participants and a few caches hidden. Administrators of public land are going to find out about it if they haven't already, and when they do they are going to want to regulate the placement of caches.

 

Best to get ahead of it and work with the city to have a reasonable policy.

[+spankybrandonf]

Normally a geocacher would ask a city for a geocaching policy, or permission to place geocaches in general. This is likely what the cacher did, or how he understood it. Since the city was able to find one instance of permission, they should review that wording, and get back to the individual cacher to clarify that permission is needed for every individual cache. Now this makes for a very restrictive and unfortunate local cache policy, but it may be too late to fix that.

 

This is between the city, the local cacher, and potentially a local reviewer. You should simply stay out of it. Why did you bring it up the the city official in the first place?

I didnt bring it up to city rep. They brought it up to me at our meeting regarding our event, city had been monitoring the geocaching website after getting complaints of containers on city land

[+spankybrandonf]

It would not really be great to have the city require permission for every cache. Plus it seems like overkill and a lot of make-work for both the city and COs.

 

However, given the fact that areas have been evacuated and the bomb squad called in when someone finds a "suspicious container," I can see that there is justification for it.

 

I've also seem some hides that might be questionable from the city's point of view. Like maybe a fake electrical plate on a lamp post that leads cache hunters to pry off real ones, and is dangerous if people are poking their fingers in to potentially live wires. Or a cache hidden in a flower garden or other planting that causes people to trample through and cause damage.

 

It makes sense for any entity administering public land to have a geocaching policy. Geocaching is no longer a somewhat obscure activity with only a few participants and a few caches hidden. Administrators of public land are going to find out about it if they haven't already, and when they do they are going to want to regulate the placement of caches.

 

Best to get ahead of it and work with the city to have a reasonable policy.

I agree completely

[+spankybrandonf]

Please explain how the "city representative" found out about this other guys extra caches in the first place.

No offense, but (to me) it seems you might have (maybe) indirectly stirred up this issue, with the guy possibly interfering in your "first annual event" and all...

After you mailed the Reviewer (and got a reply...), that could have been the end of it for you.

The city found out about the caches due to one of its employees is a Cacher, and noticed some in areas not allowed and not approved, so the city rep. Brought it up to us at our geocaching event meeting that was regarding use of city land and use of city resources.

[+spankybrandonf]

If permission is required, I hope you can help him get the permission he needs as opposed to getting his caches archived.

Yes i would rather permissions given, i never want Caches removed

[+Michaelcycle]

Please explain how the "city representative" found out about this other guys extra caches in the first place.

No offense, but (to me) it seems you might have (maybe) indirectly stirred up this issue, with the guy possibly interfering in your "first annual event" and all...

After you mailed the Reviewer (and got a reply...), that could have been the end of it for you.

The city found out about the caches due to one of its employees is a Cacher, and noticed some in areas not allowed and not approved, so the city rep. Brought it up to us at our geocaching event meeting that was regarding use of city land and use of city resources.

 

So that implies that the city already has a geocaching policy in place. IF that is the case the local reviewer must not be aware of it or the caches would never have been approved. The city and the reviewer have to work this out.

[+Touchstone]

...My friends and I are starting a annual event in our town, and we have been working closely with the city, county, forest, and parks departments in our area,...

 

I would focus on the original task, and not get sidetracked by conversations about caches, which do not concern me.

 

I did write the local reviewer, and he said he wont do anything unless the city reports this guy, but the city wanted me to find out what to do, before they contact Groundspeak, because at that point, then all cachers may get future denials, and caches that are already placed by others with permission may be asked to be removed.

 

The Reviewer fulfilled their obligation in this situation. It's up to the city to contact Groundspeak, and/or develop a Geocaching Policy with the usual public comment, or twist some existing law that covers the situation (i.e. NPS and the "abandoned property" justification).

 

It really comes down to whether the city wants to support your Event idea or not. That's really the task at hand, IMO.

[+wmpastor]

Definitely, if you're working with the city, you'll want to work out a geocaching policy. Depending on the size of your city, it might not be practical for cachers to get permission for each cache they place without making alot of work for someone.

 

One township that I've placed caches in has a registration form. This makes it possible for the municipality to know where caches are (that's useful in case of those bomb-scare incidents) and also to point out potential problems with the placement. In one case they asked me a question, pre-approval, to confirm I was thinking about spot "A" and not nearby spot "B." Their question was actually a savvy one, and I confirmed it was in the better spot, less likely to be seen by muggles.

 

Oh, and welcome back, Seaglass Pirates - haven't seen you since the famous racing-car thread!

[+dprovan]

Has anyone (you or someone from the city) contacted this cache owner?

This is the big question, in my mind, particularly since there's no indication that the OP contacted the CO at all. Nothing presented here supports calling the CO "troublesome". With all the questions about permission and policy, to me, the most important missing element here is that the OP sees the CO as a problem that everyone else has, while things are more likely to be sorted out to everyone's satisfaction if the OP starts seeing the CO as having a problem which the OP is in a good position to help resolve.

 

I would send a very carefully worded email to the cache owner. I would give him/her the benefit of the doubt. It's not uncommon for people to place caches without permission, while assuming it should be OK as long as it's public land.

And I would send the message with the "Send Friend Request" box checked.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Oh, and welcome back, Seaglass Pirates - haven't seen you since the famous racing-car thread!

 

... which should never be mentioned again ... in the same way we do not mention your predilection for inappropriately touching broccoli and the green lantern fetish.

[+Mn-treker]

Ask the city official to email the Reviewer to explain where they want to require permission. Email the cacher in question to alert them that the city official in question wants to approve all caches in town.

 

This seems like an odd situation and maybe the city official is overzealous, but if someone in the local government is unhappy with this issue ignoring it is unlikely to make it go away.

 

Note that the city has the right to demand permission on their property like parks; I don't think they can require approval of every cache in city limits!

 

Also, I assume the city representative is from the city parks department and the one responsible for approving caches?

 

Last but not least: don't use your connections to intentionally block other cachers from placing caches in town unless they are part of your event group. That is a good way to upset the geocaching community.

Actually they can require permission in all places in the city. You are placing a private piece of property in a spot that does not belong to you. There is a city here that does that.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Please explain how the "city representative" found out about this other guys extra caches in the first place.

No offense, but (to me) it seems you might have (maybe) indirectly stirred up this issue, with the guy possibly interfering in your "first annual event" and all...

After you mailed the Reviewer (and got a reply...), that could have been the end of it for you.

The city found out about the caches due to one of its employees is a Cacher, and noticed some in areas not allowed and not approved, so the city rep. Brought it up to us at our geocaching event meeting that was regarding use of city land and use of city resources.

 

Sooo...why didn't the city or this other cacher contact the CO of these other caches and explain their issue with him/her? They knew the caches were there, they didn't want them placed there and rather than contact the person who placed the caches without permission, they sat on their hands until you approached them with an idea for an event? Something doesn't add up.

[+The A-Team]

Sooo...why didn't the city or this other cacher contact the CO of these other caches and explain their issue with him/her? They knew the caches were there, they didn't want them placed there and rather than contact the person who placed the caches without permission, they sat on their hands until you approached them with an idea for an event? Something doesn't add up.

The OP explained that in the first post:

 

...the city wanted me to find out what to do, before they contact Groundspeak...

The city apparently isn't very aware of how things work with geocaching.com, and they want to find out more before they act in what they think may be a knee-jerk type reaction that could have unintended consequences. I applaud them for that.

 

Honestly, I'm seeing a lot of off-the-wall suggestions, assumptions, and accusations that could be easily cleared up if you read the OP's posts again carefully. AFAICT, they've done a very good job of explaining the situation and most of your (the collective "you") questions are already answered there.

 

I'm a bit baffled about some of the posts in here saying that the city can't do anything about this other CO's caches. They absolutely can. It doesn't matter if there's a written policy or not. If a land manager contacts Groundspeak asking for caches X, Y, and Z to be archived because permission wasn't granted, say goodbye to caches X, Y, and Z. Do you seriously think that if someone hid a cache on your own property without permission and you contacted Groundspeak to get them to archive it, they would say "No, you can't make us"?

 

My suggestion to spankybrandonf is this:

First step is to email the CO (I see you've already done this). If you don't get a response or they just blow you off, talk to the city rep and advise them that they should attempt to contact the CO and explain that they require permission for their hides on city property, preferably quoting a city policy that covers geocache permission on city property. If the city doesn't get a response or they also get blown off, then the city should contact Groundspeak about the matter. If the city doesn't currently have a geocaching policy, you should advise them that they should draft one, make sure it's publicly visible on a website, and that the local reviewers be made aware of it.

Edited April 17, 2015 by The A-Team

[+Ambrosia]

I would think that if the city doesn't have a well known caching policy (the reviewer doesn't even seem to know about it) in their public areas, then there must be a lot of other cachers who have placed caches without permission. This newer cacher can't be the only one.

[+Mn-treker]

I would think that if the city doesn't have a well known caching policy (the reviewer doesn't even seem to know about it) in their public areas, then there must be a lot of other cachers who have placed caches without permission. This newer cacher can't be the only one.

 

The reviewers find out about city policies only when we find out about it and tell them. Haven't you heard the rule, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

We who hide geocache need to find out if there is a law regarding it in the area that we hide. Sometimes the reviewers know because it popped up and they were informed.

The city is not required to tell us that a law exists. Best thing to do is not assume, but to verify.

[+Ambrosia]

I would think that if the city doesn't have a well known caching policy (the reviewer doesn't even seem to know about it) in their public areas, then there must be a lot of other cachers who have placed caches without permission. This newer cacher can't be the only one.

 

The reviewers find out about city policies only when we find out about it and tell them. Haven't you heard the rule, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

We who hide geocache need to find out if there is a law regarding it in the area that we hide. Sometimes the reviewers know because it popped up and they were informed.

The city is not required to tell us that a law exists. Best thing to do is not assume, but to verify.

 

Yes, I understand that. The point I'm trying to make is there can't just be this one lone "troublesome" cacher running around the town placing caches without specific permission. There must be others that have done the same, since the city geocaching rules don't seem to be well known.

[+cerberus1]

I would think that if the city doesn't have a well known caching policy (the reviewer doesn't even seem to know about it) in their public areas, then there must be a lot of other cachers who have placed caches without permission. This newer cacher can't be the only one.

Yeah, I agree and wondered why all-of-a-sudden this one guy got noticed.

Maybe since the OP brought it to someone's attention through a future event, it's simply being noticed now.

[+wmpastor]

Something doesn't add up.

[knowschad]

I would think that if the city doesn't have a well known caching policy (the reviewer doesn't even seem to know about it) in their public areas, then there must be a lot of other cachers who have placed caches without permission. This newer cacher can't be the only one.

 

The reviewers find out about city policies only when we find out about it and tell them. Haven't you heard the rule, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

We who hide geocache need to find out if there is a law regarding it in the area that we hide. Sometimes the reviewers know because it popped up and they were informed.

The city is not required to tell us that a law exists. Best thing to do is not assume, but to verify.

 

I think you are mistaking policy for law, aren't you?

[+spankybrandonf]

Please explain how the "city representative" found out about this other guys extra caches in the first place.

No offense, but (to me) it seems you might have (maybe) indirectly stirred up this issue, with the guy possibly interfering in your "first annual event" and all...

After you mailed the Reviewer (and got a reply...), that could have been the end of it for you.

The city found out about the caches due to one of its employees is a Cacher, and noticed some in areas not allowed and not approved, so the city rep. Brought it up to us at our geocaching event meeting that was regarding use of city land and use of city resources.

 

Sooo...why didn't the city or this other cacher contact the CO of these other caches and explain their issue with him/her? They knew the caches were there, they didn't want them placed there and rather than contact the person who placed the caches without permission, they sat on their hands until you approached them with an idea for an event? Something doesn't add up.

 

they didn't sit on their hands until we approached with a event, we have been planning this event with them at our meetings for a year now, the guy placing caches has been placing them in the last 2 weeks, so far about 5 of them in 2 weeks, Tuesday was our last meeting, and it was brought up then because it just started happening, the employee that brought it up to them, told them about these in the area that werent requested to be there, because I guess when once is placed with permission, they notify the city maintenance, so there's no confusion, they wanted to ask us at the meeting before they attempted to notify Groundspeak, so they asked us, because the city rep also knew we run a geocachers club in this county that's been here awhile now, they figured we might know who he is and be able to contact reviewer or if we knew him, to contact him, well we don't know him because the CO doesn't live here , he lives about 18 miles south in another town according to his profile, and all of a sudden his caches started popping up 2 weeks ago. But I am going to either close or lock this topic, because some of the people replying, actually read what was typed and understood what I was asking, and didn't turn it into something it wasn't, because the main point of my topic was how to handle it since i was the one being asked, I have wrote the CO from his profile as of yesterday evening and relayed the cities concerns in a nice letter and explained I wasn't sure why they didn't contact him ( to me seemed like they were passing the buck, on dealing with it ), but haven't heard back yet, but I see no point in continuing to receive replies from people that seem to just want to start arguments, when last I checked, this is a family sport, and not a forum for arguing, I am sure glad the most of the cachers that replied, and the cachers up here are nice and have no problem helping people with nice answers, and understanding.

Thank you to those who replied nicely, and didnt try to turn this into something it wasnt.

Sincerely,

Brandon

[+spankybrandonf]

I would think that if the city doesn't have a well known caching policy (the reviewer doesn't even seem to know about it) in their public areas, then there must be a lot of other cachers who have placed caches without permission. This newer cacher can't be the only one.

Yeah, I agree and wondered why all-of-a-sudden this one guy got noticed.

Maybe since the OP brought it to someone's attention through a future event, it's simply being noticed now.

 

theres only 20 caches in the town, counting his, and maybe 200 in the county, the other caches in town are owned by 2 different other guys, so that makes 3 cachers with caches in town, this guys the only one that didnt get permission, so its not a huge city like your thinking with cachers running all over, even our caches that were already here only get found maybe 4 times a year, AND ONCE AGAIN IM NOT THE ONE WHO BROUGHT IT UP TO THE CITY OR AT THE MEETING,, they asked us, but I am done explaining myself to people that keep putting words in my mouth and treating this like its a teenage drama forum, the first people that explained how i should write the co, were the only ones that actually read what was typed and didnt attempt to make this into a typical argument, HAVE A NICE DAY AND GOD BLESS

[+GeoBain]

Please explain how the "city representative" found out about this other guys extra caches in the first place.

No offense, but (to me) it seems you might have (maybe) indirectly stirred up this issue, with the guy possibly interfering in your "first annual event" and all...

After you mailed the Reviewer (and got a reply...), that could have been the end of it for you.

The city found out about the caches due to one of its employees is a Cacher, and noticed some in areas not allowed and not approved, so the city rep. Brought it up to us at our geocaching event meeting that was regarding use of city land and use of city resources.

 

Sooo...why didn't the city or this other cacher contact the CO of these other caches and explain their issue with him/her? They knew the caches were there, they didn't want them placed there and rather than contact the person who placed the caches without permission, they sat on their hands until you approached them with an idea for an event? Something doesn't add up.

 

they didn't sit on their hands until we approached with a event, we have been planning this event with them at our meetings for a year now, the guy placing caches has been placing them in the last 2 weeks, so far about 5 of them in 2 weeks, Tuesday was our last meeting, and it was brought up then because it just started happening, the employee that brought it up to them, told them about these in the area that werent requested to be there, because I guess when once is placed with permission, they notify the city maintenance, so there's no confusion, they wanted to ask us at the meeting before they attempted to notify Groundspeak, so they asked us, because the city rep also knew we run a geocachers club in this county that's been here awhile now, they figured we might know who he is and be able to contact reviewer or if we knew him, to contact him, well we don't know him because the CO doesn't live here , he lives about 18 miles south in another town according to his profile, and all of a sudden his caches started popping up 2 weeks ago. But I am going to either close or lock this topic, because some of the people replying, actually read what was typed and understood what I was asking, and didn't turn it into something it wasn't, because the main point of my topic was how to handle it since i was the one being asked, I have wrote the CO from his profile as of yesterday evening and relayed the cities concerns in a nice letter and explained I wasn't sure why they didn't contact him ( to me seemed like they were passing the buck, on dealing with it ), but haven't heard back yet, but I see no point in continuing to receive replies from people that seem to just want to start arguments, when last I checked, this is a family sport, and not a forum for arguing, I am sure glad the most of the cachers that replied, and the cachers up here are nice and have no problem helping people with nice answers, and understanding.

Thank you to those who replied nicely, and didnt try to turn this into something it wasnt.

Sincerely,

Brandon

 

Brandon,

 

The easiest way to have your thread closed is to hit the report button in the bottom left corner of a post and just ask the mods to close the thread.

 

Good luck with dealing with this situation and I hope your event is a success.

[+spankybrandonf]

I would think that if the city doesn't have a well known caching policy (the reviewer doesn't even seem to know about it) in their public areas, then there must be a lot of other cachers who have placed caches without permission. This newer cacher can't be the only one.

Yeah, I agree and wondered why all-of-a-sudden this one guy got noticed.

Maybe since the OP brought it to someone's attention through a future event, it's simply being noticed now.

 

you obviously dont read, I didnt bring it up thru a future event, the city rep. asked all of us at our meeting that we have weekly, which we have been meeting about this event for a year now, they asked us when we had our tuesday meeting because a employee who caches had mentioned he noticed new ones getting placed, and the permissions hadnt been requested, but like i said before I am done explaining myself to poeple who just want to argue,,,, THANK YOU TO ALL WHO ACTUALLY READ THE QUESTION AND FIRST REPLIES AND ANSWERED NICELY... read below, ,

 

I have wrote the CO from his profile as of yesterday evening and relayed the cities concerns in a nice letter and explained I wasn't sure why they didn't contact him ( to me seemed like they were passing the buck, on dealing with it ), but haven't heard back yet, but I see no point in continuing to receive replies from people that seem to just want to start arguments, when last I checked, this is a family sport, and not a forum for arguing, I am sure glad the most of the cachers that replied, and the cachers up here are nice and have no problem helping people with nice answers, and understanding.

Thank you to those who replied nicely, and didnt try to turn this into something it wasnt.

Sincerely,

Brandon

[+spankybrandonf]

I have wrote the CO from his profile as of yesterday evening and relayed the cities concerns in a nice letter and explained I wasn't sure why they didn't contact him ( to me seemed like they were passing the buck, on dealing with it ), but haven't heard back yet, but I see no point in continuing to receive replies from people that seem to just want to start arguments, when last I checked, this is a family sport, and not a forum for arguing, I am sure glad the most of the cachers that replied, and the cachers up here are nice and have no problem helping people with nice answers, and understanding.

Thank you to those who replied nicely, and didnt try to turn this into something it wasnt.

Sincerely,

Brandon

PLEASE STOP SENDING ME RUDE AND THREATENING PRIVATE MESSAGES THRU MY EMAIL FROM MY PROFILE, I HAVE REPORTED THESE EMAILS, SINCE THREATENING MY HEALTH AND FAMILY BECAUSE OF A QUESTION I POSTED IS REDICULOUS AND ILLEGAL...

THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS

[+spankybrandonf]

Brandon,

 

The easiest way to have your thread closed is to hit the report button in the bottom left corner of a post and just ask the mods to close the thread.

 

Good luck with dealing with this situation and I hope your event is a success.

 

thank you

[+spankybrandonf]

A-TEAM

 

Thank you, and basically what you said is what I have done after the nice people including yourself replied, and your right people kept replying with off-the-wall replies that had already been answered, or quoted things that weren't said, and as of little while ago I was even receiving emails thru my profile, making threats and being rude. so in a few, this thread will be closed.

Edited April 18, 2015 by spankybrandonf