Groundspeak Forums: Canada Post property - Groundspeak Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Canada Post property

#1 User is offline   Cache-tech 

  • Cache Technician
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 588
  • Joined: 25-June 03

Posted 02 June 2008 - 07:51 AM

If you plan on attaching a cache to Canada Post property, be it mail boxes, pick up boxes and such, please provide the permission from the local post master or your cache will not be listed. Recently I spoke to my post master, attaching anything to Canada Post boxes can be considered mail tampering and is a Federal Offense. Personally I would not want to spend jail time over a micro cache, but I have been getting more and more of these. If you own the mailbox that is at the end of your driveway, from what I understand, this is your property and you can attach a cache to that box. But if it is a community mail box that is owned by Canada Post, then no. All it will take is a neighbour to complain that strangers are poking around the boxes to cause a problem with a cacher being charged. If they don't have a mailbox there, then they should not be poking around the mail boxes. With the amount of identity theft and cheque theft, do we really want to get mixed up into that over a cache?

#2 User is offline   Tequila 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2972
  • Joined: 17-June 01

Posted 02 June 2008 - 08:41 AM

This is an excellent application for a Wherigo. Instead of "attaching" a micro to a Canada Post property that contains a redirect, Wherigo gives you the ability to place nothing there. Simply create a zone and reference some sort of numbers that naturally belong there. Virtual multi. :)

#3 User is offline   The red-haired witch 

  • An it harm none, cache how you will
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 02 June 2008 - 09:03 AM

View PostTequila, on Jun 2 2008, 08:41 AM, said:

This is an excellent application for a Wherigo. Instead of "attaching" a micro to a Canada Post property that contains a redirect, Wherigo gives you the ability to place nothing there. Simply create a zone and reference some sort of numbers that naturally belong there. Virtual multi. :)


I've seen a few caches that use the numbers already present on the mailboxes (CUP codesor the numbers on the doors for example) and a few calculations. I think that would be ok (tell me if I'm wrong) since geocachers only have to look quickly at the box and there is no tampering at all. And considering how many people stick adds on mailboxes around here (illegally, I would assume), there is nothing weird in someone looking at a mailbox...

While Wherigo caches sound nice, very few people have the necessary equipment (I wish it would run on palm...), so an option accessible to most people would be nice :)

#4 User is offline   bluelamb03 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: 20-July 03

Posted 02 June 2008 - 09:44 AM

Hmmm....

I've found several caches in the Ottawa Gatineau area which have redirects or hides in the community mailboxes. I didn't think anything of it, the space between multiple boxes is perfect for magnetic micros or even small caches, but I can see where locals might be curious about our antics.

Pity,

Blue -

#5 User is offline   Bzzliteyr 

  • Adsum
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 110
  • Joined: 06-July 02

Posted 02 June 2008 - 10:39 AM

Not only that but imagine if your mailbox was removed for maintenance or repainting and the cache went with it!!

#6 User is offline   hikerT 

  • Geo-Bounty Hunter
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 133
  • Joined: 09-August 06

Posted 02 June 2008 - 06:20 PM

I deliver mail for Canada Post to those community mail boxes. I have often thought of putting a cache under/on one on my route, but since the boxes are being routinely monitored by Canada Post(due to recent theft), I have refrained from doing so. I know my superintendent would not allow any such activity to take place around Canada Post property in our area, and I would think it would have the same response elsewhere.

#7 User is offline   M3J 

  • M3J
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 209
  • Joined: 27-July 05

Posted 02 June 2008 - 06:21 PM

The less the number of mailbox micros in the world, the better IMO. Any chance there is some sort of law about tampering with lamp posts as well???

#8 User is offline   GrosseFamille 

  • Member of www.Geocaching-Qc.com
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 465
  • Joined: 15-February 05

Posted 03 June 2008 - 06:51 PM

View PostCache-tech, on Jun 2 2008, 11:51 AM, said:

If you plan on attaching a cache to Canada Post property, be it mail boxes, pick up boxes and such, please provide the permission from the local post master or your cache will not be listed. Recently I spoke to my post master, attaching anything to Canada Post boxes can be considered mail tampering and is a Federal Offense. Personally I would not want to spend jail time over a micro cache, but I have been getting more and more of these. If you own the mailbox that is at the end of your driveway, from what I understand, this is your property and you can attach a cache to that box. But if it is a community mail box that is owned by Canada Post, then no. All it will take is a neighbour to complain that strangers are poking around the boxes to cause a problem with a cacher being charged. If they don't have a mailbox there, then they should not be poking around the mail boxes. With the amount of identity theft and cheque theft, do we really want to get mixed up into that over a cache?
What about existing caches? (in Canada Post mailboxes)

This post has been edited by GrosseFamille: 03 June 2008 - 06:52 PM


#9 User is offline   E&Cplus3 

  • Canadian Chocolate Hagelslag Spy
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2360
  • Joined: 09-June 07

Posted 04 June 2008 - 04:14 AM

It may be that nothing will come of it. If nobody complains and no supervisor notices it, it may have a long and happy life. <_<

But if someone views it as a suspicious item, it might well be removed -- either by a Canada Post employee, or the police bomb squad. I'm not sure charges would ever be layed for something like this, but I do know that the bomb squad in some communities sends out a bill for their services if they can identify the owner after they do their thing.

I think it would just be a good idea to add community boxes to the list of places not to hide a cache: bridges, schools, military installations, utilities, dams, etc.

#10 User is offline   northernpenguin 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2685
  • Joined: 20-September 04

Posted 04 June 2008 - 07:13 AM

I had a cache stage on the mailbox across the street from my home. When this issue first started to appear a couple months ago, I relocated the stage to a nearby tree. Regarding older caches, the responsible thing for the cache owners would be to relocate them nearby (unless they can demonstrate permission). It's also a nice gesture if the owners do this without waiting for an approver to notice the cache. Why put the approvers in that situation if you know better?

The property owner has spoken, and whether or not a cache was allowed 'back then' isn't going to matter much to the postmaster. Same thing as if I found someone else's cache in my back yard - the fact that it was listed before I noticed does not mean it can stay.

Regarding M3J's post about lamp post micros, the same 'permission' rules apply and I'm sure we'll eventually start hearing from the maintenance departments at several chain retailers about lifting lamp skirts. But for now, I guess, we are "getting away with it".

#11 User is offline   geoSquid 

  • Giant Land Squid
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 513
  • Joined: 15-April 04

Posted 08 June 2008 - 07:12 PM

View PostM3J, on Jun 2 2008, 09:21 PM, said:

The less the number of mailbox micros in the world, the better IMO. Any chance there is some sort of law about tampering with lamp posts as well???


Personally, I would like people to stop tampering with lamp posts because it's dangerous.. as is sticking a cache on an electrical transformer. In both cases caches of that nature will certainly be removed by maintenance crews if they're noticed.

I wonder who will be held responsible when a wayward cacher is killed by the 600+ volts running up a lamppost when they are shocked trying to retrieve a cache? It's just a matter of time before that happens.

#12 User is offline   CacheDrone 

  • Joy Machine
  • Group: +Reviewers
  • Posts: 274
  • Joined: 24-April 07

Posted 08 June 2008 - 08:14 PM

View PostgeoSquid, on Jun 8 2008, 07:12 PM, said:

View PostM3J, on Jun 2 2008, 09:21 PM, said:

The less the number of mailbox micros in the world, the better IMO. Any chance there is some sort of law about tampering with lamp posts as well???


Personally, I would like people to stop tampering with lamp posts because it's dangerous.. as is sticking a cache on an electrical transformer. In both cases caches of that nature will certainly be removed by maintenance crews if they're noticed.

I wonder who will be held responsible when a wayward cacher is killed by the 600+ volts running up a lamppost when they are shocked trying to retrieve a cache? It's just a matter of time before that happens.


Actually this recently too has been added to my list of locations where we as reviewers cannot accept that people have acquired adequate permission. Public utility items such as Hydro Company transformers are treated the same as Canada Post mailboxes. "Off Limits" unless I receive an email from the local authority granting permission. There are warning stickers and signs on these items for a reason, and these indicators are the way these companies are also saying "Do not touch"

When it comes to LPC's (lamp post caches), while I am not officially saying anything either way you should also remember that you as the searcher should exercise your own judgment when searching for a cache and if a location seems to be unsafe to you then walk away. It is just a :wub: and not worth anything. When in doubt, go home and ask the cache owner.

#13 User is offline   CacheDrone 

  • Joy Machine
  • Group: +Reviewers
  • Posts: 274
  • Joined: 24-April 07

Posted 08 June 2008 - 08:31 PM

View Postnorthernpenguin, on Jun 4 2008, 07:13 AM, said:


Regarding M3J's post about lamp post micros, the same 'permission' rules apply and I'm sure we'll eventually start hearing from the maintenance departments at several chain retailers about lifting lamp skirts. But for now, I guess, we are "getting away with it".


The American chain of Cracker Barrel restaurants, known for the "Off Yer Rocker" caches, has officially told Groundspeak that they do not allow caching on their property. Even if the local store allows it, the answer from corporate is still NO. I'm not sure what will happen to existing caches at these locations.

Truth be told, geocaching has become much more mainstream in the past two years and it may be that Cracker Barrel is the first in a line of chain stores that might contact Groundspeak about caching on their property or in their parking lots.

#14 User is offline   northernpenguin 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2685
  • Joined: 20-September 04

Posted 09 June 2008 - 05:03 AM

View PostgeoSquid, on Jun 8 2008, 11:12 PM, said:

I wonder who will be held responsible when a wayward cacher is killed by the 600+ volts running up a lamppost when they are shocked trying to retrieve a cache? It's just a matter of time before that happens.


Actually, I've had another surprise with the LP Micros. A few times now, I've lifted the skirt on the wrong lamppost (GPS zeroes out between two) and found the wasp nest underneath. [insert photo of penguin running and screaming across a parking lot]. VERY cautious of lamp posts now ... especially in the warmer months.

I've also been to a couple with bare wires inside - not a good place for one's hand to be feeling around for that magnetic keybox tucked up inside the pole part of the lamp post.

#15 User is offline   res2100 

  • GC10000 Geocoins
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1081
  • Joined: 31-October 02

Posted 09 June 2008 - 05:05 AM

It can be just as dangerous to hide a cache "near" (within several meters) of an electrical unit than it is to hide a cache on it. I can think of 2 specifica examples where caches were hidden withing about 3 meters of live electrical units. One is an existing multi in Hamilton where one of the stages is very well hidden in a group of trees, yet when you go there, you final an electrical socket in a very unlikely and suspicious place leading the searcher to believe that it is a fake electrical outlet, just like which are used on many tricky cache hides. There have been numerous cachers, myself included who have unscrewed the cover and started poking around and then eventually realize that it is a live box...and thankfully no one ever got zapped hopefully. When we found it, it had looked very tampered with and we were sure it was the container, which of course it wasn't. Another cache, South Park Rocks was also near a very large transforner with several switches and boxes. Once again cachers continue to search the electric units and put themselves in danger.

So placing a cache in proximity to electircal units is just as dangerous as placing it on the units itself. In both cases, there was nothing in the description or hints to indiciate that it wasn't on the electical units.

#16 User is offline   res2100 

  • GC10000 Geocoins
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1081
  • Joined: 31-October 02

Posted 09 June 2008 - 05:08 AM

View Postnorthernpenguin, on Jun 9 2008, 09:03 AM, said:

Actually, I've had another surprise with the LP Micros. A few times now, I've lifted the skirt on the wrong lamppost (GPS zeroes out between two) and found the wasp nest underneath. [insert photo of penguin running and screaming across a parking lot]. VERY cautious of lamp posts now ... especially in the warmer months.

I've also been to a couple with bare wires inside - not a good place for one's hand to be feeling around for that magnetic keybox tucked up inside the pole part of the lamp post.


I've been in both those situations myself on a number of occasions...And we have even had the wasp nest underneath the correct lamppost where the cache was hidden...and Tylor once went to retrieve it and got stung. Didn't bother signing the log, but got the ever powerful and coveted smiley anyways. B)

#17 User is offline   Keith Watson 

  • VA3UPL
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1342
  • Joined: 21-September 03

Posted 09 June 2008 - 05:16 AM

Fastened a black ABS tube to the side of a disused telephone pole. It lasted for about two weeks and the city came and took the whole pole away. It was then places on another pole where it lasted for a few years before I archived the series. You may find that the utility workers will not remove things they do not recognize as it may have been placed there by another utility company. In hind site it was a very nasty hide, but I would not recommend doing any more.

#18 User is offline   Keith Watson 

  • VA3UPL
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1342
  • Joined: 21-September 03

Posted 09 June 2008 - 05:35 AM

View PostCacheDrone, on Jun 8 2008, 08:14 PM, said:

Actually this recently too has been added to my list of locations where we as reviewers cannot accept that people have acquired adequate permission. Public utility items such as Hydro Company transformers are treated the same as Canada Post mailboxes. "Off Limits" unless I receive an email from the local authority granting permission. There are warning stickers and signs on these items for a reason, and these indicators are the way these companies are also saying "Do not touch"

When it comes to LPC's (lamp post caches), while I am not officially saying anything either way you should also remember that you as the searcher should exercise your own judgment when searching for a cache and if a location seems to be unsafe to you then walk away. It is just a B) and not worth anything. When in doubt, go home and ask the cache owner.


Maybe Groundspeak should start a list of things that are dangerous like they do with other off limit areas so we can all play by the same restrictions. Shouldn’t be hard to amend the guidelines with something like “Caches places on or inside object bearing labels warning people to not touch or keep back will not be approved, and will be archived.” Pretty much the same as not approving a cache on a utility box because of no email from the utility company giving permission. I doubt that email is ever going to come. Amending the guidelines would also be easier for the approvers, as they could just point the cache owner to the guidelines.

#19 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • He Hate Me
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9550
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 09 June 2008 - 08:44 AM

View PostCacheDrone, on Jun 8 2008, 08:31 PM, said:

View Postnorthernpenguin, on Jun 4 2008, 07:13 AM, said:


Regarding M3J's post about lamp post micros, the same 'permission' rules apply and I'm sure we'll eventually start hearing from the maintenance departments at several chain retailers about lifting lamp skirts. But for now, I guess, we are "getting away with it".


The American chain of Cracker Barrel restaurants, known for the "Off Yer Rocker" caches, has officially told Groundspeak that they do not allow caching on their property. Even if the local store allows it, the answer from corporate is still NO. I'm not sure what will happen to existing caches at these locations.

Truth be told, geocaching has become much more mainstream in the past two years and it may be that Cracker Barrel is the first in a line of chain stores that might contact Groundspeak about caching on their property or in their parking lots.


We can only hope, CD. Just kidding. No Cracker Barrel's in Canada, eh? You don't know what you're missing. It looks like the decision was made in mid-September 2007, but nothing is being done to the existing caches, as you can see from The Off your rocker bookmark list. It sounds like nearly half of the 575 Cracker Barrel's have caches.

#20 User is offline   danoshimano 

  • Carpe Beerum
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1404
  • Joined: 30-December 03

Posted 09 June 2008 - 11:54 AM

Looks like it's going to be back to the woods. YAY!

#21 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • He Hate Me
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9550
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 09 June 2008 - 04:40 PM

View Postdanoshimano, on Jun 9 2008, 11:54 AM, said:

Looks like it's going to be back to the woods. YAY!


Nope, too many ticks. B)

#22 User is offline   JDandDD 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 773
  • Joined: 06-September 03

Posted 09 June 2008 - 05:31 PM

View Postdanoshimano, on Jun 9 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

Looks like it's going to be back to the woods. YAY!

I second that Yay. Back to seeing some interesting nature. Yes!!

JD

#23 User is offline   M3J 

  • M3J
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 209
  • Joined: 27-July 05

Posted 09 June 2008 - 05:44 PM

View PostTheWhiteUrkel, on Jun 9 2008, 08:44 AM, said:

View PostCacheDrone, on Jun 8 2008, 08:31 PM, said:

View Postnorthernpenguin, on Jun 4 2008, 07:13 AM, said:


Regarding M3J's post about lamp post micros, the same 'permission' rules apply and I'm sure we'll eventually start hearing from the maintenance departments at several chain retailers about lifting lamp skirts. But for now, I guess, we are "getting away with it".


The American chain of Cracker Barrel restaurants, known for the "Off Yer Rocker" caches, has officially told Groundspeak that they do not allow caching on their property. Even if the local store allows it, the answer from corporate is still NO. I'm not sure what will happen to existing caches at these locations.

Truth be told, geocaching has become much more mainstream in the past two years and it may be that Cracker Barrel is the first in a line of chain stores that might contact Groundspeak about caching on their property or in their parking lots.


We can only hope, CD. Just kidding. No Cracker Barrel's in Canada, eh? You don't know what you're missing. It looks like the decision was made in mid-September 2007, but nothing is being done to the existing caches, as you can see from The Off your rocker bookmark list. It sounds like nearly half of the 575 Cracker Barrel's have caches.


I know...we always hit a Cracker Barrel when we are down in the US. Other favorites down there are Waffle House (best pecan waffles anywhere) and Boston Market. But hey, we have a Timies on every street corner!!

#24 User is offline   Juicepig 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1382
  • Joined: 06-July 05

Posted 10 June 2008 - 07:53 AM

hmmmm... So question to reviewers:

If i find a cache attached to a post office box, is it illegal for me to return it to its hiding spot? Should I just post a needs archived?

Of course if they have permission of Canada post they should probably say so on the cache page, right?

#25 User is offline   Red90 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 5256
  • Joined: 24-September 03

Posted 10 June 2008 - 09:20 AM

View PostJuicepig, on Jun 10 2008, 09:53 AM, said:

hmmmm... So question to reviewers:

If i find a cache attached to a post office box, is it illegal for me to return it to its hiding spot? Should I just post a needs archived?

Of course if they have permission of Canada post they should probably say so on the cache page, right?


Only if you have an official Groundspeak Geopolice license....

#26 User is offline   Cache-tech 

  • Cache Technician
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 588
  • Joined: 25-June 03

Posted 10 June 2008 - 12:19 PM

I have found a couple, as a player, I hope permission was sought and granted for the hide, but I was not comfortable searching and returning the cache, but permission must have been given if it is there right? I have also passed on a few because it was a nice day and a number of people from the neightbourhood was out, I have archived any with complaints and no permission just like any other cache. I have been removed from a property while caching and it is not fun (and those caches even had permission). We have seen what the police bomb division will do to an evergreen tree for a 35mm cannister, can you imagine if they blew up a Canada Post mailbox? I for one would not want to be the cache owner there. I have had a number of cacher argue that a cache is no different then the numerous posters found on mailboxes. While I was driving through a subdivision that had a number of boxes, most did have posters, all had tape glue residue. The difference between a cache and a poster, it is likely someone from the neighbourhood placing the poster, maybe not, they walk up, attach and move on, what they are doing is identifiable to anyone watching and quick. Attaching a cache in most cases is much the same, most likely someone that lives in the area, the walk up, hide the cache, take the co-ordinates and leave, a little suspicious but can be done quickly. Now the big difference, a cacher arrives, searches for the cache, removes something and then returns it, it takes longer and is more likely to be notice, could also be viewed as someone breaking into the mailboxes as you are more then likely a stranger there and may even have out of province plates. What is so special about these mailboxes that we need to expose our fellow cachers to the possible trouble for tampering with the mail, this also exposes the cache owner to the same charges. A number of things should be common sense, do we really need to spell out every aspect for cache hiders, and as cachers seeking a cache, it is up to you to pursue the cache or just move on to the next one.

As I stated, if you have permission and it is known that the cache is there, I have no problem with listing the cache. If you don't have permission, why run the risk of a federal offense, has not happened yet, do you want to be the first? Let keep this a fun safe activity that we can continue to enjoy for a long time.

#27 User is offline   CacheDrone 

  • Joy Machine
  • Group: +Reviewers
  • Posts: 274
  • Joined: 24-April 07

Posted 10 June 2008 - 07:47 PM

View PostKeith Watson, on Jun 9 2008, 05:35 AM, said:

View PostCacheDrone, on Jun 8 2008, 08:14 PM, said:

Actually this recently too has been added to my list of locations where we as reviewers cannot accept that people have acquired adequate permission. Public utility items such as Hydro Company transformers are treated the same as Canada Post mailboxes. "Off Limits" unless I receive an email from the local authority granting permission. There are warning stickers and signs on these items for a reason, and these indicators are the way these companies are also saying "Do not touch"

When it comes to LPC's (lamp post caches), while I am not officially saying anything either way you should also remember that you as the searcher should exercise your own judgment when searching for a cache and if a location seems to be unsafe to you then walk away. It is just a :lol: and not worth anything. When in doubt, go home and ask the cache owner.


Maybe Groundspeak should start a list of things that are dangerous like they do with other off limit areas so we can all play by the same restrictions. Shouldn’t be hard to amend the guidelines with something like “Caches places on or inside object bearing labels warning people to not touch or keep back will not be approved, and will be archived.” Pretty much the same as not approving a cache on a utility box because of no email from the utility company giving permission. I doubt that email is ever going to come. Amending the guidelines would also be easier for the approvers, as they could just point the cache owner to the guidelines.


This line from the "Off-Limit (Physical) Caches" covers that in general.

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.

In locations where the general population cannot be assumed to have adequate permission is when we ask. It is also important to note that there is a difference between dangerous and off limits. Reviewers are not the "safety police" and as such if a cache requires a person to use extreme caution then it is up to them to decide if they want to attempt it.

To make a list of locations would be counter productive since it would vary widely across the globe. As an example, in South Carolina is is illegal to geocache in a cemetery yet in Ontario I publish dozens of cemetery caches without any concern. Canada Post mailboxes are federal property and most people know that tampering with the mail is a federal offense. Locally most hydro transformers appear to be labeled as dangerous and have graphics to show that they should not be touched. Some even state that in words or that they are the property of the local authority.

Certainly I'm not saying that this signals a return to the woods, but it would be nice if people considered the location at little more when it comes to urban caching especially when it comes to how their actions will be viewed by those not enjoying our little game.

#28 User is offline   danoshimano 

  • Carpe Beerum
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1404
  • Joined: 30-December 03

Posted 11 June 2008 - 09:15 AM

View PostCacheDrone, on Jun 10 2008, 11:47 PM, said:

...it would be nice if people considered the location at little more when it comes to urban caching especially when it comes to how their actions will be viewed by those not enjoying our little game.


That is so very important it should be in bold letters on the cache listing page! (For example, think of what the person who lives in the house might be thinking when they start seeing people lurking beside their home.)

But I am off topic a bit. On the Canada Post issue, it seems obvious to me that it should be off limits.

#29 User is offline   Tequila 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2972
  • Joined: 17-June 01

Posted 11 June 2008 - 01:24 PM

I agree with taking into consideration the neighbours etc. when placing the cache.

I found a cache in Barrie back in the winter and the log before mine said "THE BARRIE POLICE WERE HERE. PLEASE CALL US ABOUT THIS CACHE". While that cache was in a small woods, it was on the end of a street and a nosy neighbour picked up on the extra vehicular traffic and called police.

I was in Winchester VA in March looking for one of those Cracker Barrel caches. I was confronted by the store manager and asked to leave because diners were concerned about someone lurking out front.

Last time I looked, there were lots of places in the forest to hide caches.

#30 User is offline   Juicepig 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1382
  • Joined: 06-July 05

Posted 11 June 2008 - 05:07 PM

View PostTequila, on Jun 11 2008, 01:24 PM, said:

I found a cache in Barrie back in the winter and the log before mine said "THE BARRIE POLICE WERE HERE. PLEASE CALL US ABOUT THIS CACHE". While that cache was in a small woods, it was on the end of a street and a nosy neighbour picked up on the extra vehicular traffic and called police.


Ye Nosy neighbour actually wrote that - The police knew about geocaching and were far more distressed about the neighbour signing things as "the barrie police" then the geocache which was actually on city property..

The police were actually fine with the idea

#31 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • He Hate Me
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9550
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 11 June 2008 - 07:10 PM

View Postdanoshimano, on Jun 11 2008, 09:15 AM, said:

View PostCacheDrone, on Jun 10 2008, 11:47 PM, said:

...it would be nice if people considered the location at little more when it comes to urban caching especially when it comes to how their actions will be viewed by those not enjoying our little game.


That is so very important it should be in bold letters on the cache listing page! (For example, think of what the person who lives in the house might be thinking when they start seeing people lurking beside their home.)



I once actually knocked on a neighbors door to inform them of the geocache I had just placed. I just thought it was something I should do. A moot point, it's long since archived.

I'm reminded of a fake nut on a guardrail cache in my area placed in full view of dozens of houses. The neighbors went absolutely crazy, all these weirdos suddenly showing up in their neighborhood, getting all intimate with the guardrail. One of them eventually figured it out, and muggled it.

Hopefully, I'm not too off-topic here. :o

#32 User is offline   CacheDrone 

  • Joy Machine
  • Group: +Reviewers
  • Posts: 274
  • Joined: 24-April 07

Posted 20 March 2010 - 08:08 AM

Since it has been nearly two years since this has been raised and due to an apparent influx of new players, perhaps this is a good time to bump this thread.

Quote

Canada Post Mail Boxes

If anyone observes a person lurking suspiciously around or tampering with a Canada Post mailbox please contact the police immediately. Try to remember as much detail as possible about the person's physical features, clothing, vehicle description and licence plate so the police have something to go on.


Any and all caches that are attached to Canada Post property should be removed by the cache owners and archived. If you own the mailbox that is fine, otherwise it is not. This differs from the USA where it is such that your personal mailbox falls under federal property until such time that it is not used for USPS delivery.

:laughing: CD

#33 User is offline   Zor 

  • Simply a geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 196
  • Joined: 19-November 07

Posted 22 March 2010 - 10:50 AM

I actually would like to comment on this since I had a cache listing denied because it was a "mailbox" cache. At the time, I was only into caching for a few months so I was still learning but I did do some research on my own.

I posted this on one of the local message boards back in June of 2008 with the details of what I found. This is the original post I made.

The end result was that there is actually no official policy (at least at that time) regarding the placing of a cache on Canada Post mailboxes. They can't say no and they can't say yes because there is no actual policy. That also means that they cannot provide you with permission because no policy exists.

From the conversation I had with the gentleman, it seems that they do not consider the placing of a cache to be mail tampering or fraud of any kind but they do reserve the right to remove anything they see on a mailbox that is not related to mail. When I explained how most caches are micros and are hidden underneath where they can't be seen, he said he did not think there was any harm in it as long as nothing was being damaged.

Now the reviewers are obviously our last line of approval on this but I would stress that unless it has changed since then (which it very well could have), according to the person I spoke to, attaching advertising or a cache to a Canada Post mailbox is not considered mail tampering and therefore would not subject a cache hider to any kind of legal action.

That's just what I was told back in 2008. Figured it was relevant.

This post has been edited by Zor: 22 March 2010 - 10:53 AM


#34 User is offline   The red-haired witch 

  • An it harm none, cache how you will
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 22 March 2010 - 12:45 PM

View PostCacheDrone, on Mar 20 2010, 08:08 AM, said:

Since it has been nearly two years since this has been raised and due to an apparent influx of new players, perhaps this is a good time to bump this thread.

Quote

Canada Post Mail Boxes

If anyone observes a person lurking suspiciously around or tampering with a Canada Post mailbox please contact the police immediately. Try to remember as much detail as possible about the person's physical features, clothing, vehicle description and licence plate so the police have something to go on.




Similarly to what Zor said, I've asked a local Canada Post employee and was told that it wasn't an issue. Sticking a magnetic container under a mailbox is less of a crime than using tape to put an add on the mailbox, and even that would never get you into trouble (after all, the add usually has the phone number of the person who placed it, so Canada Post could easily find and prosecute that person).

Of course, our reviewers always have the right to err on the side of caution. It is always good to avoid bad publicity for geocaching. So if bad things were regularly happening to mailboxes in an area and locals were likely to call the police on anyone spending time near a mailbox, I'd certainly see a reason to remove all such caches in the area. That is what the type of situation the link provided by CacheDrone illustrates perfectly.

But the fact that this was a public announcement in 2008 that only applied to a part of BC makes me wonder why now is "a good time to bump this thread" and apply this directive to the whole country. In areas where there are no particular issues with mailboxes, why worry about existing caches that have been there for years? Mailboxes don't seem worst hiding spots than fences, park benches or spruce trees and are certainly better than garbage cans (really, why do some people put caches on garbage cans :lol: )

Of course, this discussion doesn't consider the fact that most mailboxes are not very interesting places where you'd like to bring people :P That's my reason not to put caches on mailboxes, but I will still defend the right of others to put caches on mailboxes and lamp posts :P

#35 User is offline   northernpenguin 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2685
  • Joined: 20-September 04

Posted 22 March 2010 - 12:51 PM

View PostThe red-haired witch, on Mar 22 2010, 04:45 PM, said:

But the fact that this was a public announcement in 2008 that only applied to a part of BC makes me wonder why now is "a good time to bump this thread" and apply this directive to the whole country. In areas where there are no particular issues with mailboxes, why worry about existing caches that have been there for years? Mailboxes don't seem worst hiding spots than fences, park benches or spruce trees and are certainly better than garbage cans (really, why do some people put caches on garbage cans :lol: )

Of course, this discussion doesn't consider the fact that most mailboxes are not very interesting places where you'd like to bring people :P That's my reason not to put caches on mailboxes, but I will still defend the right of others to put caches on mailboxes and lamp posts :P


No caches on Canada Post property has been in force in Ontario for some time now. Dunno about the rest of the country.

The difference between a mailbox and a park bench is obvious to me -- nobody that sees you skulking around a park bench trying not to look suspicious while you search is going to mistake you for someone trying to steal credit cards from it.

It is far, far too easy to end up in very hot water with a mailbox hide - all it takes is one. Yes, I'm aware of the fact that this is Canada and 95% of the mailboxes are located in areas where nobody cares if there's a cache on it, or who is looking suspicious. It's that 5% we gotta worry about --- imagine being the one looking under a mailbox when the police show up to find out why replacement credit cards keep getting poached from a certain mailbox.

#36 User is offline   Keith Watson 

  • VA3UPL
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1342
  • Joined: 21-September 03

Posted 22 March 2010 - 02:58 PM

These days I would be more worried about skulking around a park than a mail box. People seem to be more worried about perverts than credit card thieves.

#37 User is offline   Keith Watson 

  • VA3UPL
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1342
  • Joined: 21-September 03

Posted 22 March 2010 - 03:24 PM

If it is true that there is no official policy, then the ban on Canada Post property unless permission is given is based on hearsay and no official merit. I wonder why this is not applied to caches placed on mall property. I highly doubt any of those have been placed with permission. Just about every mall I have seen have signs clearly indicating that it is private property and only authorized use is permitted. I doubt geocaching is spelled out clearly in the list of authorized uses. Those sins are also visible on many civic parks. Should permission be provided for those as well before a cache is published?

#38 User is offline   CacheDrone 

  • Joy Machine
  • Group: +Reviewers
  • Posts: 274
  • Joined: 24-April 07

Posted 23 March 2010 - 09:24 AM

Canada Post mailboxes are federal property. As such, if you can receive permission from a duly appointed CP representative like the local postmaster, then of course it is fine to place a cache there.

This is no different than placing a cache on any other off-limits area, like schools, airports, military property, etc.

If the local mail office has no issue with it, then it should be no problem to get permission from them.

#39 User is offline   Couparangus 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: 29-January 01

Posted 23 March 2010 - 10:44 AM

View PostKeith Watson, on Mar 22 2010, 02:58 PM, said:

These days I would be more worried about skulking around a park than a mail box. People seem to be more worried about perverts than credit card thieves.


They're all bad in my opinion. Any cache which draws attention to yourself and could be misconstrued as anything nefarious in nature is poorly hidden and speaks badly of the activity. I will abort a find if this is the case every time. Not to mention the personal disappointment. The quality of many hides in the last few years is so dismal I've pretty much given up. Tragic because I spotted this years ago and made suggestions like the "20 minute minimum rule" (which obviously fell on deaf ears).

#40 User is offline   Keith Watson 

  • VA3UPL
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1342
  • Joined: 21-September 03

Posted 23 March 2010 - 10:48 AM

View PostCouparangus, on Mar 23 2010, 10:44 AM, said:

View PostKeith Watson, on Mar 22 2010, 02:58 PM, said:

These days I would be more worried about skulking around a park than a mail box. People seem to be more worried about perverts than credit card thieves.


They're all bad in my opinion. Any cache which draws attention to yourself and could be misconstrued as anything nefarious in nature is poorly hidden and speaks badly of the activity. I will abort a find if this is the case every time. Not to mention the personal disappointment. The quality of many hides in the last few years is so dismal I've pretty much given up. Tragic because I spotted this years ago and made suggestions like the "20 minute minimum rule" (which obviously fell on deaf ears).


20 minute minimum rule?

#41 User is offline   danoshimano 

  • Carpe Beerum
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1404
  • Joined: 30-December 03

Posted 23 March 2010 - 12:18 PM

View PostCouparangus, on Mar 23 2010, 02:44 PM, said:

Any cache which draws attention to yourself and could be misconstrued as anything nefarious in nature is poorly hidden and speaks badly of the activity. I will abort a find if this is the case every time.


Agree, and me too.

#42 User is offline   Tequila 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2972
  • Joined: 17-June 01

Posted 23 March 2010 - 01:50 PM

View Postdanoshimano, on Mar 23 2010, 12:18 PM, said:

View PostCouparangus, on Mar 23 2010, 02:44 PM, said:

Any cache which draws attention to yourself and could be misconstrued as anything nefarious in nature is poorly hidden and speaks badly of the activity. I will abort a find if this is the case every time.


Agree, and me too.



Add me to the group. I put them on my Ignore List. Not sure I understand why there would ever be a need to put a cache on a CP Mailbox. Just inviting problems.

#43 User is offline   popokiiti 

  • Victoria, BC, Canada
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2334
  • Joined: 15-November 07

Posted 24 March 2010 - 05:24 PM

While hunting an LPC outside the main Post Office distribution centre, someone out to chat with us. We were not the first people to be seen there, just the ones that were spoken to. We were honest, explained geocaching, and what we were hunting. Turned out that where the cache was was on their property, and to the best of this gentleman's knowledge, no prior approval had been sought. To be honest, I would have thought that the cache would have been considered to be on the street, and as the lampost belongs to the city...thought it would be their property. However, we decided not to argue, logged our find and then let the CO know.
I can see a previous poster's point about all the identity theft - we have had mail sent to us after it was processed in a police case - not once, but twice. But, conversely, I have done many caches at or in close proximity to mailboxes. Most of these are in rural areas.................

#44 User is offline   7rxc 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2376
  • Joined: 06-August 08

Posted 01 August 2011 - 05:58 AM

bump for someone to read!

#45 User is offline   Pup Patrol 

  • Ontario, Canada
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4708
  • Joined: 09-April 05

Posted 01 August 2011 - 08:39 AM

View Post7rxc, on 01 August 2011 - 05:58 AM, said:

bump for someone to read!


Who?

Surely not the guy whose cache was archived a few months ago, and whose current thread in the forums isn't about that cache at all?

:laughing:

#46 User is offline   7rxc 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2376
  • Joined: 06-August 08

Posted 01 August 2011 - 12:37 PM

View PostPup Patrol, on 01 August 2011 - 08:39 AM, said:

View Post7rxc, on 01 August 2011 - 05:58 AM, said:

bump for someone to read!


Who?

Surely not the guy whose cache was archived a few months ago, and whose current thread in the forums isn't about that cache at all?

:laughing:

Actually I thought the advice and content appropriate in that case anyway... don't know if they fixed it up or not... but it's about time anyway... And I did read the later posts there as well... However there are several MBX caches around the area here and a few I saw on a trip last year, that might not grasp the facts. Not sure I do since it varies due to locality. Rural certainly is a whole different ball of wax from urban/suburban, including frequency of hunts. Same weird looking hunters, or similar I think though.

It wasn't at all meant to be mean... just educational for all, including myself, though it was read the first time.
I'm going to go and see how the 'down a log' cache is doing, that one should have been fairly easy to salvage for somebody.
The current problem just needs some caching and research on the poster's part.
Someone should consider sticking to 'Canada' though, we're not too scathing!

Doug 7rxc :rolleyes:

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic