There allegedly was a landowner concern on one of the caches (#6) where a new house was built 100 feet from the cache (I am presuming not on the homeowner's land) and the presence of cachers made the one of the homeowners nervous. While the cache placement is legal in the eye of the publisher and gc.com guidelines and probably state laws as well, sometimes public relations is more important. It seems that removing or moving this one cache would have made us as cachers look much better than all of the negative logs that have been posted from both sides of the argument.
This is just a game people. There are a million places left to hide caches. If we don't make an effort to respect and accommodate the few non-cachers whose lives we may be interfering with, we're going to end up with a lot less places to hide caches. I'm not saying there aren't times when we should not fight for our rights, but if there were people regularly hanging out in front of your house and it was making your wife nervous, wouldn't you want to take what measures you could to do something about it?
Last edited by brdad; 04-10-2010 at 07:55 AM.
And in defense of the geocache approver, he can only evaluate the cache based on what's in the listing or (rarely) an attached note. He can't physically visit every cache, and could well be completely unaware that the placement of a specific cache may be completely inappropriate.
Last edited by WhereRWe?; 04-10-2010 at 07:56 AM.
I had a great puzzle cache along the pole line in Skowhegan. I hadn't checked on it in a while and since it was along a snowmobile trail I rode over and found someone was building a house about 100 feet away. I pulled it just because. Don't you hate it when the world intrudes on our hobby? LOL
Couldn't the one that was in question be archived without taking down the whole series? If I understand it correctly (by looking at the logs), it was just #6, not the rest of the series that was in contention with the land owner.
Oscilating between remarkable brillance and sheer stupidity with amazing regularity.
Last edited by brdad; 04-10-2010 at 09:45 AM.
We have archived some of ours because when we placed them, we had permission. But over time land sold, new town officers came in, state changed the laws, or any number of situations. We don't have permission with them so we go and ask again. If we can't get permission then we archive it. Even though they were reviewed and approved as the owner I make it part of cache maintenance to make sure nothing has changed and permission is still granted.
I went to check on one of our caches where things had changed but when I got there there was a note from the police and town manager. There had been a theft in the town and they had searched the cache and approved it to remain. They knew the cache was there so the bomb squad wasn't called in for the ammo can.
I have given all the police departments in our area the web address to geocaching.com and how to look for caches in the area so if someone calls in suspicious activity they know about caches and how quickly caches are added.
We do what we can to make it safe and enjoyable to geocachers and non geocachers.
Sounds like you're doing the right thing and more, Maine Family! Kudos to you...
I cached in the Kennebunk area today. I have 3 logs to CO's about very questionable placements. One of the CO's is not happy with my comments but the cache he placed is in a subdivision hanging from shrubs clearly on private property. He says " You can reach it from the sidewalk, therefore it meets the guidelines!" I don't think so.
Another of the caches is on shrubs placed at a building housing a bunch of lawyers. Well, not that I'd be overly cautious here, but I would not place a cache that one cacher said he was able to grab without getting out of his vehicle!
My personal practice is that if somebody, especially a supposed landowner questions are activities, we ought to err on the side of backing away instead of engaging in an argument that we'll never win.
Sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason.
The following is a quote from a reviewer and forum moderator Keystone. It was written quite a few years ago, but it may help explain why a cache can meet all legal requirements yet still not be eligible to be listed.
The guidelines are a means to align cache hider and cache finder expectations. Cache finders can and do expect all laws to be followed and also expect all guidelines to be followed. When there are issues, the resolution must address not only the law, but also the guidelines.In most other cases -- ranging from suburban parks to shopping centers -- it is up to the cache owner to determine what constitutes "adequate permission." One cache owner might conclude that no formal permission at all is needed for a particular spot, while another will obtain written or oral permission for a different cache location because their instinct tells them that permission is a good idea. If the cache owner arrives at an unwarranted conclusion, the listing service will react to questions about permission. First, if a land owner / land manager requests removal of a cache placed without permission, Groundspeak's policy is to archive the cache unless and until the hider is able to straighten things out and provide an explanation of clear permission. Second, if another geocacher sees a cache location which causes them to have doubts about permission, they are welcome to raise their concern with the cache owner. If that is not productive, the geocacher may contact the website, contact a volunteer reviewer, or place a "needs archived" log on the cache page. The system is thus largely self-policing in this majority of circumstances.
Cache finders can expect adequate permission even if there is no outward indication that permission has been obtained.
If anyone wants help in securing permission, contact a volunteer reviewer or post a thread on the Groundspeak forums or here.
The farmer gave permission to place the cache in the field, but the bull charges.