Log In
Home
6 Feb ’14
Offline
When i read your first post, I thought, "what's the big deal?? This guy's kind of being anal about the whole thing." But the more I thought about it, I can see where it could be a huge problem. 1-2 people geocaching? Not a problem (especially if they're respectful). But dozens (maybe hundreds)? Yeah, that's a problem.
Did you check the map to see if there are any near you?
I think I need to also tell my story and perhaps find a way to tie it into the article in whole or in part.
Plus I should address your initial reaction head on a bit further by adding into the article a challenge to every person that reads it to do 3 things.
- 1. Check the map to see how many there are in your immediate area.
- 2. Check the cache page of each listing to see how active each is. Non members are only shown a truncated list so if you sign up you can view the whole listing. Chances are, if you sign up to view the whole listing, you will find it is older than you think, and far more active than you think.
- 3. Actually read the comments of the people on each cache listing that went. Among the comments, you will see them talking about evading locals and owners boastfully. And you will see a nonchalant and apathetic attitude towards the concerns of locals.
In my observation, most listings, even remote ones are much more active than you would think they are.
I started as you, I didn't think it was a big deal, didn't think it was that active, thought they were more respectful and responsible than they really are, never expected it to be on my property, and until I found one on my property, had not really given any thought to it or paid any attention to it... which is exactly why I thought the article could be helpful by alerting people to pay attention to something they would never pay attention to otherwise.
6 Feb ’14
Offline
Oh, one other thing that bugged me. Groundspeak does not provide anyway that I have seen for property owners to report unwanted caches on their property without jumping through the hoops of signing up, figuring the site out, locating a local moderator, contacting that moderator, having a back and forth discussion possibly being asked to prove you own the property... and on and on.
Every cache listing page should have a simple "Report this cache" form so property owners can get unwanted caches removed.
6 Feb ’14
Offline
Hmm, other things I could include in the article...
Post "No Trespassing signs" on your property in accordance with your local laws. Post the signs as soon as possible, record what date you posted the signs, and take photographs of the signs on your property. This may not prevent Geocachers from trespassing, but it gives teeth to pressing charges against any person (Geocacher or otherwise) that trespasses. Posting signs after the fact, it is too late, so post signs asap.
Once signs are posted, you can monitor the Geocache website periodically. Geocachers stupidly incriminate themselves in 2 ways. They write down on a paper log contained in the Geocache itself to take credit, and they log their find on the webpage of the cache listing. That's hard and tangible evidence which if you had No Trespassing signs posted can be used to press charges. I suggest pressing charges.
Archived (read: deactivated) Geocache listings. Groundspeak disabled the ability to search for them. I'm betting the reason is that they encountered too many legal liability issues, and so now they hide archived listings. If you had the ability to search for archived caches, you would find even more caches and activity had been in your immediate area then the map suggests. I bet that there are a fair number of archived caches with horror stories attached to them.
6 Feb ’14
Offline
Yes, I was correct. It was a liability issue. The following quotes an official spokesperson for Groundspeak from a forum post: "It was decided that the liability is more than Groundspeak is willing to stomach. When a land manager is told that a cache will be archived and unavailable for good (which happens frequently, although not often very publicly) we have to be able to back up our promise. Some of you may think it's not a big deal but as a business it can be. We open ourselves up to litigation by doing otherwise." - http://forums.ground.....try4019382
19 Feb ’12
Offline
I haven't checked the map personally, because I'm near a relatively urban area, and I'm sure there are lots near us. Also, I don't doubt that the people are rude, disrespectful, etc. I see that in everyday life, so I wouldn't expect geocachers to be any different (sadly).
6 Feb ’14
Offline
I haven't checked the map personally, because I'm near a relatively urban area, and I'm sure there are lots near us.
Ah. So are you in an apartment/multi-dwelling or a house? And do you rent or own? If you own and it is in a house with any kind of yard you may want to check to be certain that nothing has been placed within your yard. I think the chances are lower of that being the case, but it would be good to check so you could be certain of that.
I agree that as you become more urban, proximity is less of an issue. So long as it is not literally in your yard.
Also, I don't doubt that the people are rude, disrespectful, etc. I see that in everyday life, so I wouldn't expect geocachers to be any different (sadly).
Yes, exactly. It's like I said about any average sampling. So given the rude, disrespectful, and emphasis on the "etc.", why allow a complete stranger to invite a plethora of other strangers onto your property where they will inevitably be rude and disrespectful, possibly liter, vandalize, steal... it's a very big etcetera. The statistics and human nature are not in the property owner's favor. The more people, the more the chance for something bad to happen, and this is the problem with Geocaching because the very nature of it is strangers posting public invites over the Internet to other strangers; and lots of people DO show up.
15 Feb ’12
Offline
definitely check your state laws for trespassing definitions ET, I was surprised by ours
6 Feb ’14
Offline
I signed up to view the complete logs of the caches in the immediate area of my property. There were originally 5 caches, 2 of those were archived (discontinued). With some digging, I was able to find the 2 archived caches.
- 24 verified visits to my property before the cache was archived. 22 of those were seekers that logged finding it on the cache page, 2 (or more) were the cache owner.
- 21 verified visits to a nearby cache before it was archived. 18 of those were seekers that logged finding it on the cache page, 3 (or more) were the cache owner.
- 27 verified visits to a nearby cache which is still active. 24 of those were seekers that logged finding it on the cache page, 3 (or more) were the cache owner.
- 33 verified visits to a nearby cache which is still active. 30 of those were seekers that logged finding it on the cache page, 3 (or more) were the cache owner.
- 30 verified visits to a nearby cache which is still active. 28 of those were seekers that logged finding it on the cache page, 1 (or more) were the cache owner, 1 (or more) logged looking but not finding it on the cache page.
That's 135 visits total among 5 nearby locations. Many were the same people on a single day. It may have been as few as 33 people total (based on the cache with 30 reported finds + 3 different cache owners). I did not cross reference names between the 5 cache listings so it could have been more people than that. Bare in mind that 122 of those would have been extended lingering by the people seeking the caches.
All 5 caches are off on an isolated semi-private rural road.
Most Users Ever Online: 698
Currently Online:
295 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
2 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
easytapper: 2149
DangerDuke: 2030
groinkick: 1667
PorkChopsMmm: 1515
Gravel Road: 1455
Newest Members:
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 12
Topics: 11482
Posts: 58640
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2
Members: 19842
Moderators: 0
Admins: 1
Administrators: K
