Geocachers accused of vandalism

chewinprickles · Post by **chewinprickles** » 28 March 08 12:53 pm

Check out GCX8RX Polar Express.

Post by **caughtatwork** » 28 March 08 1:05 pm

It's GCX5RX
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... ?wp=GCX5RX

You can understand that anyone pursuing your game could find themselves in serious trouble.

What? By standing on the road verge, a couple of meters from a cyclone fence, on public property?

mtrax · Post by **mtrax** » 28 March 08 1:26 pm

The note is a bit heavy handed but I think the main point is that cachers might be confused with potential graffiti artists .
ie my reading is there is no direct point that cachers are responsible but maybe they might be confused as such...
Perhaps they could relocate with owners permission to an inside job.

listmaker · Post by **listmaker** » 28 March 08 5:12 pm

We were the last finders, a few days before that note was posted, and the hole was well and truly in the fence then. Looked like it had been there a while.

I can understand their frustration with the graffiti problem, but it wouldn't have hurt to discuss the cache placement. I would have thought that having irregular geocache visitors could be a deterrent to vandals.

I also reckon that their new graffiti problems are more likely to be due to the bushes having grown - removing them, which would make the perimeter clearly visible from the street, would probably cure their problems.

And no, neither of us are middle aged graffiti artists nor do we crawl through fences.

Richary · Post by **Richary** » 28 March 08 11:03 pm

I can understand the POV of the staff there if they are suffering constant graffiti. However overall the tone of the note is not critical of caching as such. And how much of the archive note is the words of the railway people and how much the words of the groundspeak representative is a little unclear.

And yes, security guards may call the police but if you explain to the police what you are doing (and obviously have no cans of spraypaint in the backpack - not recommended as swaps for this reason

) then I doubt you could be charged with anything.

As they are quite willing for the cache to picked up I think that is the best approach. It proves they are open to dialogue. So if possible the owner should try to get there in the next couple of weeks, retrieve it and take the opportunity to explain our hobby to them. And perhaps ask for a more suitable location nearby that won't draw suspicion. Once they see we aren't dressed in baggy pants and wearing baseball caps the wrong way around they may soften their approach. Well, unless Oenze dresses like that

I think it just an unfortunate choice of location, for a cache that has been there the best part of 2 years, that it has also become the easiest location for vandals to access the site.

Bundyrumandcoke · Post by **Bundyrumandcoke** » 29 March 08 5:36 am

Perhaps, when the owner does go to collect the cache, they might also like to take along a printout of all the logs, and show the ARHS the positive comments from finders, with comments about returning when the place is operating.

Unfortunately, with me just about to join the rail fraternity, I know already they can be a qwerky mob, (a bit like cachers, I suppose) who, if rail is their normal profession, have to deal with graffitti on a daily basis, and given the opportunity, will stamp it out at the first opportunity. Discussion and compromise hopefully will win the day.

Cheers
Bundy

Mr Emu · Post by **Mr Emu** » 29 March 08 7:46 am

richary wrote:... However overall the tone of the note is not critical of caching as such.

This seems to be EXACTLY what they are saying: "...we believe the placing of this cache may have introduced the vandalism problem to us - our first such problem since the Museum opened in 1962." *Seems pretty unlikely (and unfair) considering the age of the cache against the more recent graffiti.

Bundyrumandcoke wrote:...Perhaps, when the owner does go to collect the cache, they might also like to take along a printout of all the logs, and show the ARHS the positive comments from finders.

*I've got to agree with this. If you read the logs, it is quite clear that the cache has more likely had an opposite, POSITIVE effect of introducing the ARHS Railway Museum to a community of responsible people who are interested in history. If Oenze is inclined, it might be worth it to try to educate the museum staff. If they could overcome their (apparent) suspicion of the geocacher's role in attracting the grafitti, perhaps they would support a location - known to them - that attracted geocachers/potential visitors.

*I also agree with the following:

richary wrote:...I think it just an unfortunate choice of location, for a cache that has been there the best part of 2 years, that it has also become the easiest location for vandals to access the site.

The notification that police WILL be called if you are "acting suspiciously" near the fence is fair warning. Being innocent but inconveniencing the police is not the geocacher's role. That means it is appropriate to archive the cache at it's current location, *and then worry about future re-location if possible.

* = minor, clarifying edits posted after richary's reply

Richary · Post by **Richary** » 29 March 08 11:06 pm

Mr Emu wrote:
richary wrote:... However overall the tone of the note is not critical of caching as such.
This seems to be EXACTLY what they are saying: "...we believe the placing of this cache may have introduced the vandalism problem to us - our first such problem since the Museum opened in 1962."

It would be interesting to know if the graffiti started at the same time the cache was placed. Be a coincidence as I can't imagine cachers I have met also being graffiti artists.However I see the message that the cache can be collected as positive, rather than just saying it has been binned.

Mr Emu wrote:However I agree with the following:
richary wrote:...I think it just an unfortunate choice of location, for a cache that has been there the best part of 2 years, that it has also become the easiest location for vandals to access the site.
The notification that police WILL be called if you are "acting suspiciously" near the fence is fair warning. Being innocent but inconveniencing the police is not the geocacher's role. That means it is appropriate to archive the cache at it's current location.

No arguments with that side of it. Hence the suggestion that with the cooperation of museum staff it could possibly be located nearby in a suitable location. Maybe not up against the fence!

dak's Emu Mob · Post by **dak's Emu Mob** » 30 March 08 8:38 am

Oenze, are you reading this? (I'll send you a PM just in case.) I reckon many people here would be interested in hearing the substance of your conversation with the AHRS, assuming that you will be meeting with them to collect the cache.

Cheers,

dak

Geof · Post by **Geof** » 30 March 08 12:27 pm

Seems like a case of the cache being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Perhaps if Oenze, dak and Maccamob headed around for a chat.......

Alansee · Post by **Alansee** » 30 March 08 5:33 pm

I agree with everything that Mr Emu said. It was well put. And there is clearly no link whatsoever between the cache and the vandalism/graffiti.

I am a bit disappointed in Michael's log - a bit more care with it and he could have created a much better communication. Maybe he's a volunteer like the Reviewers but he is supposed to be a Community Relations Specialist!

If anyone is prepared to do the PR job with the museum that would be excellent but it should be up to them.

ian-and-penny · Post by **ian-and-penny** » 30 March 08 6:33 pm

Having done the cache in question some time ago, may I suggest that the cache is/was not very well situated as placement is/was next to a busy road and in full view of residences on the other side of the road.

When Penny & I attempted the cache we were accosted by a local resident who indicated that she had been concerned about the secretive comings and goings of vehicles and people foraging around in the bushes. Her concern was so great that she had called the police to investigate. (The police informed her that it was a harmless "orienteering" container.)

At the time, we took great pains to point out that our activity was harmless, and showed her the contents of the container. We trust we were successful in our efforts.

Boagsratz · Post by **Boagsratz** » 30 March 08 9:22 pm

Richary. I often (well as a rule ), wear baggy pants and my hat is often on backwards (ever tried riding a bike with it on forwards)...Damn I listern to rap music, techno and hip hip. So should that exclude me from caching? However I do not graffiti things nor break the law in any other way. So if you spy me loitering suspicisly near your cache, be assured, I am not there to muggle it, maybe just log it.

Richary · Post by **Richary** » 30 March 08 9:44 pm

Alright, the exception proves the rule! And I like a very wide choice of music as well (unless it is old style country or opera, I listen to anything).