I found this cache last summer. The area in which it is located is
indeed rural, but really not far off the beaten track as the cemetery
fronts the local highway. The cemetery / private property line is
not clearly indicated by any fence or signage that I recall, and
without knowing definitively where the property line lies, I would
say that this cache might be located on or near the property line.
My recommendation is that the cache owner needs to temporarily disable the cache and make a note both in the log section and in the description section itself as to why. He then needs to get permission for the cache, which of course he should have done already, and then enable the cache with permission noted and by whose authority. The info portion of the cache page should continue to contain a warning about the neighboring land owner who is less than enamored of 'geo-catchers'. The owner could take it one step further by contacting the disgruntled land owner and explaining both that permission has been obtained and offer a detailed explanation of what geocaching is and how our presence can help reduce the negative element that seems to frequent the cemetery. Needless to say, if permission of the cemetery owner is not obtained, the cache should immediately be archived.
On Aug 21, 2005, at 00:05, Jack Konecker wrote:
I wouldn't want to be led into the situation that geo-jim encountered. If it is private property and the cache placer (http://tinyurl.com/aj3hp) didn't get permission to hide a cache there, then I think he should archive it.
It is true that some cemetaries are on private property. Unfortunately, they don't all have signs next to them stating such. Caches in cemetaries owned and maintained by churches would most likely not have this type of problem (note I didn't say 'never').
It is up to the cache placer to do the research and get permission.
I hate to butcher an old saying, but 'ignorance of geocaching policy is no excuse'.
> From: "Susan Ring" <susanmring@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To: <geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 21:35:24 -0500
> I guess my point is that it is a cache owner's > responsibility to avoid exposing cachers > to any unnecessary or excessive danger.