nlinecylon

Maybe the reviewers need to stop approving such.

Yes, taxpayers are paying for this, day in and out. Minimizing unnecessary scares and the associated costs would be a good idea. Permission for hide will not stop police action. Witness the Colorado High School shut down over a geocache that was placed with permission of the school principal. Or the cache outside a small town police station placed with permission of the police chief. Both were hugely disruptive, in spite of having proper permissions. I'm not against the notion that hides on private property really ought to have permission from the property owner. I just don't think it will have much impact on disruptions or bomb scares caused by caches. Do you have a link to those stories. I would like to read them.

I'm not sure how that is going to fly in a courtroom. The fact that you do some judgment calls, it's not a craigslist of geocaching, implies some responsibility. You guys are going to get sued. Maybe not today but at some point it will happen.

I live in Midland TX and yesterday we had a cache that was mistaken as a bomb. Putting aside the stupidity of police reaction one point was raised in my local newspaper's forum about the review process. This cache http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...a7-16be9553f97d was placed on a light pole in a parking lot of a commercial business. I suspect without permission of the owner. Because of the increased awareness of terrorism more and more bomb squads are going to be called out to blow up harmless caches. The cost of such actions will be laid on someone. The business owner will have to pay and he or his insurance company will end up suing a geocacher or Groundspeak for the expense. What is Groundspeak doing to verify that permission has been attained for a cache placed on private property. I think we may be reaching the point where caches shouldn't be published unless written permission has been recorded.