egami

Those were merely points as to why the frisbee test doesn't directly parallel placing a cache. If you thought that was the only point to the main post...I can't help you with that.

None of those comments pertain to any point I've made.

Oh, good, then you agree with the post.

I think it's a good idea...any intent to also incorporate Waymarking and other GPS related topics or just mainly geocaching-centric? Best wishes with it if you move forward.

But you just said that it works. It does work for a "general rule of thumb". It doesn't work as a test, or even worse THE test, for adequate permission. As far as playing in front of said locations...I've done both of them with my kids. My parents live on the same block as the local fire department and police station. My kids play out front all the time there without being asked to move. And, it IS possible to play in front of, and on, fire station property without impeding their exit...but, your point is clearly not addressing the actual point. It's doing what you guys do best which is make every excuse not to take the option of integrity.

And interpretation of details. Part of the underlying problem is peoples general mindset of reading things from an egocentric perspective and trying to make things fit their personal view.

Well worth repeating and emphasizing. Yet, it is constantly used here by that individual and others in situations that are clearly inaccurate applications of the rule and use to persuade cachers here to avoid the approach that is clearly the more respectful, responsible approach. The point never suggested it was bullet-proof, therefore that's not a valid retort to the actual point. If the point of the response wasn't to retort the point...well, thanks for the redundancy of one of my sub-points.

If I were arguing for that I would have explicitly stated that. No, that would be absurd, my statement is what it is...a statement against those on this boards misrepresenting this fallacy as being a reasonable litmus for placing a cache as often as they suggest it. I am advocating that people have integrity and be respectful to land owners and managers versus trying to avoid it at all costs as they will almost always recommend the low road (road of low standards) in various discussions here. It shouldn't be unclear which is the more respectful, responsible approach. And in most cases, if permission is denied, it's not the end of the world....there are plenty of places in the world. It's not worth having a park the size of Anza-Borrego shutdown because someone gets upset about cache saturation in a park they manage. At the end of the day...adequate permission is defined by the land owners and managers. Not the geocaching community and their opinions about throwing frisbees or other liberties they exercise in a given area because quite frankly...society in general doesn't view geocaching equal to most of those activities.

Great summary, I could not have said it better myself. The Frisbee test is a great rule of thumb especially because it's much more widely known than geocaching. No rule of thumb is bullet proof. The Frisbee test is a guide to help those who are unsure. It's simple, it works well and nothing better has come along to replace it. The frisbee test works, but it fails for the reasons demonstrated. Adequate permission is basically viewed two ways here: 1. I have the needed permission to not cause problems and be respectable to land owners and managers. 2. I just have to make a good enough excuse for people to do "other" activities to assume permission without actually approaching anyone for it. The first approach is the responsible approach that isn't detrimental to geocaching. The second, well that's what happened at many places where caching has been nixed. Yourself, sbell111 and others are constantly promoting a method that will lead to more ABDSP-like issues than it will prevent.

It intrigues me that this litmus test has been defined to justify placing caches in Wal-Mart parking lots, for one example, without receiving explicit permission. They aren't fundamentally equal comparisons for numerous reasons. 1. You don't leave a frisbee secretively hidden behind in a game of frisbee. 2. You don't advertise its location and invite others to use a GPS to come find a hidden frisbee. 3. Playing frisbee may not raise speculation at 2:00 PM in a WM parking lot, but it might at 2:00 AM. 4. Playing frisbee doesn't raise the kind of questions that someone snooping around looking for a cache container might. 5. Playing a little frisbee is extremely temporal in comparison to leaving a cache that may exist and draw traffic for literally a period of years. 6. The percent of people who have heard of, and understand, frisbee is significantly larger than those that have heard of, and understand, geocaching. And that may not even be the full extent of the differences. Besides, it's interesting to me that they won't take the same perception toward say a police station, fire station or community building. Multiple supporters of this litmus for placing a cache have said this themselves. I would bet in all three of those locations if I took my kids for a 20-minute game of frisbee on their respective front lawns that I wouldn't be thought of twice or approached in any way about my activity. Heck, even out by the dumpsters we'd raise no cause for alarm in most cases. This logic plainly fails at multiple levels and I've only scratched the surface...the fact is, they are fearful, as they themselves have stated at time before, of being told "no". Instead of just doing the honorable thing and being forthright and upfront with land managers or owners of these types of locations...they choose the route of the much alive "dirty little secret" and assume "adequate" permission that they can't "assure". Does the frisbee test work? Yes. Does it "assure" "adequate" permission? No.

As the great prophet Ming Ming said: This is sewious!

A better revision of your previous post.

That is a good point... we have a beautiful local park that is locked out for anyone else to place a cache, because there are two multi's there that cover the entire area... 247 acres, with two caches... and no more can be placed there... Yeah, that was actually brought up earlier by JV.

Yet, people feel like they have to avoid getting explicit permission for fear of rejection...then there is, as sbell1 likes to brag, the dirty secret.BTW, could you explain what you were trying to say about me in THAT post? Your boastful endorsing of what is referred to as the "dirty secret".

The only person who can allow bogus logs is the cache owner. The issue of standards slipping isn't just their issue though...it's also an issue of people deciding to take actions to put an owner in that position. The issue of bogus logs, specifically, can be addressed both by the cacher and the cache owner. Sure, both the cache logger and the cache owner can affect this. Both DO affect this. Straw Man. However, I've seen numerous responses by cachers on this board that have changed their actions based on consideration of discussions on this board. Irrelevant to the point. Integrity of the game is a "geocacher" issue. It's not one-sided to the owner or finder. Yes, cache owners can largely dissuade this, but unless finders have integrity as well it can never be fully resolved. Specifically in a case where maybe a cacher is false logging for a cacher not truly present. There is almost no way for a cache owner to resolve this issue...it takes the finder desiring a level of integrity. It'll never be perfect, that's not the point, the point is encouraging it, discussing it and educating people about it...many times it's just a matter of innocent ignorance. In other cases, it require be call up The NVG to crack out the can of "whoop cache".

Um, no... a) it wasn't a question to begin with I only made one addition comment referencing it to him before you tried to go down a dead end

The only person who can allow bogus logs is the cache owner. The issue of standards slipping isn't just their issue though...it's also an issue of people deciding to take actions to put an owner in that position. The issue of bogus logs, specifically, can be addressed both by the cacher and the cache owner.

Yet, people feel like they have to avoid getting explicit permission for fear of rejection...then there is, as sbell1 likes to brag, the dirty secret.I'd say people ask permission every time they feel that they should and don't ask where it's not neccessary. Same as every other activity we do.I see you don't acknowledge "don't ask when it is necessary" in that view.You should always ask when it's necessary.That doesn't address the comment, but sure...Isn't it obvious that someone wouldn't ask if it wasn't necessary?Again, not addressing the comment.Perhaps you could spell it out. I don't know what you are fishing for, but I think that your bait might have turned. It don't play your game of "loaded questions". I don't need to.

It's not just a cache owner issue...the cache owner just plays a large role in the issue.

Yet, people feel like they have to avoid getting explicit permission for fear of rejection...then there is, as sbell1 likes to brag, the dirty secret.I'd say people ask permission every time they feel that they should and don't ask where it's not neccessary. Same as every other activity we do.I see you don't acknowledge "don't ask when it is necessary" in that view.You should always ask when it's necessary.That doesn't address the comment, but sure...Isn't it obvious that someone wouldn't ask if it wasn't necessary? Again, not addressing the comment.

Yet, people feel like they have to avoid getting explicit permission for fear of rejection...then there is, as sbell1 likes to brag, the dirty secret. I'd say people ask permission every time they feel that they should and don't ask where it's not neccessary. Same as every other activity we do. I see you don't acknowledge "don't ask when it is necessary" in that view. You should always ask when it's necessary. That doesn't address the comment, but sure...

A lot of this is opinion.... 1. I wouldn't personally log a find having known where it was. 2. Log a needs maintenance and CITO the trash and preserve contents that are salvageable for the owner. 3. Yes, then I'd work with owner to properly replace it if they needed help. 4. Imo, sure...if they "found" it, just based on what little you provided. 5. Imo, no, unless you can subsequently solve the puzzle.

Yet, people feel like they have to avoid getting explicit permission for fear of rejection...then there is, as sbell1 likes to brag, the dirty secret. I'd say people ask permission every time they feel that they should and don't ask where it's not neccessary. Same as every other activity we do. I see you don't acknowledge "don't ask when it is necessary" in that view.

Yet, people feel like they have to avoid getting explicit permission for fear of rejection...then there is, as sbell1 likes to brag, the dirty secret.

Yup, but when the guidelines state Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements. I take a little issue with the term appear to be bogus. I think I would handle this with care as I would rather allow 100 bogus logs then delete 1 valid one. If I saw someone logged a find and then I did a maintenance run and saw no signature, I'd approach the cacher before I'd delete the log. Maybe they could validate the find (with a different twist to most of my hides this wouldn't take much more then "What was the container?" being asked). I just don't see myself going out of my way to see if a valid looking log is valid or not. As stated before, someone entering "TFTH - Nice cache!" as a log entry pasted into a dozen of my caches would send up a flag long before someone who actually took the time and effort to post an actual log entry unique to that cache. That's fine, your contention as I see it is more with the guidelines than my position...again, I am not stating you're wrong...feel free to maintain, or not maintain, a cache as you deem appropriate. It's just that some are seemingly suggesting that deleting bogus logs aren't part of cache maintenance when in fact quite the opposite is true.