egami

That's really not the issue at hand. That's a 180 degree turn from your previous statement that started out "I think...". Like I said...from your previous statement it didn't appear that you had actually researched that.

It would be nice to know how many ignores a cache had.

This would be the concern I have...Miragee, in this instance it would be best to communicate and find out what the stance is of the agency over the park. How would you feel is geocaching was banned there simply because of this confrontation and poor representation of geocaching as an activity?

In a general sense I agree with this. In think the problem with "public property" that bothers me on this board is the cavalier attitude I see from some cachers here regarding an inherent "right" to any and all forms of government property. I've seen comments from some people placing caches in national forest or state park areas where they've clearly stated they don't have permission and feel like they don't need to unless it becomes a problem. To me, this is irresponsible and poor representation of the geocaching community.

Avon Skin so Soft. (SoS). No deet, smells pretty good, yet manages to make the bugs not like you. Is it OK to leave small lotion bottles in the cache? I've seen them leave the individual deet wipes. My mom used to sell Avon and I've used this years ago, but I didn't feel like it did a great job. Willing to try it out again..especially on the kids. Wonder if it's worth anything on ticks...

I am certified in CPR and carry band-aids.

Yeah, as I mentioned in another thread, I think the biggest grey area in "permission" for cache placement may lie on the public property caches moreso than the private caches.

I think the broader question is "public owned" land permissions in general and the cavalier attitude some have that if it's public domain then it's a free for all when in actuality that isn't the case. In reality, public owned land is goverment controlled. Whether it's national parks, state parks, goverment buildings, city parks or ROW's there is going to be a variety of different agencies and laws governing their usage. I think in a lot of cases these ROW's are probably decent hides...especially in rural areas, but it's a dangerous assumption that just because it's ROW it's ok to hide a cache there. In reading various city regulations online there are instances where there are laws against foreign onbects being maintained on ROW's...usually in reference to things such as mailboxes, decorative lawn ornaments and other items, but it's open-ended enough that I could see it easily encompassing caches. I think the bottom line is to use sensible judgment in placing the caches..which I am sure all of us do anyway.

I haven't seen that trend. The point remains that there isn't an apparent need to change the wording. Every instance I've read regarding "explicit" permission simply has been in reference to providing a detailed contact. Now, they may implicitly mean that person needs to be the final authority on the property, but that term itself doesn't mean that...and that verbage in the GC.com guide pre-existed the "general concensus" that is questionable as to even being a valid concensus. Since that's about what I said, I'd say we agree. We just dont' agree that we agree. The GC.com adequate is perfectly good and should not be changed. I think we agree on that too, but I can't tell. Semantically speaking, I don't think we agree. In principle, I think we do which is really the key issue. I was inquiring why the individual felt so strongly that the verbage that exists is off base enough that it needs altered, but they've disappeared from the discussion.

No, I stated that I bet (using the term generically) most states treat ROW similarly and you both said you'd take the bet, yet ROW seems to be treated relatively the same from state to state.

I haven't seen that trend. The point remains that there isn't an apparent need to change the wording. Every instance I've read regarding "explicit" permission simply has been in reference to providing a detailed contact. Now, they may implicitly mean that person needs to be the final authority on the property, but that term itself doesn't mean that...and that verbage in the GC.com guide pre-existed the "general concensus" that is questionable as to even being a valid concensus.

How again are ROW's treated vastly differently then? I haven't seen anyone post that with references. Working in the field is wonderful...I need a non-biased authoritative source which I'd think you could probably link....being in the field and all.

No problem...I've been guilty of confusing people too.

Yeah, it's become semantical I think at this point...I am operating off standard dictionary definitions. Since those can vary I'll list them "explicitly" ex·plic·it(k-splst) adj. 1.a. Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied. b. Fully and clearly defined or formulated: "generalizations that are powerful, precise, and explicit" Frederick Turner. 2. Forthright and unreserved in expression: They were explicit in their criticism. 3.a. Readily observable: an explicit sign of trouble. b. Describing or portraying nudity or sexual activity in graphic detail. In this case, I believe you can get "explicit" permission from someone that doesn't have authority to do so. ad·e·quate(d-kwt) adj. 1. Sufficient to satisfy a requirement or meet a need. See Synonyms at sufficient. 2. Barely satisfactory or sufficient: The skater's technique was only adequate. In this case, for permission to satisfy the requirement established in the GC.com instructions, even if "barely" so, you'd need to have the proper authorization. At that...I've laid out the definitions and my interpretation of the definitions and leave the semantical debate alone...in the end, it's the principle of the matter which is important which we are all agreeing on. I wouldn't suggest altering the GC.com verbage on the basis of semantics when you consider the document as a whole seems to be adequate...or explicit, whichever you prefer.

First off, we agree in principle. The only thing we may not agree on is semantically whether or not "adequate" permission is a higher standard than "explicit". Imo, "adequate" is the higher standard, not vice versa. Secondly, I have yet to even place a cache...if you'd check my profile you'd know this. So I am not sure where the baseless attack is coming from. When I go to place one I'll get "adequate" permission. The only permission that is "adequate" is that which will ensure the existance of the cache is indeed allowed by the property owner. You are grossly misunderstanding my position.

I don't think so... http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FE108 A right-of-way, generally, is the right of a specific person or class of persons to use a route to travel over the land of another (see Wyatt v. Parker, 128 So.2d 431 [Fla. 2d DCA 1961]; That would mean that right-of-way's aren't by default publicly owned, but rather privately owned with certain individuals, or groups of individuals, allowed access. I would bet most states treat ROW similarly. I would take that bet. Right of Ways are normally carved out of Other Peoples Land at some point. Sometimes by just an easement and sometimes they obtain ownership of the right of way via eminent domain. Either way the land was likely private at some point. But it does not have to stay that way. Also the government who originally patented the land can merely turn over right of way to the local government for their use. The definition you have found does not preclude public ownership of the right of way. FYI. Florida is an Old State (I'm using state loosely here) that predates the 13 colonies. Most all of the land would have started out as private. That's not so much true the further West you head. For Florida that defintion would work every well. I don't know, but I suspect some of the orginal lands were given away by Spain to Private individuals. That's speculative...I'd have to see concrete facts. While most eastern states are "older" at this point in our countries existance I'd speculate the majority of ROW's were once private land being that the highway and interstate system aren't all that old considering the age of the nation as a whole.

By whose definition? That's not inherent to the dictionary definition of the word.

Aren't you forgetting the urine samples, blood samples, dna samples, retinal scans and finger prints?!

Then we agree. However, eagletrek seems to be reading something different into the GC.com policy that simply isn't there. I agree with eagletrek's point that you need "adequate" permission, but I don't agree that the GC.com wording insinuates that "explicit" permission equates to "adeqaute" permission.

If I am understanding the point correctly you two are contesting that "explicit" permission supercedes "adequate". Is that not correct? You believe that "explicit" permissions would somehow raise the bar? That, indeed, it should read "explicit" and not "adequate" in the GC.com guide? Again, I'd go to a private property example to debunk that contention. For example, I could get "explicit" permission from a building manager to place a cache on a property, but that may not be "adequate" permission because the property owner may view it as an issue and his authority supercedes. Is that making sense? Or is that not what your point was?

I am not sure how semantically different it would be in state law. I see what you are saying in ownership...that's common across states. In which case, the issue with publicly owned property ROW's as you've described wouldn't be as much permissive as it was legal.

You're not making sense...in your example if you were told "no" by the janitor or the main cheese you have neither "explicit" or "adequate" permission. In your example there is no difference...whichever word you use it's a violation either way. In which case you also have "adequate" permission. I've demonstrated to you how you can have "explicit" permissions yet not "adequate". You have to demonstrate how "explicit" permission supercedes "adequate"...I am not seeing it.

Go back and re-read what I wrote again...I said that is also "not" adequate permission. Conversely, if an employee gave you "explicit" permission that may not be "adequate" permission. This is why "adequate" permission is more logically suitable in such a case.

By definition, that would also not be "adequate" permission.

I don't think so... http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FE108 A right-of-way, generally, is the right of a specific person or class of persons to use a route to travel over the land of another (see Wyatt v. Parker, 128 So.2d 431 [Fla. 2d DCA 1961]; That would mean that right-of-way's aren't by default publicly owned, but rather privately owned with certain individuals, or groups of individuals, allowed access. I would bet most states treat ROW similarly.