Too Tall John

Please point me to your legal referrence that states this. It's private property! You have permission to park there. That's it. Same laws that would prevent you from hiding a cache in my front lawn. It isn't your property, you need permission. Just because it would be harder for Wal-Mart to enforce simply due to the volume of people in and out of the store every day doesn't make it any more legal. I highlighted the word you keep missing, even though you previously defined it for me. Generally I read that as you got permission that is adequate. In a Wal-Mart example, adequate permission would be asking the store manager, not the teenager pushing carts in the lot. The way you seem to be interpreting this line should read like this: "By submitting a cache listing, we are adequately sure us that you have permission." These non-profit groups are only allowed because when they tried to ban them (which they did while I was there) there was such an outcry that they reversed the decision. I believe the official policy does allow not-for-profits, but they have to be outside and no closer than 15 feet from an exit. Why did they try to ban them? Because allowing them set a precedence that might allow unions to be allowed to solicit. Yes, in Wal-Mart's case, you can sleep in your rv there. Geocaching is an organized activity, sleeping is not. By allowing an organized activity, the same precedent is set that concerns the stores about the Girl Scouts. Sad but true.

There are some that have said they want them banned. Just read this thread, you'll find them. True, sorry. Recently. I still don't think they should be, though.

Generally I agree with what you say here, just a reminder that not everyone's seen a LPC before, so not everyone does know you just lift the skirt; and even if someone has, they may not use common sense. Despite the name, it isn't common. I bet if the officer you encountered might not go so easy on you if his chief was all ticked off that lurking geocachers or discovered geocaches were tying up departmental resources. As far as liability concerns, the Big Box stores are all concerned about any activity not sponsored by the store taking place on their property, partly for liability, but also because it sets a precedent that may allow unions to hold rallies on their property. Sounds ridiculous, but when I was a manager for Wal-Mart they sent me to enough "Union Awareness" workshops that I know how they'd think about this. Funny you should mention Altoids Tins. Search Altoids and Portsmouth NH in the forums or google Porstmouth NH and geocaching and you can read all about Altoids Tins and the police. I think it'd occur to some reporter "Boy! Let's see if I can start another 'Boston' incident! That'd get my name on the front page! Oh? This is a nation wide activity! I'll be coast to coast!" All it takes is one rabid reporter. And the article won't be on national security, it'll be simply on the merits of legality. I honestly don't think anyone is actually arguing that LPCs should be banned. I don't. But the question raises these other issues.

You haven't, I have. However, I realize the reason I felt I was likely to get in trouble was one of those one in a million things. This whole permission bit boils down to these things: 1. It is trespassing to place w/out permission. I disagree. It is not trespassing to get out of my car in Wal-Mart's parking lot. It is not trespassing to place a film can on a light pole base. Yes, it is perfectly legal to get out of a car at Wal-Mart. Hiding things on Wal-Mart property, however is illegal without permission. No, it isn't. "By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." How does this part of the guidelines not say you need permission?

But your answers have generally dodged the question or sited what "many people" believe as fact to back you up. I want to know why I should agree with you, and because "many people" believe it isn't going to do it for me. You haven't, I have. However, I realize the reason I felt I was likely to get in trouble was one of those one in a million things. This whole permission bit boils down to these things: 1. It is trespassing to place w/out permission. 2. It is in the guidelines. 3. Containers that are found hidden in public places often cause a panic. Stores that know they have a LPC in the lot are going to be better able to stop this panic. I have no problem with your definitions. They work fine in my statement, in my opinion.But you said while you agreed that there was a likelihood that this would happen, there was little chance that it would? Which is it? Are the odds for it or against it? I've already explained why it would be unlikely that any legislature would be able to draft specific legislation against geocaches on private property. Also, there are many threads discussing explicit v adequate permission. I see no point in reviewing this here, especially since this thread was not about banning LPCs due to permission issues. Rather it was about banning of LPCs due to the potential for damage to surrounding items.So, basically when I say I want to really hear what you think you tell me you don't want to bother to answer the question? Oh, and as far as the likelihood of a legislature passing antigeocaching laws, what about the cemetery issue? It's (almost) been done.

Thank you for the reminder. I really do want to see the other side of the coin, though. I can see it now: "Although open to the public, parking lots are private property... " Thank you for the example. I'll take a look. Let me add, because I predict that someone's going to say "But that wasn't an LPC!" that it wasn't in a lamp post, but it was placed on a retail store's private piece of electrical equipment without permission. It's all semantics.

Just let me add that many people disagree with most of your points for reasons already explained in this thread. Beyond that, I will merely repeat the following: adequate ≠ explicit Isn't that the point of a forum? To discuss differences of opinions and ideas? Many of your posts have referred to "many people" to back up your argument. Well, my group of "many people" thinks that your group of "many people" is wrong. Who's to say which group is right?** I said it before, "many people" used to think the world is flat. A discussion should be based in fact, not popular opinion. Adequate may not mean explicit, but the guidelines explicitly say that you need adequate permission. Going to the dictionary: "adequate - as much or as good as necessary for some requirement or purpose." If the purpose is to keep people safe & out of trouble, that sounds like we're back to explicit. While we're on semantics, I ask again: **Neither of us can. If I could with all certainty say that my point of view is correct, I'd have tired of this thread long ago. I'm still here because I'm exploring your point of view. If you could show me facts to back up what you have to say other than saying "It'll never happen" or "Many people think this" you might actually sway me. I'd like to be able to do the same. That, I'm sure, leads you to the question of "Well, Too Tall John, why don't you ask Wal-Mart's Home Office what they think about LPCs?" The answer is I can see an inquiry like that leading to them actually having a policy explicitly against them. The last time I brought something to the HO's attention it lead to a company-wide change of policy AND a six month project for me. (I'll tell you about my project if you'd like, but it is pretty off topic, other than the fact that Wal-Mart prides itself in the ability to "turn on a dime" when it comes to making company-wide changes.) I no longer fear the project as I no longer work for them, but I do fear the policy. I don't want to be "that guy that got LPCs banned at Wal-Mart." Somebody else's job, thank you very much.

Every LPC that I have ever visited was located in an area where the public was already clearly welcome. Just because the public is welcome to park in a parking lot does not mean they are welcome to do other things, like tamper (def: play around with or alter... usually secretively...) with light posts. While I agree that explicit permission does reduce the likelyhood of visits from the bomb squad, I don't believe that it greatly reduces the chances. In situations where one person made the approval, but there are many, many employees (like Wal-Mart), the chance of the right person being talked to at the right time to avoid such a call is fairly slim. It should be noted that caches which had explicit permission have received visits from the constabulary. I looked it up in the dictionary, likelihood (we've been spelling it wrong, oops...) means "the state of being likely or probable; probability." Chance is "a possibility or probability of anything happening." Please clarify your statement. Regardless, if the "right person" is asked for permission to place a LPC at Wal-Mart the answer will likely be "No." Even if it was yes, if there were a situation requiring the police to be called in the parking lot, you better believe the "right person" (store manager) would be the second call after the cops, maybe the call before 911. When I was in Wally World management you better believe I got calls about smaller stuff all the time. In fact, if I were a store manager & didn't receive a call about this, heads would roll. Oh, even if you found a store manager who said "yes" to a LPC I bet if you asked them what the Home Office thought about geocaching they'd scurry off & you'd get a phone call later asking you to remove the cache. Yes, caches with explicit permission have probably received visits from police, but that would typically result from a miscommunication on the part of people other than the geocacher (unless they didn't properly label the cache, don't get me going on that!) and instead of the headline reading "Geocaching Causes Panic at Mall" it would read "Police Admit Miscommunication with Mall Officials Over Bomb Scare." (Or chances are it is probably more likely to... ) Again, the guideline does not require explicit permission. Also, as I tried to get into earlier in this thread, it would be quite difficult for governments to regulate geocaching on private property. Sounds like you need permission to me. It also sounds like there are enough laws in place already to get you arrested if you tick off the wrong person. Besides, I'm not calling geocaching on private property to question, but geocaching on private property without permission.

Does that mean Team GeoBlast is safe from being voted off? Can they pass it to another they think will get voted off? Are Keystone and Jeff Probst brothers? Will Boston Rob make an alliance with Richard Hatch? Mmmm... Survivor.... To summarize my posts so far: Don't ban LPCs, even though many are placed without permission. Why do we need permission? First, placing a cache on someone's property is inviting others to enter that property. Inviting people onto someone else's property is inviting them to trespass. Secondly, if a property owner knows a cache is there, the likelyhood that the bomb squad is going to be called in to blow it up is greatly reduced. Enforce the rule about permission for cache placement or new legislation will be passed OR current laws will be reinterpreted to regulate geocaching after LEOs have had to deal with one too many bomb/cache scares. Am I being overly cautious? Is it overly cautious to walk a little faster to get out of the crosswalk when a car is speeding toward you? Or is it prudent?

In your scenario, the landowner would have to press charges, the police souldn't arrest people arbitrarily for being in Meier's parking lot. In my scenario, trespassing is illegal. I'm not really talking about if the landowner has to press charges or not. Oh, if the police think they have reason to detain you they can. It may or may not lead to an arrest, but either way, I'm told the back seat of the cruiser is just as uncomfortable. Careful. Those forum guidelines can be pesky things. Sorry, wasn't really thinking about how that sounded. Didn't mean to offend, original post edited. Ok, here's the thing. The only thing I have against LPCs is that the majority of them are placed illegally without permission. (Why did I change the wording there? Both are true, but I really don't want to start up with the whole "can't wrap your mind around it" thing!) It is your opinion that they are illegal or that permission is always required. Many would argue that you are wrong. Setting up an activity that invites others onto someone else's private property without permission is trespassing, which is illegal. Black and white. People argued that the world was flat, too. It didn't make it true.

With the Portsmouth Police Chief making blanket statements that anyone found hiding anything on private property will be arrested, I would suggest that the seige has begun, and that the government doesn't have to enact new laws, the laws they need are already there! As far as not being able to wrap our minds around 'illegally placed caches' goes, umm.... no. It's pretty basic. Any cache placed is placed with the intent that others will find it. Doing so without the permission of the land owner is trespassing, and inviting others to trespass too! Last I checked, trespassing is illegal. Sounds simple to me. Ok, here's the thing. The only thing I have against LPCs is that the majority of them are placed illegally without permission. (Why did I change the wording there? Both are true, but I really don't want to start up with the whole "can't wrap your mind around it" thing!) I work at a retreat center. Today I took a group geocaching as part of their retreat. (I love my job!) As we're hiking through the woods, one girl starts throwing a fit. "I'm cold!... My pants are wet!... Why do we need these snowshoes?... (To help keep you above the snow, thus keeping your pants drier...) We're going to get stranded out here!... Why does this have to be so far out in the woods?!... OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!" Her dad took her back to the lodge after 1/4 mile of screaming. I'm sure she thought this cache was pretty lame. I, however think it's pretty cool. That made me, in her eyes, a charter member of the SDOEL club. In some way, I bet each of us can think of something we love that someone we know thinks is lame. There's nothing wrong with that. If we all liked the same things, life would be pretty dull. So, with this philosophy, I'd agree with you on this: The topic of banning LPCs is, indeed, much ado about nothing. Saying that concerns about what might happen to this sport we all love is "much ado about nothing" however is IMO shortsighted.

Hehe... true... But to follow your analogy, it might be a small skirmish that leads up to "the Alamo," where geocaching is under seige by local, state, or federal laws put in place because one too many LEOs had to deal with illegally placed caches. Will this ever happen? I hope not. 'Cuz no defenders survived the Alamo. Not Jim Bowie, not Davy Crockett, not the guy who first saw Santa Anna's forces coming from the watch tower.

YIKES! I got this cache archived: Pleasant Lady Cache. The cache was on homeowner association property, but the homeowners association didn't have a problem with it. One of the homeowners called Groundspeak and they immediately archived it (Understandable), but the issue was not that it didn't belong there, but some REALLY grumpy neighbors who didn't have the authority to call Groundspeak. Groundspeak of course doesn't know and doesn't have the time to investigate whether or not the person complaining has authority, and they rightly archived the cache... I would be put on probation because of this cache even though permission was obtained. While I was typing last night I just knew that someone would come up with an example like this. It's a good example why there should be exceptions to almost every rule. This is why I added: In a case like yours, those reqirements could be as simple as the situation being explained to your local reviewer. Perhaps place another form on the "Hide & Seek a Cache" page: "Landowner Permission Documentation." If you run into a situation like this, it would be your "Get Out of Jail Free" card. Even just a copy of your emails with a landowner. Rather than give the reviewers yet another thing to have to track down when approving a cache, they'd only need to worry about it if there was a situation, which there would be less of because people would generally not hide caches without permission if they knew there were actually consequences. If it were a case where someone just didn't even ask, by my suggestion they wouldn't be banned from placing caches either. Perhaps there could be a local "Approved Mentor" who would help the cacher hide the next couple caches they place (or at least preview & approve them). Some have suggested in other threads that new cachers have a mentor when they place their first few caches anyways. Or maybe they need to actually submit the "Landowner Permission Documentation" for the next couple cache hides. Or maybe, it isn't the number of hides, but a time period. Then we agree. It is harsh, but if things get to a point where local governments are stepping in, it's going to be a whole lot harsher than what I'm suggesting. Don't wait for another Portsmouth.

... I’ll respectfully repeat the question one final time: Who cares? Does it actually have anything to do with LPCs? And why not? As long as there are folks who enjoy hiding and finding them, and as long as they're not hurting anything, LPCs (and similar caches) should be tolerated. I maintain that, by hiding any cache on property you don't have permission to do so, a LPC owner IS doing harm. After the incident in Portsmouth NH (I know, it wasn't an LPC, but it may as well have been), people were talking about geocaching in a negative way for quite a while. I'd bet if I were to go out and ask 10 people if I could hide a cache on their property today, I'd get a whole lot more "No"s today than I would have "pre-Portsmouth." It won't take too many more incidents before someone tries to legislate geocaching. I'm sure that many LPC owners have gotten permission to place their cache, but there are many more that have no permission. We don't need to ban LPCs, we need to make sure all caches are placed with consent. Those caches that aren't placed with permission are doing the geocaching community great harm! How do we stop this kind of hide? How about this: Anyone who has a cache archived at a landowner's request (or because a LEO removed or blew up the cache) gets placed "on probation," where they either can't place caches, or need to meet requirements in order to place caches. That would make people think twice.

I've been thinking about a cache I want to call "Camoflauge" nad had some of the basic ideas posted here, but now you've got me really thinking... Hmm... Nothing to see here

When did you notice this change? Had you been caching with others when you noticed the difference? I've got a Legend and I was perfectly happy with it, until one day I went caching with someone else. Suddenly I noticed that my GPS was all herky jerky, bouncing here and there and everywhere. Nothing as bad as yours, but still, it makes me wonder if we're suffering from the same thing: Not an inter GPS virus, though wouldn't that be interesting. I can see the forum posts now: "Practice Safe Geocaching!" No, my fellow cacher didn't switch my GPS for his broken one. Though if he wants to trade... The unit wasn't dropped, burned, opened under water, or in any other way damaged. I suffer from Antenna Envy! My fellow cacher has a newer Garmin model, which has greatly improved reception. I'll get the dreaded "Lost Signal" message, he'll have 12 sats! I'll be wandering with a 85" accuracy, he'll be sitting on the cache watching me. Until I had a reference point to compare to, I was happy with the Legend. Now, well, I'm not ready to go out and lay out the money... yet... but I do notice the unit's shortcomings. Seriously, though, I have no experience with broken GPS's, but I got my Garmin 'cuz I was told the company was the best at customer service. Check the Garmin website. See what they have to say. Some companies will look at the serial number on a unit and if it was manufactured within the current warranty period, you're golden. Some will even give you a break if it's just out of time. I don't know if this is the case with Garmin, but it's worth a shot.

I'm trying to decide if you're serious, or being funny. I mean, it's just a cold remedy. Either way, it's funny.

Ditto on Google Pages. I've put together a little something there. Really easy to use, no experience nessesary. Best of all, free!

Just a suggestion, but you guys might want to think twice about setting out intentional booby traps that might hurt someone. A cache like that goes beyond the stuff that's been discussed here so far. I'd propose that some of the puzzle caches I've seen are more of a threat to (mental) health than this would be. Besides, can't you see the logs now? Took: Nothing. Left: Finger. But seriously, it didn't come out exactly the way I wanted, but what I said speaks to guidelines, and when or when not to follow them. If the guidelines say not to place dangerous caches, when is it ok to place a dangerous cache? If the guidelines say not to put beer in a cache, when is it ok to leave Sam Adams in the cache? If the guidelines say not to place caches on private property without permission, when is it ok to do so? Oh... If someone wants to leave Sam Adams in a cache, since that would be wrong, we can make arrangements for you to drop it off with me. I'll leave my big red insulated "cache" on the front porch. It's the one marked "Igloo."

One of the reasons I've been pushing for a start of a New Hampshire GC organization is to be able to answer questions local authorities may have. I've actually started a website to get people thinking about it, and now that the site is up, the question of "Great, now what happens if the local press wants me to field questions?" I would kill for such a resource. This would obviously be something that Groundspeak would want a hand in (has anybody asked? Maybe there is one...) but if I were a local reporter who'd googled "geocaching" I'd chase down the local group before I went to national. At least I'd hit 'em both at once... What kind of input do you need from us? I'll try to help.

Ditto on the kudos to KBI. Now you've got me thinking... I'm picturing a cache armed with a rat trap, a car alarm, and a spray bottle of indelible dye... Call it "Knock Softly and Carry a Big 1st Aid Kit." Oh... yeah... there are guidelines about cacher safety, aren't there... well, scratch the rat trap...

No, I'm right because it speaks to the question. I think that that is a heck of a stretch. The presence of a film can does not cause a lightpole to fall down. In fact, I haven't tried it out, but I bet that those bolts are torqued down pretty good. I doubt that you would be able to undo them with any tools that you might be carrying in your pocket. I know that, and you know that, but the store manager (or worse, the shlep who got sent out to clean up all the broken glass) is all steamed up about the mess they are surveying. They look across the lot and see a truck pulled up next to another lightpost and some dude's fiddling with the base. What do you think they'll do? Do you really think that WalMart is unaware of Geocaching? No, but I bet they don't like it in their parking lots. What are they going to do? Start a new ad campaign? I can see it now, the little smiley guy swooping around smashing caches. NOT the image Wal-Mart wants to project. They also don't have ads where the little smiley guy is attacking shoplifters, but you better believe they don't like them either. (Actually, I would like to see this ad. Maybe with the smiley dressed as Zorro again?) <- Zorro's a Ninja?My overall point still remains. A lot of parking lot LPCs do not have explicit permission to be placed, thus are breaking geocaching rules, and frankly, THE LAW. If we can get Wal-Mart to say "Yes" to geocaches at a corporate level, then great, I'll be out tomorrow. I personally doubt that is going to happen.

I'm almost a foot and a half taller than my wife. I've grown up with people telling me "Wow! You are too tall!" The rest is my mother's fault. Dad wanted to name me Sue... Oh, by the way, slightly more irriating than "Boy! You are too tall" is "Wow! You are tall!" Oh? I hadn't noticed. Is that why I keep bumping my head? Heheh...

Yup. It doesn't have anything to do with this thread, but it's interesting. I would disagree. While not a LPC, the cache mentioned in the article was placed on the property of a "Big Box" without permission. (For those who might not know, Shaw's is a big supermarket chain). Thus, an example of what could happen elsewhere. I've done exactly one LPC. It was at a Wal-Mart (see below more on Wally World), and it was the lamppost right next to one that the bolts (that those skirts cover) had given way. What a mess. I just hope no cars were parked near it when it went down... or people... After the fact, I was wondering what would have happened if someone had decided that I might have had something to do with the fallen lamp? I had no tools, but it still would have been a big hassle. An example of how a LPC could bring undue scrutiny. As far as Wal-Mart & other Big Box stores go, I bet if you were to ask the Home Office of any one of them, most would say no to geocaches being placed on their property. First, there'd be the issue of liability. Secondly, I'm sure they'd bring up the fact that somehow by letting geocachers set up on the property they'd be setting a precident that would mean they'd have to allow unions to set up activities on the property (I'm not kidding here. Even the Salvation Army had to jump through hoops to get kettle ringers in front of the stores.) After working for Wally World for ten years, some of that in managment, I just get the feeling that that would be the answer. Heck, I doubt they'd give you a reason at all. Just "NO!" So, if I'm right, all these caches are placed against geocaching guidelines. I'm not against LPC's, but I am against breaking the rules. That's what caused the situation in the article linked by TheAlabamaRambler. Living in New Hampshire and everybody I work with knowing I'm a geocacher, I've been asked so many questions and had sooo many remarks made about being an outlaw. (The 1st news report out, the police sounded like they wanted to arrest all geocachers) So, don't think geocaching isn't going to be hurt by these hides. It will. That's what I don't like. If you've got permission, great! If you've asked your buddy the assistant manager over the pet department, that dosn't count. Get permission from the Store Manager. Just because everyone else is placing LPC's is not a precident for your placing one, too. My summary: We don't need to ban LPCs. We need to ban caches that do not meet geocaching.com guidelines.

Already started. This cache was mentioned in the other thread, and was just archived. I hope they don't go to far with this.. Some people actually visit the couch caches. Hmm... while I agree this could become a problem, if you read the logs for GC319E (the above-mentioned cache that was archived) you'll see these logs: May 27, 2006 by (insert your favorite cacher's name here) (1107 found) Owner is gone, email sent back undeliverable. All caches should be archived. June 4, 2006 by (insert your favorite reviewer's name here) (3 found) Archiving. So, it was actually originally archived in June '06. While archiving a virtual cache because of Couch Cachers may be extreme, archiving a virtual with an unreachable owner seems reasonable to me. Just my 2 cents. Now I'm broke, hope you're happy.