Cache Is On Public Property Icon

[+Confucius' Cat]

In a previous thread, I proposed an icon to say “specific permission obtained”

 

My purpose is to increase my comfort level, as a paperless cacher, in seeking certain caches, namely those where it is NOT obvious that cachers are welcome on the land. Apparently the absence of such an icon, if it were offered, would disparage all other caches that did not have it. OK- so no permission icon. Good enough.

 

Then, how about an icon for “on public property” and perhaps also “on private property”?

 

Neither icon would in any way imply permission or non-permission. A checkbox would also work here, but checkboxes seem to be more objectionable because of their inherent binary nature- you HAVE to respond- icons are OPTIONAL.

 

(Frankly, I think such a check box would benefit the approvers by indicating if they should inquire further into the hider’s permission status. But I know, I know, “NO MORE RULES” I get it.)

 

My justification: If a cache is on PUBLIC property it is safe to assume, from a perspective of arrest risk, that the simple act of BEING there and LOOKING FOR SOMETHING, is not against the law provided the cache seeker is not violating any posted rules of the area. Whether the hider had permission or not is irrelevant to a seeker on public land.

 

The ability to filter for and differentiate between private and public property, in my opinion, would be useful to paperless cachers who want to increase their comfort level in seeking spur-of-the-moment caches.

 

Of course, once at or very near the cache site, it is USUALLY obvious if the cache is on public property, but knowing in advance could save a drive. An icon would allow for automatic (PQ) filtering even of the obvious ones that are in a park or cemetery (which COULD be discerned by looking at the cache page without the icon- but this feature is for PAPERLESS cachers, OK?).

 

If a cache is on PRIVATE property, one can only assume that one is TRESPASSING unless permission for the cache has been given. We can argue all day about what is “permission” and how the cache owner implicitly states “adequate permission” has been obtained. Still the fact is that unless the cache hider had SPECIFIC permission from a person or persons with legal authority to grant same, (which we seem to be unwilling and/or unable to positively REQUIRE), the seeker is probably trespassing.

 

Responsible cachers who place caches on private property will state that they have permission somewhere in the cache page, but a paperless cacher might not have access to that statement.

 

The "private property" icon would serve to indicate "adequate permission" to the trusting, and would be a "be extra careful" or "perhaps its best to bypass this one" icon to the less trusting.

 

Caveat emptor. The best decisions are made with the best information.

 

Is it an “inherent need”? No. Neither is the “poison ivy” icon (or any other icon)

 

Will it be useful to “most” cachers? Probably not- neither is the “handicap accessible” icon

 

Can it be abused? I don’t know how, but I’m sure I’ll be enlightened and I’m sure it will be if implemented.

 

Will it somehow disparage caches that don’t have it? I don’t see how, but I’m sure I’ll learn that also in a few minutes.

 

Is it worthwhile? That is the question before us.

[+sbell111]

...

Responsible cachers who place caches on private property will state that they have permission somewhere in the cache page, but a paperless cacher might not have access to that statement.

...

As a paperless cacher, I have just as much available to me as when I used paper. Why wouldn't I have this also.

 

That being said, since each hider attests that adequate permission has been obtained, it doesn't really matter to me wehther it is on private or public land. Either way, if I'm uncomfy, I'll blow it off. This includes those times when the cache page states that specific permission was obtained.

 

Thanks, but no thanks.

[+Team Dubbin]

Responsible cachers who place caches on private property will state that they have permission somewhere in the cache page, but a paperless cacher might not have access to that statement.

 

This stament also confuses me. I go paperless everytime and yet I still have the same info that I would get if I printed out the cache page. All that you typed out there sure seems like a bunch of rambling just for a useless icon

[+Confucius' Cat]

I plot icons on a map. That is all. Different icons for different types.

 

RAMBLE RAMBLE RAMBLE......................

Useless.....

oh well

I guess I should quit filtering for night caches too.... ruddy useless icons

 

[+DocDiTTo]

 

If a cache is on PUBLIC property it is safe to assume, from a perspective of arrest risk, that the simple act of BEING there and LOOKING FOR SOMETHING, is not against the law provided the cache seeker is not violating any posted rules of the area. Whether the hider had permission or not is irrelevant to a seeker on public land.

 

 

Not entirely true. PA State parks require permits and permission, and it is possible to tresspass into "off limits" natural areas or wildlife propagation areas and still be on public property. I was actually looking off-trail in a PA state park for an old archived cache that I had reason to believe might never have been removed, and a park ranger hiked up the hill to see what I was up to. Of course I told her the truth, and she bid me good day and continued on, but I did wonder if I was in violation of some rule by being off trail there. If so, she didn't mention it. But you can't automatically assume that hunting on public property is "not against the law" or that you are "not violating any posted rules" by being there.

 

Personally, I prefer the "Placed with explicit permission" idea, but we hashed that around in the other thread. I don't think the type of property (public or private) is as relevant as "do we have the property owners'/manager's permission to play our game there". I'll play the game wherever I'm allowed, whether the government owns the property or not has never been an issue for me.

[+JimmyEv]

I don't see anything wrong with public/private attributes. Might actually be useful if you just want to stick to public property.

[+Cyclometh]

"public property" means a lot of different things. For example, the Washington State Capitol is technically public property, but I don't think the State Patrol would take kindly to someone setting a micro in the Rotunda.

 

Seriously, though, there are many different types of "public" property, some of which the public is not allowed to access for various reasons, from safety to habitat protection. I'm not sure a binary toggle asserting "public property" would be helpful.

[+welch]

In a previous thread, I proposed an icon to say “specific permission obtained”

 

My purpose is to increase my comfort level, as a paperless cacher, in seeking certain caches, namely those where it is NOT obvious that cachers are welcome on the land. Apparently the absence of such an icon, if it were offered, would disparage all other caches that did not have it. OK- so no permission icon. Good enough.

 

Then, how about an icon for “on public property” and perhaps also “on private property”?

...

*sigh*

I don't think you'll ever get everyone to agree this is A) a good thing to set up, worthwhile enough that everyone should use these buttons/icons/whatevers. But you might get some more merry go round threads that don't really do anything

Maybe for comfort you should just stick to new caches places in parks that have well known permit systems so you know the reviewer was checking?

[+Mastifflover]

Is it worthwhile to add more confusion and controversy to something that so obviously works well the way that it is..........................NO.

[+BigWhiteTruck]

Bottom line:

All hides need to have permission if they are on private property. It's in the rules. You should cahe assuming that permission is granted. If you can't trust the cacher to follow the rules, you can't trust them to check the proper boxes anyway.

[+JDandDD]

Bottom line:

All hides need to have permission if they are on private property. It's in the rules. You should cahe assuming that permission is granted. If you can't trust the cacher to follow the rules, you can't trust them to check the proper boxes anyway.

 

Best post I've seen in either thread so far. Exactly. If you don't bother to get permission or check the public use rules what would stop you from just clicking the 'with permission' button every time. Nothing of course so what's the usefulness of the attribute?

 

Also, yet another thread in which definition problems arise, public vs public but not fully open to public debate already in this thread. Definitions always seem so easy when you start off and end up difficult to write.

 

Ultimately, the rule is already there about permission and we are all supposed to follow it.

 

JDandDD

[+JimmyEv]

I thought this thread was about a 'public property' attribute, not a 'permission' attribute. The hider always has to have permission, whether explicitly or by default.

 

What's the big deal about providing finders with more information through attributes? Public property in the US is owned by the government (i.e. 'the people'). Some is accessible to the public, some is not. Some require explicit permission to hide a cache, some don't. It's just more information to use when filtering pqs if you don't like caching on private property or don't like caching on public property. Kind of like if you don't like puzzle caches or poison ivy or snakes or whatever.

[+StarBrand]

Bottom line:

All hides need to have permission if they are on private property. It's in the rules. You should cahe assuming that permission is granted. If you can't trust the cacher to follow the rules, you can't trust them to check the proper boxes anyway.

 

I agree totally with this line of reasoning. AND - I continue to fear that the lack of such an icon could lead some to believe that it was placed illicitly.

[+JimmyEv]

Bottom line:

All hides need to have permission if they are on private property. It's in the rules. You should cahe assuming that permission is granted. If you can't trust the cacher to follow the rules, you can't trust them to check the proper boxes anyway.

 

I agree totally with this line of reasoning. AND - I continue to fear that the lack of such an icon could lead some to believe that it was placed illicitly.

 

I'm not following the logic here. If there is a lack of an icon stating that a cache is on public property, this could lead some to believe that it was placed illicitly?

[+Zzyzx Road]

Based on the other topics/threads that I read about in AR, how would you all go about this one?

GCT7K5

 

I read the posted DNF, and decided I wouldn't even bother. If it is so hard to find that you stay long enough to cause suspicion, it is either too hard for me to find in the first place or someone isn't aware of the potential geocaching "traffic" in that area.

 

I seriously wonder about some of the caches I have found/plan to find/have read up on to find...there are some that clearly state the cacheowner knows the landowner (cattle ranges in the hills) and has permission. Others state that it s a public road and it's OK, but some of the previous dealings with the people that live/ranch in that particular area have been less than friendly. They don't want strangers messing with their livestock and will come out with loaded weapons to ask about your business.

 

Too bad we live in a scary world!

[+welch]

I thought this thread was about a 'public property' attribute, not a 'permission' attribute. The hider always has to have permission, whether explicitly or by default.

 

What's the big deal about providing finders with more information through attributes? Public property in the US is owned by the government (i.e. 'the people'). Some is accessible to the public, some is not. Some require explicit permission to hide a cache, some don't. It's just more information to use when filtering pqs if you don't like caching on private property or don't like caching on public property. Kind of like if you don't like puzzle caches or poison ivy or snakes or whatever.

Adding another attribute won't give more information uniformly(even if you could figure out exactly what you want and how to define it, and how you want it displayed). Attributes are placer optional, some will use them, some will not, some won't know what they mean anyway. To make it uniform you'd have to require everyone to use them, which won't work too well. You ever notice the people like to put things like 'no hint needed' or 'this is easy just look' in the hint section?

If you require something there, some people will probably do a quick job just to fill in the blank. You'll still have to use your own personal judgement based on maps and/or actually trying to go there to determine if the area is really open to the public, has posion ivy, or is free of snakes, etc...

[+sbell111]

Based on the other topics/threads that I read about in AR, how would you all go about this one?

GCT7K5

Ummm, your link doesn't work.

Edited February 7, 2006 by sbell111

[+DocDiTTo]

Based on the other topics/threads that I read about in AR, how would you all go about this one?

GCT7K5

 

I read the posted DNF, and decided I wouldn't even bother. If it is so hard to find that you stay long enough to cause suspicion, it is either too hard for me to find in the first place or someone isn't aware of the potential geocaching "traffic" in that area.

 

Yet another case where a cache was poorly placed and apparently no permission was obtained. If I were the hunter, the note would have been an SBA, not a DNF. People who hide caches in places like this without permission DO put the finders at risk. The hiders aren't the ones snooping around for long periods of time, getting the cops called on them, or being confronted by store employees. It's the SEEKERS who always get those priviledged encounters. Unfortunately knowing whether the cache was on private or public property wouldn't have helped much, because it could have been hidden with permission. Doesn't appear that it was, but it could have been.

[+sbell111]

Based on the other topics/threads that I read about in AR, how would you all go about this one?

GCT7K5

 

I read the posted DNF, and decided I wouldn't even bother. If it is so hard to find that you stay long enough to cause suspicion, it is either too hard for me to find in the first place or someone isn't aware of the potential geocaching "traffic" in that area.

 

Yet another case where a cache was poorly placed and apparently no permission was obtained. If I were the hunter, the note would have been an SBA, not a DNF. ...

I think you're reading an awful lot into one DNF. From what I read, its an urban micro. I have no idea what kind of micro or where/how its placed. If you are not willing to use stealth to find such a cache, you should pass it by. The log does not hint that permission wasn't obtained, just that the 'middle eastern store worker' wasn't impressed.

 

I thought that the 'arrested for terrorism' line was precious beyond words.

[+Confucius' Cat]

 

Adding another attribute won't give more information uniformly(even if you could figure out exactly what you want and how to define it, and how you want it displayed). Attributes are placer optional, some will use them, some will not, some won't know what they mean anyway. To make it uniform you'd have to require everyone to use them, which won't work too well. You ever notice the people like to put things like 'no hint needed' or 'this is easy just look' in the hint section?

If you require something there, some people will probably do a quick job just to fill in the blank. You'll still have to use your own personal judgement based on maps and/or actually trying to go there to determine if the area is really open to the public, has posion ivy, or is free of snakes, etc...

 

optional means "up to the poster", not "uniformly"

any info is better than no info

if the owner does not choose to post an icon, the filter based on that icon will fail and the cache will not be part of the filtered list

no big deal

win-win

nobody loses here

 

if i like poison ivy, i filter for caches that have PI. If i get no caches, then i hunt no caches or i change the filter and take my chances.

[+welch]

optional means "up to the poster", not "uniformly"

any info is better than no info

if the owner does not choose to post an icon, the filter based on that icon will fail and the cache will not be part of the filtered list

no big deal

win-win

nobody loses here

 

if i like poison ivy, i filter for caches that have PI. If i get no caches, then i hunt no caches or i change the filter and take my chances.

And??

 

If you get no return and no comfort, how was it worthwhile to implement?

 

I must have a really strange way of picking out caches to hunt, attributes (where used) only 'try' telling me things about the cache, and are not used to define if I would hunt it or not. The hunt or not decision normally comes from my reading of the cache info, what the owners, and maybe visitors say in written words about the cache. I try and avoid running a PQ and then visiting the cache without reading what I'm headed for. To each their own I guess...

[+Confucius' Cat]

 

And??

 

If you get no return and no comfort, how was it worthwhile to implement?

 

I must have a really strange way of picking out caches to hunt, attributes (where used) only 'try' telling me things about the cache, and are not used to define if I would hunt it or not. The hunt or not decision normally comes from my reading of the cache info, what the owners, and maybe visitors say in written words about the cache. I try and avoid running a PQ and then visiting the cache without reading what I'm headed for. To each their own I guess...

 

When I am planning a caching expedition, I do exactly as you say. There is no problem here.

 

This thread and the idea for the icon is about AUTOMATIC FILTERING, which presently can be done based on any available icon. The question is not "are the icons useful for filtering?" but "would a new icon be nice?"

 

"are not used to define if I would hunt it or not" - I bet there are many cachers that DO use icons to define caches they will or will not hunt. Is it a perfect system? No. But neither is reading the cache page... as several have pointed out, nothing stopping a person from LYING on a cache page (SHAMELESS PLUG)

[+welch]

I guess I thought this thread was about "Then, how about an icon for “on public property” and perhaps also “on private property”? ...Is it worthwhile? That is the question before us."

No I did't think it was worthwhile. And No i don't think it would be nice.

 

"I bet there are many cachers that do use icons..." I think this has already be said twice. We agree not everyone uses the various search features the same (or any of the other site features).

 

Yes people can lie on the page as well as the icon, intentionally doing so will continue. Doing so because it's there and seems needed will result in some unintential lies as well.

[+JimmyEv]

Adding another attribute won't give more information uniformly(even if you could figure out exactly what you want and how to define it, and how you want it displayed). Attributes are placer optional, some will use them, some will not, some won't know what they mean anyway. To make it uniform you'd have to require everyone to use them, which won't work too well. You ever notice the people like to put things like 'no hint needed' or 'this is easy just look' in the hint section?

If you require something there, some people will probably do a quick job just to fill in the blank. You'll still have to use your own personal judgement based on maps and/or actually trying to go there to determine if the area is really open to the public, has posion ivy, or is free of snakes, etc...

 

Arghh! I forgot why I don't use attributes to screen my pqs. I was working in New Orleans in December. With the short days and long work hours, I could only do night caches. So I ran a pq for the 'night cache' attribute. It returned something like 15 caches. Tried to do some, and not even one was actually a night cache. They weren't even accessible at night. Now I'm starting to imagine all the caches on private property marked with the public property attribute. "Well, the public does park in the Walmart parking lot, so of course it's public property..."