Who's responsible?

[+sbell111]

In another thread, a side topic grew that basically dealt with responsibility. Specifically, whether a cache hider should be responsible for whether a seeker accesses a cache in a legal manner.

 

I believe that while all caches must have legal access, this access need not be spelled out on the cache page. In my opinion, seekers can be responsible for ensuring that they don't break any laws while traveling to ground zero and that discovering the correct approach to the cache is part of the fun.

 

What do you think?

[+Mule Ears]

In another thread, a side topic grew that basically dealt with responsibility. Specifically, whether a cache hider should be responsible for whether a seeker accesses a cache in a legal manner.

 

I believe that while all caches must have legal access, this access need not be spelled out on the cache page. In my opinion, seekers can be responsible for ensuring that they don't break any laws while traveling to ground zero and that discovering the correct approach to the cache is part of the fun.

 

What do you think?

 

In a legalistic sense, yes--it's the seeker's responsibility to avoid breaking the law. But if the legal access is difficult to find and there's a tempting illegal shortcut, you'd really be doing everyone a favor by disclosing the legal route. Why tempt ('entrap') someone into trespassing? It's their fault, sure, but you could have taken steps to lessen the likelyhood.

[+sbell111]

In a legalistic sense, yes--it's the seeker's responsibility to avoid breaking the law. But if the legal access is difficult to find and there's a tempting illegal shortcut, you'd really be doing everyone a favor by disclosing the legal route. Why tempt ('entrap') someone into trespassing? It's their fault, sure, but you could have taken steps to lessen the likelyhood.

Do you really see it as entrapment? If I hade an urban micro, should I include a note on the page advising seekers not to double park?

 

Some time ago, I was in Alabama looking for a cache. I drove around and around looking for a legal way to it, but could not find access. I gave up and returned a month or so later. This time, I found access and earned the smiley. I never considered trespassing to make the find, nor was I upset because the cache owner didn't spoon feed me directions.

[+Mule Ears]

Do you really see it as entrapment? If I hade an urban micro, should I include a note on the page advising seekers not to double park?

 

Some time ago, I was in Alabama looking for a cache. I drove around and around looking for a legal way to it, but could not find access. I gave up and returned a month or so later. This time, I found access and earned the smiley. I never considered trespassing to make the find, nor was I upset because the cache owner didn't spoon feed me directions.

 

Not every cacher is going to exhibit your admirable self-control. That's a fact. By withholding information on legal access you're going to increase the likelyhood that eventually someone will trespass to get to your cache. Is that your fault? No, it's their fault. But it would be good for everyone involved if you disclosed the legal route (even if only as a hint, or a note that says "email me if you want the access info").

 

Other than increasing the possibility of an incident (and a blackeye for our hobby), what do you accomplish by withholding the access info?

[avroair]

I tend to assume (and what i have seen from experience) that people are going to get to the cache the fastest way possible whether it breaks the law or not. Therefore, I tend to provide information that would spell out what people can and can't do. If there is ever a gray issue of whether or not it's legal I probably wouldn't place a cache there as to avoid the seeker's tendency to break the law.

[+the hermit crabs]

Do you really see it as entrapment? If I hade an urban micro, should I include a note on the page advising seekers not to double park?

 

Some time ago, I was in Alabama looking for a cache. I drove around and around looking for a legal way to it, but could not find access. I gave up and returned a month or so later. This time, I found access and earned the smiley. I never considered trespassing to make the find, nor was I upset because the cache owner didn't spoon feed me directions.

 

Not every cacher is going to exhibit your admirable self-control. That's a fact. By withholding information on legal access you're going to increase the likelyhood that eventually someone will trespass to get to your cache. Is that your fault? No, it's their fault. But it would be good for everyone involved if you disclosed the legal route (even if only as a hint, or a note that says "email me if you want the access info").

 

Other than increasing the possibility of an incident (and a blackeye for our hobby), what do you accomplish by withholding the access info?

That's exactly it. If the repercussions for irresponsible behavior fell solely on the irresponsible person (such as as being fined or arrested for trespass), then there would be no problem with withholding information about legal access to the area, or considering it "part of the fun of the hunt." But unfortunately, that's not the case. The response of land managers to this type of behavior is likely to be "(Some) Geocachers trespass, so we should restrict/ban/outlaw (all) geocaching!" Unreasonable or unfair, yes, but true. So the more that cache hiders can do to lessen the likelihood of this type of occurrence, the better.

[+Criminal]

Often, finding the way in is a large part of (or all of) the challenge of finding a particular cache. It’s great to be given parking coordinates; however, if the hider expended a degree of effort to discover the path to the cache site, he or she may well want you to have that same experience.

 

Not all players have the same focus in geocaching. Some prefer the challenge of racking up high numbers by absorbing as many caches as they can in the shortest possible time. If they have a lot of prep-work to accomplish before they even get to the cache site, they are going to be disappointed when they arrive on scene and find NO TRESPASSING signs, they’ve just wasted a lot of time for zero gain.

 

That said, the legal aspect (as opposed to the merely physically aspect) becomes problematic when someone (oh, say, like me) will climb a fence or cross private property if they get frustrated. In cases of legal access, the minimum information on the page should include information that there is, in fact, a legal way to get to the cache container, while not necessarily telling what the route is.

 

The responsibility belongs to the finder.

[+carleenp]

Ultimately it is the seekers responsibility. At least assuming that there are no hidden "traps." If it is clear that a person will be trespassing, they shouldn't trespass.

 

With that said, I think plenty of cachers will trespass anyway and not look for the right way in. That makes it seem a bit irresponsible to place a cache where it is hard to find the way in. Technically, I think the finder is responsible for what happens, but I am not going to feel real sorry for a cache owner who complains that he or she doesn't like people trespassing if he or she created the potential for it to begin with.

[+StarBrand]

I do think it is up to the cache placer to at least provide the fact that a safe and legal access method does exist. I often will include some text like - "Do not park along the hiway, look for the nearby safe parking" or something vague like - "Access this one from the south". I don't see it my job to spell out each and every danger or legality nearby but I try to clue them in on what to avoid in general terms.

[+Semper Questio]

Yes, it is the seekers responsibility to obey all laws and property rights. If I approach a cache and I have any doubts about my approach then I find another way or abandon the hunt.

 

However, the owner has responsibilities as well. If the only legal access is hard to find there should at least be a disclaimer stating so. Also if the owner is informed that there is no access (conditions change or erroneous placements are made) then the owner has a responsibility to pull that cache.

Edited September 13, 2006 by Semper Questio

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I seriously doubt that you will get any of the lawyers among us to comment on this, and it's been discussed frequently.

 

As far as I know there is no directly relevant legal precedent.

 

I do expect this issue to land in a court at some point, however.

 

So I guess that leaves it in the realm of community mores and practices.

 

Though 'just' a listing service and heavily disclaimered, Groundspeak via their Cache Listing Guidelines are pretty much the responsible party for what is listed on this site.

 

Our Reviewers are de facto representatives of Groundspeak.

 

Therefore if a cache is listed it is blessed by Groundspeak to adhere to the guidelines.

 

So here we have a situation I think of like a ball park. They are not responsible for the player's actions. They are not responsible if you or your car are hit with a ball. There is a reasonable and customary expectation that if you attend a baseball game you may get hit with a baseball.

 

They are, however, responsible for your fall if you lean on a gaurdrail and it breaks, or the stairwell you are climbing collapses, as you have a reasonable expectation of physial safety while at their facility.

 

It's a real stretch, but I can see how an argument could be made by someone with more legal insight than me that Groundspeak could be held to be liable for any known but unlisted dangers of a cache hunt - listing page disclaimer notwithstanding.

 

I can see the cache owner being held responsible much easier. If I invite you to a place and you fall down a sinkhole I knew was there but failed to warn you about I may be held responsible. Yes, it is your responsibility to watch where you are walking, but it is also reasonable for you to expect me to warn you of danger. I think this will be tried one day in re geocaching.

 

We Americans are being protected by our courts at unprecedented levels, some cases seem as if a person has no responsibility for their actions. Examples of the absurd abound, though I have yet to see a clear example re geocaching. I expect that if one had enough money to properly fund a case both the cache owner and Groundspeak could be held liable if I were hurt or arrested while hunting the instant case, inside a cloverleaf, especially if there is a legal way in and the owner fails to give it. Even when, as in this case, parking and access are spelled out, I think a lawyer could make a case that the placement is an invitation and it is reasonable for the owner to foresee that a cacher might try to access it in some other way.

 

Again, I think all this thread will gather is a wild range of uninformed opinion (like mine!) and no legal scholar will touch it.

 

I hope they do, though, as it's a situation that will arise.

 

Ed

[+Criminal]

I seriously doubt that you will get any of the lawyers among us to comment on this, and it's been discussed frequently.

 

...and no legal scholar will touch it.

Don't be offended Carleen

[+The Leprechauns]

Though 'just' a listing service and heavily disclaimered, Groundspeak via their Cache Listing Guidelines are pretty much the responsible party for what is listed on this site.

 

Our Reviewers are de facto representatives of Groundspeak.

 

Therefore if a cache is listed it is blessed by Groundspeak to adhere to the guidelines.

This line of reasoning reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the cache review process. Go back to the difference between "approver" and "reviewer" that has been discussed in many prior threads.

 

A reviewer can only look at what's presented on the cache page, the maps and other online tools. If the cache page fails to mention that the container is at the bottom of a 100 foot mineshaft with a fence around the entrance marked "no trespassing," there is no way to catch this prior to publication. Such a cache has not been "blessed." It's been "reviewed," and is published if no guideline violations are noted. Presumably the early seekers of such a cache would report the issue and the reviewer would revisit the listing.

[+briansnat]

In a way its both. As long as the cache is hidden in compliance with the guidelines and applicable laws and regulations, it's the seeker's responsibility to access it without breaking any laws. He is the one who will be exposed to arrest and prosecution if he is caught.

 

If the owner chooses to post coordinates or access information, that is simply a courtesy. The owner however needs to realize that anyone caught breaking the law in order to find the cache reflects on all of us, so he should at the very least let the finders know that there is legal access available and its part of the challenge to find it.

[CoyoteRed]

Here's another angle of why it would be a bad idea in the extreme to attempt to absolve the finder of responsibility for legal access, personal safety, or anything else that might adversely affect them or the hobby. Just look at the potential scenario where a finder assumes a hider has placed a perfectly safe and legal cache, but the finder enters the coordinate wrong. The hider has absolutely no control over a mistake a finder could make or where that mistake could take them. The finder will assume a perfectly safe and legal hunt when in fact they've illegally entered into a very dangerous area. The results could be deadly.

 

I'm not saying that it's okay to place illegal or unsafe caches. (Let's not confuse "unsafe" with "manageable risk," okay?) On the contrary. Every cache should have legal access. That's not to say it can't have limited legal access, but I'd be the first to click the SBA button on a cache that took you to, say, a military preserve with no indication that it is one until you're facing down M-16's. There is one near here where some access points are completely unmarked.

 

I do believe it is the hider's responsibility to not hide access restrictions. No cache should be placed behind known, but not marked, restricted access. It would be the fault of the hider in this kind of case. An example would be a cache placed beyond private property, but which looks like part of a green space, and the property owner has made it clear he does not want folks on his land. He might not be able to put up a sign because of covenants and restrictions in his neighborhood. The cache is on accessible and legal property, but seemingly obvious access is across this gentleman's unmarked, private property.

 

I think responsibility boils down to the "reasonable person doctrine." Can a reasonable person with reasonable care know what they are doing is illegal?

[DogFleazJR]

I can see it now – the next episode of Law and Order Criminal Intent, RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES!

 

Cache owner arrested for conspiracy to commit murder after placing a micro cache in the alley behind his neighbor’s apartment.

 

After several days of seeing strange men lurking in the alley acting suspicious, the jealous neighbor is convinced his wife is having an affair and shoots her and the next poor cacher who comes along. Pursued by an aggressive State Attorney General with aspirations of being governor, the cache owner is arrested for complicity in the deaths of the wife and the cacher.

 

In a dramatic twist, the whacky-genius detective uses retinal imaging from a grainy security camera three blocks away to tie the murdered geocacher to a plot to assassinate the State Attorney General. Is the cache owner criminally negligent or a hero? Tune in to find out!

 

On a more serious note, the actions of each geocacher reflect on the reputation of all geocachers. Situations that are likely to lead to trespassing or other unlawful or inappropriate actions (whether intentional or not) should be avoided. It only takes a few bad experiences for parks departments, municipalities and others to think about restricting geocaching.

 

If some cacher decides to climb an 8 foot fence or cuts through a business property clearly marked as restricted, that is clearly the seeker’s responsibility. But if the cache you place is likely to result in trespassing, especially across private property that may not be clearly delineated, then I think you have a responsibility to call this out in the cache description. Then it is clear that part of the challenge is to figure out how to get there without trespassing.

 

Just a thought, happy wandering!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Sorry Carleen and Lep, y'all posted while I was writing and I didn't see it!

 

Guess I was wrong, I didn't think a lawyer would opine! Thank you who are lawyers for doing so. I was debating this off-line with another attorney who said it wasn't likely that a legal opinion would be proffered.

 

Yes, you are right, I have never understood the legal implications of the review-vs-approve semantics, as it looks to me like a listing has to be reviewed for guideline adherence and then approved for publication.

 

Since a Reviewer has to decide to list or not to list, to list seems to be an approval.

 

Can a listing be published without a Reviewer's approval? Does that not make them Approvers?

 

Such fine distinctions often elude me; I guess that's one of many reasons why I could never make it as a lawyer!

 

Ed

Edited September 13, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

[bogleman]

Finding a legal access point is up to the finder. Now if I find problems while scouting an area I will point them out in the listing and provide additional support information or FIND A BETTER SPOT. I truly enjoy hides that challenges seekers to find your own way.

 

GC and the VCR's review the listings to make sure they meet the guidelines if it passes muster then the monkey is on the seekers back. Even if I provide a legal route with parking some folks will not read nor follow the suggested route of travel.

 

I have just recently set up a cache in this manner (Whimper & Whine) - I provided basic parking, warnings about neighbors and my route of travel. I am curious to see how folks plan on going after this cache since there are very few access points and no "easy way".

[CoyoteRed]

Oh, and I forgot to mention that even if you do have clearly defined instructions and restrictions, that is no guarantee the description will be read or, if read, followed. Experience talking here.

[+The Leprechauns]

Sorry Carleen and Lep, y'all posted while I was writing and I didn't see it!

 

Guess I was wrong, I didn't think a lawyer would opine! Thank you who are lawyers for doing so. I was debating this off-line with another attorney who said it wasn't likely that a legal opinion would be proffered.

 

Yes, you are right, I have never understood the legal implications of the review-vs-approve semantics, as it looks to me like a listing has to be reviewed for guideline adherence and then approved for publication.

 

Since a Reviewer has to decide to list or not to list, to list seems to be an approval.

 

Can a listing be published without a Reviewer's approval? Does that not make them Approvers?

 

Such fine distinctions often elude me; I guess that's one of many reasons why I could never make it as a lawyer!

 

Ed

There is nothing in my post that constitutes legal advice. It is a geocacher's post. I am restricted by contract with my employer, as well as by common sense, from providing legal advice to anyone other than my employer.

[Mushtang]

I agree with those that place the responsibility on the finder. I hope I'm never held accountable for someone else's stupid decision. If someone is looking for a cache of mine that is near a bank, and they decide to try the roof of the bank, I'd hate to think what could happen if the cacher tells the judge that I sent him there and the judge accepts it.

 

CR made some excellent points here. IF the cacher actually reads the cache description, and IF the cache page says something like, "This is a dangerous area on private property. Permission has been given, but be careful", does that mean that ANY place that the cacher goes to is suddenly acceptable?

 

What if the coords were entered in wrong and the cacher finds himself standing at the gate to the lion's cage at the zoo? That's a dangerous place on private property so it must be the right place. Surely the cacher would think it's a bad idea to check under the lion's water dish.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Sorry Carleen and Lep, y'all posted while I was writing and I didn't see it!

 

Guess I was wrong, I didn't think a lawyer would opine! Thank you who are lawyers for doing so. I was debating this off-line with another attorney who said it wasn't likely that a legal opinion would be proffered.

 

Yes, you are right, I have never understood the legal implications of the review-vs-approve semantics, as it looks to me like a listing has to be reviewed for guideline adherence and then approved for publication.

 

Since a Reviewer has to decide to list or not to list, to list seems to be an approval.

 

Can a listing be published without a Reviewer's approval? Does that not make them Approvers?

 

Such fine distinctions often elude me; I guess that's one of many reasons why I could never make it as a lawyer!

 

Ed

There is nothing in my post that constitutes legal advice. It is a geocacher's post. I am restricted by contract with my employer, as well as by common sense, from providing legal advice to anyone other than my employer.

 

Thanks for the clarification - but it returns us to square one... Assuming that the Pika Cacher posts here as a cacher and not as an attorney as well. I do understand why professionals do not want to come in for a clear landing. Heaven forbid any of us ever be held accountable for what we say here!

 

In all seriousness, I apologize for using my knowledge that you are an attorney to add weight to your posts as a cacher. That wasn't fair of me.

 

I didn't think we'd get a legal opinion here, for the reason's you stated and others, so my supposition that we would only garner geocacher opinion was in fact correct.

 

That being the case, and no court ruling in sight, how will we ever get a firm answer here?

 

Ed

[+sbell111]

My postition on this issue is based on a presumption. I presume that, in order for a cache to be listed GC.com, the cache location must be legally accessible. If this is not the case, some would argue that all cache descriptions should have a note on them stating that there is a way to make legal access. I would argue that this is not necessary because a cache page for a cache without legal access would not be sufficient to authorize illegal access to the cache.

 

As seekers (and citizens), we are responsible for ensuring that we act lawfully. I am not responsible for reminding everyone else to act lawfully.

[+Stunod]

I didn't think we'd get a legal opinion here, for the reason's you stated and others, so my supposition that we would only garner geocacher opinion was in fact correct.

 

That being the case, and no court ruling in sight, how will we ever get a firm answer here?

 

Ed

 

Hire a lawyer to give you the advice.

Edited September 13, 2006 by Stunod

[+uxorious]

A slightly different twist on this would be a cache that has no apparent legal access, but the cache owner has permission to place it. (or maybe not, but placed it anyway)

 

I had a DNF on a cache I could not find a public trail into. The only trail I could find was from a parking lot at a community center, clearly posted for the community's use only.

 

I E-mailed the cache owner, and was told, that was the access, and not to worry about the signs, as it is alright to use the lot and trail. Now I don't know if they had permission or not, but an indication in the posting page would have helped.

 

From the logs it seems no one else, at least no one who logged it, was worried about the signs.

[+Mule Ears]

It's interesting to see how legalistic this discussion has turned. For all practical purposes, the seeker who breaks the law enroute to the cache is going to pay the penalty, and the placer is not. But if legal access to the cache is difficult to find, isn't it classy to point it out? Wouldn't it, in many cases*, be beneficial to everyone to reveal the legal access route? I realize that many cachers will disregard this info, but at least you've done your part.

 

Do we have to be legally compelled to be helpful?

 

*Exception for tough, remote caches in which access is part of the planning and route-finding process.

[+sbell111]

... In all seriousness, I apologize for using my knowledge that you are an attorney to add weight to your posts as a cacher. That wasn't fair of me. ...

Of course, first you would have to assume that he is a good attorney and that his advice is correct for cachers who live outside of his practicing area.

 

Anyway, I wasn't looking for a legal answer by creating this thread. I believe that the disclaimer does give some amount of cover for Groundspeak and cache owners with the statement that 'Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache'. I was merely posing the question because some cachers believe that everything must be spoonfed on the cache page. Obviously, I disagree with the position.

[+sbell111]

... But if legal access to the cache is difficult to find, isn't it classy to point it out? Wouldn't it, in many cases*, be beneficial to everyone to reveal the legal access route? I realize that many cachers will disregard this info, but at least you've done your part. ...

 

*Exception for tough, remote caches in which access is part of the planning and route-finding process.

How do you reconcile this belief with the belief of those that think that figuring out how to access the location is part of the fun? Are you simply stating that, in your opinion, they are 'classless'?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I didn't think we'd get a legal opinion here, for the reason's you stated and others, so my supposition that we would only garner geocacher opinion was in fact correct.

 

That being the case, and no court ruling in sight, how will we ever get a firm answer here?

 

Ed

 

Hire a lawyer to give you the advice.

 

After some consideration, I ain't touching that!

[+sightunseen]

A. Is it lunch time yet?

B. Did the Atterney General nail the cacher or was it the butler?

C. Can we throw in the scenario where the cacher receives both an error reading from his GPSr thats due to Chuck Norris's head and, a roundhouse kick resulting in instant death?

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

In another thread, a side topic grew that basically dealt with responsibility. Specifically, whether a cache hider should be responsible for whether a seeker accesses a cache in a legal manner.

 

I believe that while all caches must have legal access, this access need not be spelled out on the cache page. In my opinion, seekers can be responsible for ensuring that they don't break any laws while traveling to ground zero and that discovering the correct approach to the cache is part of the fun.

 

What do you think?

I prefer that the legal access methods, as well as any not-so-obvious trespassing issues or warnings, be explicitly revealed on the cache listing page.

[+Mule Ears]

... But if legal access to the cache is difficult to find, isn't it classy to point it out? Wouldn't it, in many cases*, be beneficial to everyone to reveal the legal access route? I realize that many cachers will disregard this info, but at least you've done your part. ...

 

*Exception for tough, remote caches in which access is part of the planning and route-finding process.

How do you reconcile this belief with the belief of those that think that figuring out how to access the location is part of the fun? Are you simply stating that, in your opinion, they are 'classless'?

 

Not at all, but you already knew that.

 

What I meant is that providing at least some information on legal access into a tricky area is a nice ("Classy") thing to do. You aren't compelled to do it, it's just courteous. Providing a statement to the effect that legal access is tricky would advertise your cache to people who consider researching property access to be fun (whoever they might be!) and deter those who consider it onerous.

 

Actions like...

• moving aside to let another driver merge
  
• picking up trash that you didn't drop
  
• giving up your bus seat to someone who looks tired
  
• letting a hurried person bump in front of you in the checkout line
  
• alerting cache seekers to potential access problems
  

...aren't legally required. They're just nice. Classy. That's all. I'm not saying that people who don't do these things are the opposite of classy. Saying that wouldn't be nice or classy, and it is not what I mean. (Trying to plug all the potential rhetorical loopholes here, but I know it's impossible )

[+sbell111]

You forgot the rhetorical loophole that 'classy' doesn't mean what you think it does.

Edited September 13, 2006 by sbell111

[+nfa]

In another thread, a side topic grew that basically dealt with responsibility. Specifically, whether a cache hider should be responsible for whether a seeker accesses a cache in a legal manner.

 

I believe that while all caches must have legal access, this access need not be spelled out on the cache page. In my opinion, seekers can be responsible for ensuring that they don't break any laws while traveling to ground zero and that discovering the correct approach to the cache is part of the fun.

 

What do you think?

 

I think that access routes should not have to be spelled out in the cache listings. I assume that it is possible to access every cache listed on gc.com through legal means...if I find this isn't the case, I log it as "SBA".

 

I have hidden almost 70 geocaches, and describe access on some and not on others...I have gotten some logs suggesting that my cache listing should include parking coordinates or descriptions of the approach to the cache container, but if I didn't give that information, it's a part of the challenge associated with that particular geocache...I assume the same is true with other geocache hiders...

 

Jamie - NFA

[+carleenp]

Sorry Carleen and Lep, y'all posted while I was writing and I didn't see it!

 

Guess I was wrong, I didn't think a lawyer would opine! Thank you who are lawyers for doing so. I was debating this off-line with another attorney who said it wasn't likely that a legal opinion would be proffered.

 

Yes, you are right, I have never understood the legal implications of the review-vs-approve semantics, as it looks to me like a listing has to be reviewed for guideline adherence and then approved for publication.

 

Since a Reviewer has to decide to list or not to list, to list seems to be an approval.

 

Can a listing be published without a Reviewer's approval? Does that not make them Approvers?

 

Such fine distinctions often elude me; I guess that's one of many reasons why I could never make it as a lawyer!

 

Ed

There is nothing in my post that constitutes legal advice. It is a geocacher's post. I am restricted by contract with my employer, as well as by common sense, from providing legal advice to anyone other than my employer.

 

Same here. I was giving my personal opinion of who "should" be responsible. Legally could or could not be different. Like The Leprechauns, I am unable to provide outside legal advice under my employment contract.

 

So, while I have a legal opinion on the matter, I can't share it. Sorry.

[+BlueDeuce]

There are two parking lots to choose from. They are both about the same trail distance from the cache.

 

Parking lot #1: N42 08.539 W91 23.092

Parking lot #2: N42 08.598 W91 23.533

 

Do not attempt to dead reckon from either of these lots. Dead reckoning will take you across private farmland and through a swampy marsh. Regardless of how you enter the park, even if you pass through the equestrian campground near the headquarters, you will need to pass the following waypoint on your way to the cache:

 

Waypoint: N42 08.271 W91 23.924

There is only one public access to this preserve. Its a couple miles down a dead end gravel road(off highway 94). It deadends near N42.02.000 W91.46.160, which is where you should park. Try to avoid blocking the junction of the private drives. From the parking area head East along the fence> Theres a little sign on the post indicating foot traffic only to the preserve. The Preserves entrance, and sign(s) are at N42.02.001 W91.46.085 Please stay on the trails,

[+Jhwk]

In another thread, a side topic grew that basically dealt with responsibility. Specifically, whether a cache hider should be responsible for whether a seeker accesses a cache in a legal manner.

 

I believe that while all caches must have legal access, this access need not be spelled out on the cache page. In my opinion, seekers can be responsible for ensuring that they don't break any laws while traveling to ground zero and that discovering the correct approach to the cache is part of the fun.

 

What do you think?

you are responsible for your actions. At least you used to be.

 

Now I can say my parents beat me, or smoked, or drank, so it's not my fault.

[+DeRock & The Psychic Cacher]

Note to self:

 

1. Stay away from sink holes

 

2. Wear invisibility cloak when entering closed parks late at night on FTF hunt

 

3. Keep lawyers card in wallet and make sure wife has cash bail money

 

4. Get bigger cache bag to carry invisbilty cloak

 

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

[+ar_kayaker]

A slightly different twist on this would be a cache that has no apparent legal access, but the cache owner has permission to place it. (or maybe not, but placed it anyway)

 

I had a DNF on a cache I could not find a public trail into. The only trail I could find was from a parking lot at a community center, clearly posted for the community's use only.

 

I E-mailed the cache owner, and was told, that was the access, and not to worry about the signs, as it is alright to use the lot and trail. Now I don't know if they had permission or not, but an indication in the posting page would have helped.

 

From the logs it seems no one else, at least no one who logged it, was worried about the signs.

 

I found one almost exactly like this. It was in a public city park, but there wasn't any parking in the park. The only parking was at some tennis courts that were posted as private property. Since roadside parking is legal in that city I simply parked along side the road down the block from the park and walked the extra 1/4 mile.

 

AR_kayaker

[+Harry Dolphin]

So here we have a situation I think of like a ball park. They are not responsible for the player's actions. They are not responsible if you or your car are hit with a ball. There is a reasonable and customary expectation that if you attend a baseball game you may get hit with a baseball.

 

Even this is not necessarily true. A patron waiting on line at a concession stand at a Newark Bears game was hit by a foul ball, and sued successfully. Changes to the laws are being considered.

 

I have a cache with several means of access. I did not list parking coordinates. I suppose I could have noted: "Do not try to cross the Hackensack River." People have tried, but turned back. I never considered that anyone would try that. A look at a map should show good access points. Another cacher walked waist deep into a bog (!) The cache page suggests sticking to the trails until the last hundred feet.

But, this is modern America, and you can sue for almost anything, including your own stupidity. (The oft cited case of the driver who put the cup of hot coffee between her legs when she was driving.)

[+Kabuthunk]

Coincidentally, I was pondering the very question brought up by this topic yesterday. I'm planning to create a cache that's well... in accessable legally from three out of four sides. One of those three sides can look very tempting.

 

To avoid people from taking the temping way, there will be a note on the cache page saying that you should park AND start your journey from between X coordinate location and Y coordinate location. Thus, it doesn't specifically point out the easiest LEGAL way to get to it, but it gives them say... 500 meters of where to look to get initial access to the area. As well, this particular side takes them FAR away from the 'easy', illegal method, so there's virtually no chance that they'll ever even SEE that side.

 

So that's how I'm planning to do that one once I start hiding caches anyway.

[+DocDiTTo]

I prefer that the legal access methods, as well as any not-so-obvious trespassing issues or warnings, be explicitly revealed on the cache listing page.

 

We've all seen your latest cache page, quite frankly it appears you prefer that EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN be listed on the cache page, in a rainbow of fruity flavors.

 

Ok, all ribbing aside, I agree with you. I really don't enjoy fighting no-trespassing signs in order to get to a cache. If the specific route isn't given out that's fine, but I prefer to be given a legal place to park my car and begin. One of my favorite caches (Polly Takes The Plunge) was done this way. Legal parking was noted, but no further info was provided on how to get to the cache, which made for a great challenge.

 

My preferences aside, the topic was "who's responsible". We're all ultimately responsible for our own actions. Hiders aren't responsible for the seeker's actions. If a hider wants to hide a cache that's 98% surrounded by posted private property, that's his perogative. No one is forcing any of us to hunt for this stuff, by doing so we accept responsibility for our own actions. If we trespass, knowingly or not, we'll be the one arrested, not some anonymous cache hider. If we're in doubt about the legality of our access method, we should stop the hunt and go do more research. If that's too much work, move on to the next cache.

[+GreyingJay]

To avoid people from taking the temping way, there will be a note on the cache page saying that you should park AND start your journey from between X coordinate location and Y coordinate location. Thus, it doesn't specifically point out the easiest LEGAL way to get to it, but it gives them say... 500 meters of where to look to get initial access to the area. As well, this particular side takes them FAR away from the 'easy', illegal method, so there's virtually no chance that they'll ever even SEE that side.

 

Another option is to make it a multi, with the first waypoint somewhere near your suggested parking.

[bug and snake]

In another thread, a side topic grew that basically dealt with responsibility. Specifically, whether a cache hider should be responsible for whether a seeker accesses a cache in a legal manner.

 

I believe that while all caches must have legal access, this access need not be spelled out on the cache page. In my opinion, seekers can be responsible for ensuring that they don't break any laws while traveling to ground zero and that discovering the correct approach to the cache is part of the fun.

 

What do you think?

 

I agree with you. If it is necessary to indicate the legal way in to avoid the seeker getting in a position to be sued/arrested for trespass, whatever, then is it also necessary to list the safest way in to avoid the seeker getting hurt by slipping down a bank for instance?

 

Where and when does the seeker become responsible for his own actions? If it becomes that the hider is responsible for any and every thing that can or does occur in relation to his cache then every cache description is going to be a thirty page legal document stuffed full of disclaimers, descriptions and lists of forbidden actions.

 

Come on folks, take SOME responsibility for your own actions. Oh, by the way, placing a cache is an 'action' too. So, if you do place a cache with a tricky way in, it might be nice to up the difficulty just a bit, but that is the limit of responsibility on the cache placer.

[+EraSeek]

With every one of my caches I post some version of this on the cache page:

"Cache seekers (hold harmless the cache owner) and assumes all risks and responsibilities involved in seeking this cache." The decisions you make and actions you take are yours.

 

Other than that I will discribe any hidden pitfalls that I know about that may be a legal or physical problem for the cache finder. That is my responsiblity.

 

Making the cache hazard free and easy is not my responsiblity. Life is not hazard free and easy. But we all have the option of making choices. Please don't make choices for me, I won't make choices for you.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

We seem to have a large group of extremists among us, where a discussion of a single cache gets expanded somehow to all caches!

 

In the OPs present instance there is evidently but one legal and safe approach, and it is definately not obvious - see his map.

 

In this particular case parking and access info should, in my opinion, be provided.

 

How this discussion got to include every cache out there is beyond me!

 

Other than a few caches where the mapping software takes you to the wrong side of a park I have rarely seen caches where such information is needed.

 

Groundspeak has accomodated this with Parking and Additional Waypoints data fields, so let's focus on using the tools we have to address the few caches that may need this level of detail.

 

Ed

[Clan Riffster]

The responsibility belongs to the finder.

'Nuff said.

[+sbell111]

We seem to have a large group of extremists among us, where a discussion of a single cache gets expanded somehow to all caches!

 

In the OPs present instance there is evidently but one legal and safe approach, and it is definately not obvious - see his map.

 

In this particular case parking and access info should, in my opinion, be provided.

 

How this discussion got to include every cache out there is beyond me! ...

I don't know what to tell you. I'm the OP and I didn't give an example or post a map. I purposely left the issue nice and broad.

Edited September 14, 2006 by sbell111

[+Glock22]

We live in a verry agricultrual part of the country and some time the no trepass signs are to protect people from poisens that are sprayed or are being sprayed on crops. Most of the land owners would not have a problem with you being there except that you may get poisened and then sue them for it.

 

My.02

 

I don't like to look for stuff in vinyards or orchards for that reason so far all of our 150or so finds have been in town with a few out by the river on public land.

 

Thanks

 

Tahoein Bunch