Potential Problem Caches

[+tozainamboku]

The thread To ban or not to ban LPC's is currently at 13 pages. In additional to the same old sorry arguments to ban lamp post hides because they are lame (i.e. the poster doesn't like them), a number of issue with lamp post caches have been brought up in that thread. I don't see these issues as being particularly a problem with lamp post caches. In fact they may be less of an issue with LPCs than with other hides. The guidelines already have language that addresses each of these issues. The discussion tends to be on the interpretation of the guidelines and the how the reviewers and the geocaching community enforce the guidelines. There is also a lot of discussion on the dangers to geocaching, that these cache could cause. I have used the Chicken Little analogy because I think the potential problem is being exaggerated, but cetainly the other side may be correct to use the Inconvient Truth analogy because they believe the problems have a potential to seriously impact geocaching and something should be done before that happens. The three problems brought up in the other thread are:

1. Caches place without permission particularly in parking lots and other areas near businesses
   
2. Caches that encourage geocachers to damage property and possibly put themselves or the public at risk, e.g. by opening electrical equipment
   
3. Caches that are mistaken by the public for suspicious objects such as terrorist bombs.
   

This thread is for discussing these issues, whether these are real or perceived problems, and ways to handle the risk. But this thread should not be used to call for a ban of any particular cache type. The problems, if they are real, affect all types of caches.

[+wandererrob]

1. Caches place without permission particularly in parking lots and other areas near businesses
   
2. Caches that encourage geocachers to damage property and possibly put themselves or the public at risk, e.g. by opening electrical equipment
   
3. Caches that are mistaken by the public for suspicious objects such as terrorist bombs.
   

This thread is for discussing these issues, whether these are real or perceived problems, and ways to handle the risk. But this thread should not be used to call for a ban of any particular cache type. The problems, if they are real, affect all types of caches.

 

I think a bit of forethought one the parts of both hiders and finders... er, maybe I'll call them seekers ... is in order.

 

If placing a cache it seems to me permission should ALWAYS be sought. It just makes sense to me. I think this alone can go a long way toward avoiding, or at least mitigating, the issues of police being called, bomb squads showing up and such. Depending on the location, it might even be worthwhile to let your local PD know about it.

 

I think some common sense is needed on both sides. Is it being hidden in an unwise location? Should I really be trying to look here for this? A good example being a post I saw recently where a cacher caught himself reaching for his screwdriver to open a panel but catching himself and thinking "what the hell am I thinking?!" and opting to walk away and take the DNF.

 

If the all too uncommon, common sense prevails, we'd avoid a lot of problems.

Edited February 26, 2007 by wandererrob

[+Kit Fox]

I had firsthand experience with caches placed in parking lots.

 

It was just my luck that I was looking for a cache next to a building where a silent alarm was going off. Palm Desert's Finest was real curious but satisfied with explanation.

 

A geocaching friend of mine got caught red handed retrieving a pill bottle from underneath a lamp post cover. I could only assume that the employee thought the cacher was engaged in nefarious activity, like retrieving his drug stash.

 

I wish cache placers would think of these things before they hide LPLCs (Lame Parking Lot Caches) The problem is that most of the time the cache placer never even considers the ramnifications of where they place their caches.

 

Perhaps some cache placers derive pleasure from placing cachers in uncomfortable positions, or they just don't care.

Edited February 26, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

A geocaching friend of mine got caught red handed retrieving a pill bottle from underneath a lamp post cover. I could only assume that the employee thought the cacher was engaged in nefarious activity, like retrieving his drug stash.

In all the history of drug addiction and abuse can anyone show me one case where a doper hid his stash under a light skirt in a parking lot?

 

I've known some dopers, and every one was pretty darn paranoid about his stash!

 

This gets brought up so often I would really love to see just one proven incidence of it happening!

 

The ones I have known as a Youth Monitor for the Department of Youth Services might leave their kid in the parking lot, but not their dope!

[+Kit Fox]

A geocaching friend of mine got caught red handed retrieving a pill bottle from underneath a lamp post cover. I could only assume that the employee thought the cacher was engaged in nefarious activity, like retrieving his drug stash.

In all the history of drug addiction and abuse can anyone show me one case where a doper hid his stash under a light skirt in a parking lot?

 

I've known some dopers, and every one was pretty darn paranoid about his stash!

 

This gets brought up so often I would really love to see just one proven incidence of it happening!

 

The ones I have known as a Youth Monitor for the Department of Youth Services might leave their kid in the parking lot, but not their dope!

 

Give me a break!

 

In reality, most drug addicts, and dealers would not stash their dope in these spots. The GP doesn't know this. The GP has a very vivid imagination, considering all the "terrorist, suspicious activity, possible prowler, and dope dealing calls that LE receive everyday.

[+wiseye]

Please remember that the Bomb Sq. will think twice before blowing up a lamp post, those lamp post owners are a grabby bunch!

And I'd like to know, what's with all these lamps posts hanging around parking lots just waitting to have their skirts lifted!

[+ArmandoM]

A geocaching friend of mine got caught red handed retrieving a pill bottle from underneath a lamp post cover. I could only assume that the employee thought the cacher was engaged in nefarious activity, like retrieving his drug stash.

In all the history of drug addiction and abuse can anyone show me one case where a doper hid his stash under a light skirt in a parking lot?

 

I've known some dopers, and every one was pretty darn paranoid about his stash!

 

This gets brought up so often I would really love to see just one proven incidence of it happening!

 

The ones I have known as a Youth Monitor for the Department of Youth Services might leave their kid in the parking lot, but not their dope!

 

OK

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?II...&LID=322121

 

The cache was in a very big and busy park, it was in a palm tree.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

OK

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?II...&LID=322121

 

The cache was in a very big and busy park, it was in a palm tree.

 

K, thanks for that, but where's the dope?

 

Cigarette butts, an empty bottle and a needle isn't exactly a dope stash, and can be found at any homeless hangout.

 

And was that stuff in the cache or collected from nearby?

 

I encourage you to keep trying, though!

 

I really want to see some dope in a LPC or parking lot cache, as I still don't think it's gonna happen!

 

In reality anything can, has or will happened... my point is that even if you can prove one or a dozen that does not make a precedent for all the angst over it!

[+ArmandoM]

OK

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?II...&LID=322121

 

The cache was in a very big and busy park, it was in a palm tree.

 

K, thanks for that, but where's the dope?

 

Cigarette butts, an empty bottle and a needle isn't exactly a dope stash, and can be found at any homeless hangout.

 

And was that stuff in the cache or collected from nearby?

 

I encourage you to keep trying, though!

 

I really want to see some dope in a LPC or parking lot cache, as I still don't think it's gonna happen!

 

In reality anything can, has or will happened... my point is that even if you can prove one or a dozen that does not make a precedent for all the angst over it!

 

OK, you got me there!!

I see your point and I even agree with you. All I have to say is: When caching use common sense!!

[+briansnat]

This thread is for discussing these issues, whether these are real or perceived problems, and ways to handle the risk.

 

The problem is real. All we need is a Boston sized media event for geocaching to get some major unwanted media attention and possible legislator scrutiny.

 

How to solve it? Simple. Stop hiding caches where they can easily be accidently found and/or searchers are likely to be observed.

Edited February 26, 2007 by briansnat

[+sbell111]

This thread is for discussing these issues, whether these are real or perceived problems, and ways to handle the risk.

 

The problem is real. All we need is a Boston sized media event for geocaching to get some major unwanted media attention and possible legislator scrutiny.

 

How to solve it? Simple. Stop hiding caches where they can easily be accidently found and/or searchers are likely to be observed.

... and use care when logging a cache to ensure that it's location is not disclosed.

[+tozainamboku]

OK

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?II...&LID=322121

 

The cache was in a very big and busy park, it was in a palm tree.

I almost tempted to call you for off topic on this one. Looks like its the downtown San Diego area where TrailGators is complaining about micros pushing out regular sized caches and worse, the log you posted indicates the finder left a pass for the Corondo Bridge so you could get to Coronado and find even more micros.

 

As one who has been detained till the police came by a restaurant owner when looking for a cache in the bushes in front of his restaurant, I can vouch that this does happen. It's irrelevant whether someone thinks you're retrieving your drug stash or planting a bomb. Caches place on private property without getting adequate permission does put other cachers in jeopardy. I haven't heard of anyone charged with a crime yet, but there have been stories of people getting to ride in the back of a police cruiser. I would think that would not be a pleasant situation for a cache outing.

Edited February 26, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

OK

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?II...&LID=322121

 

The cache was in a very big and busy park, it was in a palm tree.

I almost tempted to call you for off topic on this one. Looks like its the downtown San Diego area where TrailGators is complaining about micros pushing out regular sized caches and worse, the log you posted indicates the finder left a pass for the Corondo Bridge so you could get to Coronado and find even more micros.

 

As one who has been detained till the police came by a restaurant owner when looking for a cache in the bushes in front of his restaurant, I can vouch that this does happen. It's irrelevant whether someone thinks you're retrieving your drug stash or planting a bomb. Caches place on private property without getting adequate permission does put other cachers in jeopardy. I haven't heard of anyone charged with a crime yet, but there have been stories of people getting to ride in the back of a police cruiser. I would think that would not be a pleasant situation for a cache outing.

The folks involved in the cache incident that let led to the ban on Railroad caches were prosecuted, if I recall correctly, and I know of an Arkansas cacher that was arrested and prosecuted for Criminal Trespass while hunting a cache which had no permission.

[+Kit Fox]

This thread is for discussing these issues, whether these are real or perceived problems, and ways to handle the risk.

 

The problem is real. All we need is a Boston sized media event for geocaching to get some major unwanted media attention and possible legislator scrutiny.

 

How to solve it? Simple. Stop hiding caches where they can easily be accidently found and/or searchers are likely to be observed.

... and use care when logging a cache to ensure that it's location is not disclosed.

 

Sbell111, the problem with this line of thinking is that many cachers refuse to mention "busy time" or "high visibility" in their cache descriptions. Many cachers have no idea what they may encounter.

 

Take This cache as an example. The owner edited the description to mention muggles. But she did not mention that the cache is in a planter just inches from the restaurant's window, where everyone can see you. How do propose cachers be discreet about finding the cache, other than visiting in the middle of the night? I bookmarked the cache so prospective cachers know what they are getting into ahead of time.

Edited February 26, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+JennM]

I recently DNF a new one that I am fairly sure is placed on the underside of a deck at a Hooters. Given the description and the hint, I figured it was somewhere in the viscinity of the deck - but it's a magnetic key hide and it's likely stuck on the metal braces on the underside of the deck. When I got nervous about people at the business across the street watching me, I abandoned my search - I think it's only been logged once since it was published a few weeks ago. The description doesn't say if management knows about it or not.

 

I've got a micro on the outside of my business - another cacher placed it there *with permission* and the folks in adjacent businesses know about it too - there's no "commercial" interest - people can find it and log it and never enter any establishment, but nobody is going to panic over it because we all know about it, and actually get a kick out of watching people trying to be stealthy - although in the description of that cache it says that it's placed with permission and nearby occupants (that would be me) are geocaching-friendly.

 

I'd have no problem hunting something like that where it's clear that it's "safe" to look - but when there's doubt as to whether permission has been obtained, or whether somebody is going to panic, I just avoid it.

 

Jenn

[+mikeslomka]

Years ago, while practicing surveilance and coutner surveillance, some Delta Force recruits found a (sizeable)drug stash hidden inside a small planter in a busy shopping mall. For grins, they decided to set up a surveillance on the area and see if somebody came back for it. Not only did somebody come for it, but then someone else came and left money. Then a short time later, there were more drugs in the planter. They clued in the police, and this led to a very large arrest.

 

A higher end dealer was using this as a way to keep himself isolated from the lower dealers. The exchange was never done hand to hand, and he was always careful about when he would make drops or pick ups.

 

I don't recall the dates and names, but I have it in one of the books in my collection. I will try to find it and edit this post with that info later.

 

Just because you wouldn't think that a doper would hide his stash, doesn't mean that he wouldn't think about it.

 

I admit that it isn't a lamp post skirt, but the same principle applies, and if one guy thoguht of it, I guarantee that somebody else is using a similar scheme.

[+ArmandoM]

OK

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?II...&LID=322121

 

The cache was in a very big and busy park, it was in a palm tree.

I almost tempted to call you for off topic on this one. Looks like its the downtown San Diego area where TrailGators is complaining about micros pushing out regular sized caches and worse, the log you posted indicates the finder left a pass for the Corondo Bridge so you could get to Coronado and find even more micros.

 

As one who has been detained till the police came by a restaurant owner when looking for a cache in the bushes in front of his restaurant, I can vouch that this does happen. It's irrelevant whether someone thinks you're retrieving your drug stash or planting a bomb. Caches place on private property without getting adequate permission does put other cachers in jeopardy. I haven't heard of anyone charged with a crime yet, but there have been stories of people getting to ride in the back of a police cruiser. I would think that would not be a pleasant situation for a cache outing.

 

I posted this to show that, yes you can find drugs next to a cache. Don't get me wrong understand your point and I agree with you. I won't hunt a cache that entails opening an electric box in a busy parking lot any anything like that.

[+JennM]

 

I admit that it isn't a lamp post skirt, but the same principle applies, and if one guy thought of it, I guarantee that somebody else is using a similar scheme.

 

I don't know a darned thing about the drug trade, but that thought has occurred to me - I've seen stuff on TV where people pick up and drop off stuff... I've often wondered it finding a cache in an urban setting could be misinterpreted by somebody as something like that.

 

Of course if the bystander investigated what was "dropped" they'd find nothing but some kiddie trading items etc

 

But it is a valid concern, IMO.

 

Jenn

[+Confucius' Cat]

 

I encourage you to keep trying, though!

 

I really want to see some dope in a LPC or parking lot cache, as I still don't think it's gonna happen!

 

In reality anything can, has or will happened... my point is that even if you can prove one or a dozen that does not make a precedent for all the angst over it!

The problem is that in the public's perception- read imagination- Drug dealers are like "spy vs spy" (reference Mad magazine).

 

The public sees someone doing something that they don't understand and their imagination runs the gamut of all the TV shows they have seen. As they mull over what they just saw, a person sorting through the flower box goes from someone who lost their keys to someone who is dropping drug money to someone who is leaving a cryptic message for Osama Bin Laden. So then the only wise thing to do is call the cops.

 

So it really doesn't matter whether anyone EVER actually hid drugs under a lamppost skirt, just if the public's imagination can run in that direction.

 

 

I'd have no problem hunting something like that where it's clear that it's "safe" to look - but when there's doubt as to whether permission has been obtained, or whether somebody is going to panic, I just avoid it.

 

Jenn

That's pretty much my story. I have just about given up on urbans simply because the only prudent assumption is that the cache was placed WITHOUT permission. Absent specific mention of having gotten permission on the cache page, urbans are an automatic "ignore" in my game. The inevitable suspicion of "prowling" around a public place in a business area is simply not worth the risk.

 

Of course if the bystander investigated what was "dropped" they'd find nothing but some kiddie trading items etc

That would be a really RARE bystander. We have been bred to fear for our lives of interfering with anything remotely suspected of being "mafia", "mob", "gang", or "drug dealer" related. And i can't say that is a bad fear.

 

EDIT: fixed the quote thingy

Edited February 27, 2007 by Confucius' Cat

[+flask]

OK

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?II...&LID=322121

 

The cache was in a very big and busy park, it was in a palm tree.

 

K, thanks for that, but where's the dope?

 

Cigarette butts, an empty bottle and a needle isn't exactly a dope stash, and can be found at any homeless hangout.

 

And was that stuff in the cache or collected from nearby?

 

I encourage you to keep trying, though!

 

I really want to see some dope in a LPC or parking lot cache, as I still don't think it's gonna happen!

 

In reality anything can, has or will happened... my point is that even if you can prove one or a dozen that does not make a precedent for all the angst over it!

 

i found a crack pipe and some miscellaneous baggies (uncertain contents) under a lamp post skirt where there ought to have been a cache. that's close enough to being dope for me.

 

i have no angst about it, thanks. and there's probably no point in discussing it since you've already stated that if it had happened you wouldn't consider it to be cause for concern.

 

i realize i'm paraphrasing here, but what i think you said was "it's not important because it hasn't happened. ...but if it happened it wouldn't be important." it's an interesting forensic device.

[+CSpenceFLY]

I reguards to the bomb squad being called to ANY cache.I think that this sport has progressed to a point that ANY police department or bomb squad should know what Geocaching is and have the forethought to check the website before they go out to blow something up and then report it to the news media.Anything less is just sensationalism.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I reguards to the bomb squad being called to ANY cache.I think that this sport has progressed to a point that ANY police department or bomb squad should know what Geocaching is and have the forethought to check the website before they go out to blow something up and then report it to the news media.Anything less is just sensationalism.

No not really. Perhaps to have the dispatcher check the website while the responders are in route would be reasonable, but delaying the response to a possible serious incident whilst doing internet research would be a huge and unjustifiable risk. Once in a while a bomb threat is REAL. We can't forget that. Many dispatchers are too busy for that as well.

 

If you have ever been in a police dispatch office during any kind of a "goins on" you will see basically "a--holes and elbows". it is kinda like a one-legged man in a kick-boxing contest. Trust me, I've been on all three sides of the microphone- the policeman in the field, the dispatcher, and the guy that's gots to keep it working.

[+Confucius' Cat]

OK

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?II...&LID=322121

 

The cache was in a very big and busy park, it was in a palm tree.

Hey, at least the needle had a CAP on it. Good to know it was a conscientious druggie.

[+Kit Fox]

OK

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?II...&LID=322121

 

The cache was in a very big and busy park, it was in a palm tree.

 

K, thanks for that, but where's the dope?

 

Cigarette butts, an empty bottle and a needle isn't exactly a dope stash, and can be found at any homeless hangout.

 

And was that stuff in the cache or collected from nearby?

 

I encourage you to keep trying, though!

 

I really want to see some dope in a LPC or parking lot cache, as I still don't think it's gonna happen!

 

In reality anything can, has or will happened... my point is that even if you can prove one or a dozen that does not make a precedent for all the angst over it!

 

i found a crack pipe and some miscellaneous baggies (uncertain contents) under a lamp post skirt where there ought to have been a cache. that's close enough to being dope for me.

 

i have no angst about it, thanks. and there's probably no point in discussing it since you've already stated that if it had happened you wouldn't consider it to be cause for concern.

 

i realize i'm paraphrasing here, but what i think you said was "it's not important because it hasn't happened. ...but if it happened it wouldn't be important." it's an interesting forensic device.

 

I think the SDOEL are so blinded by their defense of lame caches, that they refuse to accept any argument, or any evidence to contradict their point of view. There is an old adage that comes into play, "Do not confuse me with facts, I've already made up my mind."

[+Renegade Knight]

...

[*]Caches place without permission particularly in parking lots and other areas near businesses

[*]Caches that encourage geocachers to damage property and possibly put themselves or the public at risk, e.g. by opening electrical equipment

[*]Caches that are mistaken by the public for suspicious objects such as terrorist bombs....

 

As an owner you need to hide your caches with the finders in mind. Both geocachers and accidental.

 

Going down your list. The cache owner has assued the world they have obtained adequate permission. This is a non issue for most caches. Seekers who don't feel comfortable hunting for the cache, shouldn't. Otherwise don't assume. Next, no cache encourages anyone to damage property. The cache just exists. Morons damage property. Smart hiders allow for morons, but in the end it's the bottom of the bell curve caching folks who cause the harm. Lastly, the only way to prevent caches being reported is to hide them so muggles don't find them. That's not a sure thing but it's the best bet. You can paint the container to make it less likely to be reported but since people report whoopie cushions and flashlights...best to just hide it well.

[+CSpenceFLY]

I reguards to the bomb squad being called to ANY cache.I think that this sport has progressed to a point that ANY police department or bomb squad should know what Geocaching is and have the forethought to check the website before they go out to blow something up and then report it to the news media.Anything less is just sensationalism.

No not really. Perhaps to have the dispatcher check the website while the responders are in route would be reasonable, but delaying the response to a possible serious incident whilst doing internet research would be a huge and unjustifiable risk. Once in a while a bomb threat is REAL. We can't forget that. Many dispatchers are too busy for that as well.

 

If you have ever been in a police dispatch office during any kind of a "goins on" you will see basically "a--holes and elbows". it is kinda like a one-legged man in a kick-boxing contest. Trust me, I've been on all three sides of the microphone- the policeman in the field, the dispatcher, and the guy that's gots to keep it working.

 

I didn't imply that someone check the website before any action is taken.In this wonderful world of technology,wireless internet and air cards.Someone could do the checking on the way.Could save a whole lot of trouble,grief,stress,danger.

[+tozainamboku]

I think the SDOEL are so blinded by their defense of lame caches, that they refuse to accept any argument, or any evidence to contradict their point of view. There is an old adage that comes into play, "Do not confuse me with facts, I've already made up my mind."

Bill - this is your warning. This thread is to discuss potential problems of all types of caches. It is fair for people to indicate they think this isn't a problem or that the severity of the problem is exaggerated. This is what TAR referred to when asked for evidence of lamp posts being used to hide someone drug stash. I think evidence has now been presented that drug users do leave used needles lying around - maybe even under lamp post skirts. And there may cases where a drug dealer used a similar method as a drug drop. Drug dealers or users hiding their stash was not one of the three issues I asked be discussed here. It has only been brought up to indicate that a muggle seeing someone retrieving a cache may be suspicious and report what they saw to the police. I would think it more likely that a muggle would be concerned about a tupperware or larger container than if they say someone with a hide-a-key or a 35mm container. Please make this a discussion of why caches in places where muggles are likely to observe you could result in a cacher getting into trouble rather than referring to those who do not agree with position SDOEL.

Edited February 27, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+Confucius' Cat]

I didn't imply that someone check the website before any action is taken.In this wonderful world of technology,wireless internet and air cards.Someone could do the checking on the way.Could save a whole lot of trouble,grief,stress,danger.

I work with a lot of MDT's (mobile data terminals) and it is interesting that the instructions with virtually every mobile computing device say something like "WARNING WILL ROBINSON!!! WARNING! WARNING! DO NOT USE THIS DEVICE WHILE DRIVING!"

 

(not that there has ever been a police officer that has ever pulled off the road to send a message)

 

Furthermore, the callers usually do not give GPS coordinates. It is not until the officer arrives on scene and talks to the witness, or searches for hisherself that the device is located well enough to check the database.

 

I agree that it would be good for the responders to know that there is a cache there, but it is really not practical to look them up; nor is it really of much relevance.

 

Once a report of a suspicious device has been made, the authorities have no choice but to handle it as if it is dangerous. i don't think we should want it any other way. To automatically disregard a bomb call because there is a geocache at the coordinates is a sure prescription for a disaster. The case WILL eventually come up when that particular light pole just happens to be the one the real bomber chooses to light off his pipe bomb.

 

Maybe we should get the word out to all the bombers that they should refrain from placing devices near OUR geocaches... perhaps we should make them adhere to a 528' rule?

 

Much better we should get permission for hiding, hide well, and seek with as little suspicious behaviour as possible.

[+Kit Fox]

Ooh

 

A warning from the OP

 

I'm not even going to waste my time posting in your threads anymore.

[+TrailGators]

I have seen many urban caches that have attracted idiots that damaged property or trounced all over landscaping beds. It takes a genius to make something idiotproof and yet the idiot will always find a way. GPSs only get you within a 20-30 foot diameter circle. So anything in that circle can and will get trounced on or tampered with by some idiot. I have seen sprinklers taken apart and even ripped out of the ground. Everyone seems to love micros but they can make the idiots stomp around and pull things apart even more. It is very important to take accurate coords otherwise people will be trouncing an even larger area. Also people should give explicit instructions to protect the surroundings in their cache descriptions.

[+Too Tall John]

Well, here's my 2 cents worth.

 

I've got some concerns about caches placed without permission. Here they are:

 

The guidelines state:

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.

I read this as you need permission to place a cache. Some argue that the word "adequate" means you only need permission sometimes. I disagree. But let's put that aside and ask: who would get to decide when permission is needed? The hider? The reviewer? No. The landowner is the one who legally gets to say what is or is not on their property. Which leads us right back to permission. "Adequate," I believe, refers to situations where it is known that a landowner (like the National Forestry Service or Cracker Barrel for example) has given permission to place caches in certain areas, so explicit permission is not needed. Also, "adequate" permission has not been gotten if you don't ask a person who has the authority to give permission.

 

Certain cache types have a reputation for being left without permission. Lamp Post Caches are a good example. Many LPCs are placed in a Big Box Store parking lot. Wal-Mart is my favorite example because I used to be in WM management. I'll bet you that if you were to ask the WM Home Office if they were OK with LPCs being placed on their property, they'd say "NO!" You can read why in the LPC thread, but it boils down to liability and setting precedents that would allow a union to hold activities on their property(I think even bigger for WM). The second sounds crazy, I know, but there it is. If WM's Home Office were to find out exactly how many caches were placed on their property,I think there'd be trouble that would lead to a removal of all caches on WM property. This will probably lead other companies & organizations to take a long hard look at geocaching on their land.

 

A cache here in NH recently caused a bit of a stir. It was placed WITHOUT PERMISSION behind a grocery store. Some employees from a neighboring store saw "suspicious behavior" (geocachers) and the police got involved. I can't help but think that if the store knew about the cache, the police involvement would have been less, or at least the newspaper reporter wouldn't have thought it was such a big story. Mr T talked about being detained by police while hunting a cache. I was in a situation where nobody noticed me, but I was at a LPC when I noticed the next lamppost over was lying across the parking lot. It had fallen. What if someone HAD noticed me and thought I was tampering with the bolts? A copycat lamppost vandal? I don't think I could have done it if I wanted, and am sure I'd have been released, but I'm also pretty sure I'd have been stopped. In these cases, the person observed (or not in my case) was not thrown into jail, but being detained is embarrassing and an inconvenience. A situation that would likely have been avoided if these caches were placed with permission. Enough situations like this, and local, state or federal governments might get involved and try to regulate this sport. It almost happened with cemetery caches.

 

Call me Chicken Little if you want, I'm fine with that.

Just remember, Chicken Little was right in the end.*

 

*In the Disney movie, anyways...

Edited February 27, 2007 by Too Tall John

[+KoosKoos]

Call me Chicken Little if you want, I'm fine with that.

Just remember, Chicken Little was right in the end.

 

ummm, actually Chicken Little almost led herself and her friends to their untimely deaths and if not for the luck of the king's hunting party, they'd all be dead over a little acorn. (or in the original versions, they were all eaten)

 

back on topic...I do agree that more care should probably be taken by hiders and seekers of geocaches. I've found lamppost caches that were clearly not hidden with the business owner's permission and I avoid most of those now. I hate to see yet another guideline put in place, but I'm not sure how to enforce the "common sense" that should prevent the worst problems we're discussing here.

 

edit: pointing out that the new versions have been PC'd and the animals are saved in the end.

Edited February 27, 2007 by KoosKoos

[+Too Tall John]

Call me Chicken Little if you want, I'm fine with that.

Just remember, Chicken Little was right in the end.

ummm, actually Chicken Little almost led herself and her friends to their untimely deaths and if not for the luck of the king's hunting party, they'd all be dead over a little acorn. (or in the original versions, they were all eaten)

Can you tell I'm tired?

I was actually thinking of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," although now that I think of it, if you've seen Disney's version of Chicken Little, it uses the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" story. So what I really meant to say just now is "Umm... I meant the Disney version of Chicken Little!" Yeah... That's it...

 

Does what I said make more sense now?

[+TrailGators]

OK

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?II...&LID=322121

 

The cache was in a very big and busy park, it was in a palm tree.

I almost tempted to call you for off topic on this one. Looks like its the downtown San Diego area where TrailGators is complaining about micros pushing out regular sized caches and worse, the log you posted indicates the finder left a pass for the Corondo Bridge so you could get to Coronado and find even more micros.

 

As one who has been detained till the police came by a restaurant owner when looking for a cache in the bushes in front of his restaurant, I can vouch that this does happen. It's irrelevant whether someone thinks you're retrieving your drug stash or planting a bomb. Caches place on private property without getting adequate permission does put other cachers in jeopardy. I haven't heard of anyone charged with a crime yet, but there have been stories of people getting to ride in the back of a police cruiser. I would think that would not be a pleasant situation for a cache outing.

I've been stopped a couple of times by local security guards when I tried to find a caches. Do ya think they had "permission?" Not according to the guards. Anyhow, I don't mess with any caches close to or behind any businesses anymore. I'm not sure why I did in the first place. Anyhow, lack of permission is the number one problem with urbans. Edited February 27, 2007 by TrailGators

[+PJPeters]

Whilst I'm sure that many (or most) urban caches are without permission, (my example: 28th St. Series - Sleepy), I'm also sure there are several that are with permission. Personally, I won't hunt if I think permission hasn't been granted. That may be the best way to reduce the volume of some of the 'questionable' types (light posts) - if nobody is looking for them, will people stop placing them?

I know if somebody placed a cache on my job's property without permission, most of my staff would be on the phone with law enforcement as soon as they saw someone poking around in the shrubs. At the very least, I'd be asking you to leave the property; for our safety (you could look like you're staking us out for a robbery), for your safety (it's a busy place, and not the most wholesome neighborhood), or for image. We don't really want people digging around in the bushes.

And it's not just urban caches. I've seen more than a couple cache locations that look like a whirlwind blew through in a woodlot. Some of them are fairly sensitive. Not necessarily the fault of the placer - one I'm thinking of is obtainable from the trail. Whatever happened to 'leave no trace?' We're going to lose many prime locations available to us, unless we start being careful.

[+grubber]

You know, If I don't like a cache, I leave..... Just walk away.... but mostly, I can tell by the description, and not even look for it.... Some people like the stealth thing in public places, I would rather be in an area no one is around... I have hidden both types.... I like hard caches with a lot of walking... but the drive up ones in a parking lot is nice if I am in the area for a short while and want to grab a cache.... What is wrong with the cacher thinking for him-her self? Describe your cache, and let the seeker decide... Just because you dont like it doesn't mean I will have a great time finding it! If it is in a locked off area.... Dont go!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

... i have no angst about it, thanks. and there's probably no point in discussing it since you've already stated that if it had happened you wouldn't consider it to be cause for concern.

 

i realize i'm paraphrasing here, but what i think you said was "it's not important because it hasn't happened. ...but if it happened it wouldn't be important." it's an interesting forensic device.

Actually I am not closed minded, though I am pretty certain of my beliefs!

 

I say dopers don't use dead-drops, but do leave the door open because anything is possible, few rules absolute, and my knowledge of the subject far from encyclopaedic.

 

What I mean by that is that if it happens at all I don't think it happens anywhere near often enough to be statistically signifigant and we should not worry that people will think that's what we're doing.

 

As far as trying to tiptoe around and not upset people because of our fear of their perception - to heck with that!

 

I don't believe that people in general much give a rip what we're up to, and certainly don't believe that many folks go around suspicious and scared.

 

I practice stealth only in the unusual situation when someone just looks hinky. In most situations I am very open. I have retrieved a cache in a parking lot with a dozen teens skateboarding nearby. I talked to the kids, introduced them to the game, showed them the cache, and asked them to leave it be. Did the same at another mall in TN late one night, a group of mid-teens hanging around right at the cache site. It was under a sewer cover they were sitting on. I pulled up, told them I was looking for something hidden near tham, introduced myself and found the cache, showed it to them, let them sign the log, gave them a micro to hide and the geocaching.com address.

 

I grabbed one cache where a woman was sitting on the park bench, just walked up, said "Pardon me Ma'am, I need to reach under you!" and did exactly that! We had a pleasant little chat while I signed the log, I put it back under her, she never got up!

 

I snagged one on a phone booth while a man argued with his girlfriend on the phone and he never even noticed what I was doing!

 

I have done this at kids Birthday parties in the park, under a deck at a park where a party was going on, even one time in the middle of a wedding at a waterfall in a park! Just walk up, tell the adults I want to look for something in their area, find the cache, tell them about our game - folks always think it's neat and I have never once had any report of a cache going missing soon after my visit!

 

As far as permission, I do the same - just yesterday the owner of a building stopped me and two other cachers as we rooted around the electrical panels behind his store. We showed him the cache, told him it was supposed to have hiis permission, when he said it didn't I asked if it could be left in place, he was fine with it - I can't tell you how many times that has happened - at least twenty times over the years.

 

We have one cache at a fountain in the center of our capital city, Montgomery, where the homeless sleep on park benches. When you approach the fountain they'll offer to show you the cache for a dollar! The cache has never been muggled.

 

All of these could be seen as problem caches, or they could be seen as interesting fun opportunities. I see them as the latter, and it has worked well so far.

 

I don't think it's problem caches as much as it is a lack of candor and forthrightness - acting stealthy raises flags - act bold, self-confidant and if stopped explain the game.

 

And, a smile and a calm demeanor will go a long way toward resolving any problem!

 

If the cache doesn't have permission, ask for it. If there are muggles about, try to recruit them to play the game!

 

Make progress out of problems!

[Clan Riffster]

In additional to the same old sorry arguments to ban lamp post hides because they are lame (i.e. the poster doesn't like them), a number of issue with lamp post caches have been brought up in that thread.

I'd like to take a minute to point out the banning threat is perhaps the most overused argument in that thread. Read each page carefully, then tell me how many separate individuals called for them to be banned. I think you'll find the answer to be microscopic at best. Let's not confuse asking for common sense and suggesting explicit permission, with a call to have something banned.

 

And now, back to your regularly scheduled thread...

 

Caches place without permission particularly in parking lots and other areas near businesses

For me, this is the core of the LPC problem, which I define as CPC, or Commercial Property Cache. CPC's come in all sizes and types, not just LPC's. I honestly believe that hiding a cache on a commercial business' property, without obtaining permission from that business, is a really bad idea. This is one of those issues that absolutely astounds me, when I see folks willing to defend the practice. Could allowing this practice to continue unabated have negative repercussions on our game? Of course. Would those repercussions be severe? Probably not, but then again, I never figured the fine folks in Boston, (where I was born), would react the way they did to a handful of light brites. Who can honestly say what the future holds? The only measurement we have is what has occurred in the past, and right now, the past doesn't fill me with confidence. I can't call myself an LPC expert, since I lost the desire to hunt them roughly 8 seconds after finding my first, but to date, I have not read about a single LPC that was hidden with explicit permission. (No, I'm not claiming all LPC's are placed without explicit permission. Read what I typed) This is one of those things that Groundspeak could fix overnight, if they chose to, however, they elect to remain silent. All they would need to do is send a note downstream to all their reviewers advising them to require explicit permission for any cache placed on a commercial business property, and this particular issue would vanish faster than a carton of Ben & Jerry's at Rosie O'Donnell's house. Why won't they issue such a decree? I don't know. Perhaps they don't see it as a problem they need to worry about. Personally, I hope they are right. The caching world certainly doesn't need any more bad press.

 

Caches that encourage geocachers to damage property and possibly put themselves or the public at risk, e.g. by opening electrical equipment

This is a problem inherent with any micro hide. They are so small, they can go dang near anywhere within a 30' radius. Many seekers don't take the time to look before they leap, and end up tromping through shrubbery, yanking up light pole skirts, pulling on sprinkler heads and/or poking around electrical gizmos. The hide type is not really to blame here. I see this problem as one best resolved at a local level, through education. Teach the hiders to select a spot with a certain amount of care for the environment, and the impact that their hide might bring to an area. Teach the seekers to pause, take a deep breath, fire up that ol' grey matter, and determine where the cache is likely to be prior to initiating their search. If these two habits were applied across the board, they would greatly reduce this problem.

 

Caches that are mistaken by the public for suspicious objects such as terrorist bombs.

This is always a risk when placing a cache, (of any size), in an area where the seekers can be observed during their hunt, or where the general public might stumble across it. Due to the obvious increase in population density, this issue would naturally be focused more on on urban hides. Again, education is probably the best resolution. My favorite urban hides are those that are hidden in such a manner as to allow the seeker to retrieve/replace them with minimum muggle interference. While some might, (correctly), argue that caches with a high muggle observation rate represents an intense challenge, I submit that this challenge is not necessarily good for the overall health of the game. Hunters of high stealth caches are, (IMO), the most likely to draw unwanted attention as they try to not look suspicious. Ed offered a real nice approach for high stealth caches, (direct & honest), but this might not work as well for others as it does for him. Even though I've been a cop of one flavor or another since '82, when I'm off duty, you'd never know it to look at me. The average citizen looks at me like I'm an axe murderer when I approach them wearing torn, scruffy camo pants, snake boots and a stained T-shirt. If I were to speak to his bench sitter like he did, she'd probably mace me.

 

In all the history of drug addiction and abuse can anyone show me one case where a doper hid his stash under a light skirt in a parking lot?

Actually, this is a lot more likely than you give it credit for. Many street level dealers are using drops to avoid being busted for dealing. Dealing carries a much stiffer penalty than possession. The dealer will get a phone call from a prospective buyer, asking for a certain amount of their drug of choice. The dealer will tell them to leave $X at a specific location and tell them to come back in an hour or so. The dealer will remove the $$$ from the hiding spot and leave the drugs behind. I've never known of one that specifically targets lamp posts, but I can't imagine why they wouldn't, considering all the other places I've seen them leave dope.

 

delaying the response to a possible serious incident whilst doing internet research would be a huge and unjustifiable risk.

Improvised explosive devices come in three basic flavors: Timed, (includes fuses), triggered by owner, (radio detonation, etc), and triggered by circumstance, (trip wire, mercury switch, etc). The type can usually be determined at a glance. A timed or TBO device is always cause for a healthy "Oh Chit!", and needs to be dealt with immediately. A TBC device affords the EOD squad time to evaluate. One of the standard practices when dealing with a suspicious device at a commercial establishment is getting the management involved in evacuating the business. If the management knows about a cache placed on their property, this would be an opportune moment for them to tell us about it. I envision a conversation similar to this:

COP "Sir, we're responding to a suspicious device in your parking lot."

MANAGER "Is it a Tupperware container in the 3rd row of bushes?"

COP "Uh.....Yeah....How'd you know?"

MANAGER "It's a geocache. It's been there for months. Ain't blown nobody up yet"

 

While this wouldn't guarantee the cache doesn't get blown up, it's definitely a good tool in the evaluation phase.

 

I work with a lot of MDT's (mobile data terminals) and it is interesting that the instructions with virtually every mobile computing device say something like "WARNING WILL ROBINSON!!! WARNING! WARNING! DO NOT USE THIS DEVICE WHILE DRIVING!"

A bit off topic, but our MDT's are the Panasonic Toughbook. They don't come with this warning. In fact, the only agency operating within our county that has this as part of their General Orders is FHP. My patrol vehicle is an '06 Explorer, and the interior is set up so that my MDT sits in close proximity to the passenger side airbag. If I ever rearend someone while running a tag, God help my fingers as they get smooshed by the laptop closing at an extremely accelerated pace.

 

Edit to add: I somehow managed to go through an entire, lengthy post without a single snarky comment. I must be losing my touch!

Edited February 27, 2007 by Clan Riffster

[+CSpenceFLY]

I didn't imply that someone check the website before any action is taken.In this wonderful world of technology,wireless internet and air cards.Someone could do the checking on the way.Could save a whole lot of trouble,grief,stress,danger.

I work with a lot of MDT's (mobile data terminals) and it is interesting that the instructions with virtually every mobile computing device say something like "WARNING WILL ROBINSON!!! WARNING! WARNING! DO NOT USE THIS DEVICE WHILE DRIVING!"

 

(not that there has ever been a police officer that has ever pulled off the road to send a message)

 

Furthermore, the callers usually do not give GPS coordinates. It is not until the officer arrives on scene and talks to the witness, or searches for hisherself that the device is located well enough to check the database.

 

I agree that it would be good for the responders to know that there is a cache there, but it is really not practical to look them up; nor is it really of much relevance.

 

Once a report of a suspicious device has been made, the authorities have no choice but to handle it as if it is dangerous. i don't think we should want it any other way. To automatically disregard a bomb call because there is a geocache at the coordinates is a sure prescription for a disaster. The case WILL eventually come up when that particular light pole just happens to be the one the real bomber chooses to light off his pipe bomb.

 

Maybe we should get the word out to all the bombers that they should refrain from placing devices near OUR geocaches... perhaps we should make them adhere to a 528' rule?

 

Much better we should get permission for hiding, hide well, and seek with as little suspicious behaviour as possible.

 

I'm sure that most bomb squad vehicles have more than one person riding in them.You don't need the cords,all you have to do is pull up a map of the area to see if there are any caches close by and check the cords when you get there.

[+wandererrob]

The problem is that in the public's perception- read imagination- Drug dealers are like "spy vs spy" (reference Mad magazine).

 

The public sees someone doing something that they don't understand and their imagination runs the gamut of all the TV shows they have seen. As they mull over what they just saw, a person sorting through the flower box goes from someone who lost their keys to someone who is dropping drug money to someone who is leaving a cryptic message for Osama Bin Laden. So then the only wise thing to do is call the cops.

 

OK, so one solution to all this is some appropriate camoflage then...

 

 

[+flask]

 

Actually I am not closed minded, though I am pretty certain of my beliefs!

 

I say dopers don't use dead-drops, but do leave the door open because anything is possible, few rules absolute, and my knowledge of the subject far from encyclopaedic.

 

What I mean by that is that if it happens at all I don't think it happens anywhere near often enough to be statistically signifigant and we should not worry that people will think that's what we're doing.

 

beside the crack pipe in the lamp post skirt, i have run into a lot of drug gear at cache sites. and one of my caches was confiscated (later replaced) by the border patrol on suspicion of being a dead drop. (it's about .17 mile from the canadian border)

 

it would serve us well to be concerned about these incidents even without statistical significance. you will notice that i say "concerned" ather than "upset" or "afraid". knowledge is power and i think we're going to have to be proactive and preemptive rather than waiting for any given negative event to become statistically significant.

 

by the time any caching problem is statistically significant it has reached a magnitude that places it too close to the center of the public eye.

 

i think you're right on in your attitude regarding stealth; the single best way not to arouse suspicion is not to look suspicious. when we need to, crascho and i talk loudly and tediously about coordinates and puzzles and games. there are two kinds of bystanders: ones who become interested and talk to us, and ones who become bored and move away.

 

as for lamp post caches, while i'm not against them in principle, i've seen ones that have broken glass under the skirt. some with exposed wires. one with drugs (see above). many of the lamp posts have been scratched by the skirt being lifted, and often the skirt has taken a pretty bad beating.

 

i realize that there are some people who consider these concerns to be unimportant when placed against the larger greatness of finding yet another quick cache in a wal-mart parking lot. it seems to me that we can do better than this.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Caches place without permission particularly in parking lots and other areas near businesses

For me, this is the core of the LPC problem, which I define as CPC, or Commercial Property Cache. CPC's come in all sizes and types, not just LPC's. I honestly believe that hiding a cache on a commercial business' property, without obtaining permission from that business, is a really bad idea. This is one of those issues that absolutely astounds me, when I see folks willing to defend the practice. Could allowing this practice to continue unabated have negative repercussions on our game? Of course. Would those repercussions be severe? Probably not, but then again, I never figured the fine folks in Boston, (where I was born), would react the way they did to a handful of light brites. Who can honestly say what the future holds? The only measurement we have is what has occurred in the past, and right now, the past doesn't fill me with confidence. I can't call myself an LPC expert, since I lost the desire to hunt them roughly 8 seconds after finding my first, but to date, I have not read about a single LPC that was hidden with explicit permission. (No, I'm not claiming all LPC's are placed without explicit permission. Read what I typed) This is one of those things that Groundspeak could fix overnight, if they chose to, however, they elect to remain silent. All they would need to do is send a note downstream to all their reviewers advising them to require explicit permission for any cache placed on a commercial business property, and this particular issue would vanish faster than a carton of Ben & Jerry's at Rosie O'Donnell's house. Why won't they issue such a decree? I don't know. Perhaps they don't see it as a problem they need to worry about. Personally, I hope they are right. The caching world certainly doesn't need any more bad press.

I am in total agreement with the Commercial Property Cache CPC acronym - the issue isn't the size or the quality, it's commercial placement without permission.

 

Groundspeak can't instruct the Reviewers to require express permission on CPCs first because CPCs can't be defined, and few CPCs really need it.

 

Caches that encourage geocachers to damage property and possibly put themselves or the public at risk, e.g. by opening electrical equipment

This is a problem inherent with any micro hide. They are so small, they can go dang near anywhere within a 30' radius. Many seekers don't take the time to look before they leap, and end up tromping through shrubbery, yanking up light pole skirts, pulling on sprinkler heads and/or poking around electrical gizmos. The hide type is not really to blame here. I see this problem as one best resolved at a local level, through education. Teach the hiders to select a spot with a certain amount of care for the environment, and the impact that their hide might bring to an area. Teach the seekers to pause, take a deep breath, fire up that ol' grey matter, and determine where the cache is likely to be prior to initiating their search. If these two habits were applied across the board, they would greatly reduce this problem.

Not really a CPC problem so much as an overall geocaching one.

 

Leave No Trace should apply to all caches, and the local community should educate its own as to safety issues.

 

I know that I am guilty of this - at an event last year a good friend won a cache as a doorprize that was a nicely crafted outdoor electrical outlet. You had to open the face of it, where you saw a standard electrical outlet with wires attached, just like any electrical outlet. If you grabbed the outlet and pulled it and the wires out of the box you found six inches or so of wire that extended down into a conduit, and attached to the bottom of the wires, a bison tube. So you not only had to open the electrical box you had to disassemble the thing, removing the plug and wires to find the cache.

 

My friend who won it, another friend who made it, and everyone who saw it marveled at the construction and delighted in how 'evil' this cache would be to find, yet I was instantly struck with how dangerous a precedent such a cache set.

 

Entirely legal, but entirely a bad idea! I was a Groundspeak Volunteer Reviewer at the time and told them yes, it could be listed, but kept my feelings about how bad an idea it was to myself because these were friends having a good time and I didn't want to spoil it.

 

I don't know if it in fact ever got listed, they live in another Reviewer's state, but I have felt bad ever since for not actively discouraging placing this cache (which would not have been my duty and, as a Reviewer, would in fact have been wrong... as a legal hide whether I liked it or not wasn't relevant).

 

It did, however, lead me to teach and preach safety and the avoidance of tempting cachers into stupid moves. Since I am no longer a Reviewer if I see a cache of this nature I am free to tell the owner, and any seekers in my logs, what I think of it! When I am asked to give presentations on geocaching now I tell folks that the magnetic cache on the outside of a closed electrical object poses little threat but that they should never open such an object to look inside.

 

No Groundspeak rule can cover this, it has to be a community practice.

 

Caches that are mistaken by the public for suspicious objects such as terrorist bombs.

This is always a risk when placing a cache, (of any size), in an area where the seekers can be observed during their hunt, or where the general public might stumble across it. Due to the obvious increase in population density, this issue would naturally be focused more on on urban hides. Again, education is probably the best resolution. My favorite urban hides are those that are hidden in such a manner as to allow the seeker to retrieve/replace them with minimum muggle interference. While some might, (correctly), argue that caches with a high muggle observation rate represents an intense challenge, I submit that this challenge is not necessarily good for the overall health of the game. Hunters of high stealth caches are, (IMO), the most likely to draw unwanted attention as they try to not look suspicious. Ed offered a real nice approach for high stealth caches, (direct & honest), but this might not work as well for others as it does for him. Even though I've been a cop of one flavor or another since '82, when I'm off duty, you'd never know it to look at me. The average citizen looks at me like I'm an axe murderer when I approach them wearing torn, scruffy camo pants, snake boots and a stained T-shirt. If I were to speak to his bench sitter like he did, she'd probably mace me.

Good point! As a one-legged fat old fart on crutches I don't appear threatening to anyone, and so can probably be a bit more flambouyant than many others can be. Still, the basic straight-forward open approach will get you less notice and more acceptance than trying to be stealthy, which gets everyone's attention!

 

A policeman buying coffee recovered my stolen car a few years ago just because the man fueling it up at a gas station looked nervous when the cop looked at him. If the thief had acted calm and confidant - normal - I would likely never have seen my car again!

 

Act as if you belong there and you'll rarely get asked if the cache you're hunting has permission, folks just won't notice you!

 

In all the history of drug addiction and abuse can anyone show me one case where a doper hid his stash under a light skirt in a parking lot?

Actually, this is a lot more likely than you give it credit for. Many street level dealers are using drops to avoid being busted for dealing. Dealing carries a much stiffer penalty than possession. The dealer will get a phone call from a prospective buyer, asking for a certain amount of their drug of choice. The dealer will tell them to leave $X at a specific location and tell them to come back in an hour or so. The dealer will remove the $$$ from the hiding spot and leave the drugs behind. I've never known of one that specifically targets lamp posts, but I can't imagine why they wouldn't, considering all the other places I've seen them leave dope.

Great to have input from someone that knows this stuff, thank you!

 

Still, though dead-drops (caches) have been used throughout history I wonder if the number of occurances is signifigant enough to cause all this flutter over it, or if we are driving the flutter by constant reference to it.

 

Are enough dealers using dead-drops that police are schooled through training or experience to suspect any hidden cache of being one?

 

delaying the response to a possible serious incident whilst doing internet research would be a huge and unjustifiable risk.

Improvised explosive devices come in three basic flavors: Timed, (includes fuses), triggered by owner, (radio detonation, etc), and triggered by circumstance, (trip wire, mercury switch, etc). The type can usually be determined at a glance. A timed or TBO device is always cause for a healthy "Oh Chit!", and needs to be dealt with immediately. A TBC device affords the EOD squad time to evaluate. One of the standard practices when dealing with a suspicious device at a commercial establishment is getting the management involved in evacuating the business. If the management knows about a cache placed on their property, this would be an opportune moment for them to tell us about it. I envision a conversation similar to this:

COP "Sir, we're responding to a suspicious device in your parking lot."

MANAGER "Is it a Tupperware container in the 3rd row of bushes?"

COP "Uh.....Yeah....How'd you know?"

MANAGER "It's a geocache. It's been there for months. Ain't blown nobody up yet"

 

While this wouldn't guarantee the cache doesn't get blown up, it's definitely a good tool in the evaluation phase.

I am in total agreement!

 

Permission won't always stop an incident, but it will in most cases, and having it will certainly deter civil authorities from arresting, prosecuting and collecting costs from the cache owner!

 

Edit to add: I somehow managed to go through an entire, lengthy post without a single snarky comment. I must be losing my touch!

LOL, I am still trying to learn how to do that!

 

So, where does all this leave us?

 

With the word 'adequate'.

 

The guidelines call for 'adequate permission'.

 

Groundspeak does not define the phrase 'adequate permission'.

 

It's truly a cache-by-cache judgement call!

 

It is left to each cache owner to decide what 'adequate permission' is for each cache he hides.

 

The vast majority of caches have no permission whatsoever, and that's fine; most don't need it.

 

Lands and properties open to public access that have no direct prohibition against geocaching can be assumed to be acceptable hiding places.

 

Commercial properties open to public access have been held in the same light.

 

Based upon English Common Law, the basis for many US laws, something is assumed to be legal if not expressly prohibited.

 

So, the delimma of determining adequate permission rests in each geocachers lap, not Groundspeak's, not the property owner, not the Reviewers.

 

We won't see a blanket ban on CPCs, though we might lose a few locations, if cachers insist on ignoring the phrase 'adequate permission'

 

A lightpole in a parking lot probably doesn't need express permission - one that is attached to the building itself (electrical panels, etc) probably does. You can't create logical and feasable guidelines here, each cache must be adjudged as to permission requirements.

 

We won't see wholesale arrests of geocachers searching for CPCs, though we will likely see an increase.

 

And we won't see Groundspeak make any major change in this area - they just list 'em, they don't hide 'em, and they don't list them if you don't check the box stating that it in fact has adequate permission.

 

Mandatory express permission won't solve a thing and would create a records maintenence nightmare. It's not going to happen.

 

So, we're back to community education and leading by example. Get adequate permission, whatever you believe that to be, for your hides. Encourage others to do the same. File a Needs Archived note on the most egregious violators. If I get busted at a cache because no permission was sought I will try to get permission to leave it in place. If the owner says he wants it gone, I am taking it with me!

 

We've done a pretty good job of self-policing the game so far, let's keep it up!

[+Too Tall John]

I think the SDOEL are so blinded by their defense of lame caches, that they refuse to accept any argument, or any evidence to contradict their point of view. There is an old adage that comes into play, "Do not confuse me with facts, I've already made up my mind."

Bill - this is your warning. This thread is to discuss potential problems of all types of caches. It is fair for people to indicate they think this isn't a problem or that the severity of the problem is exaggerated. This is what TAR referred to when asked for evidence of lamp posts being used to hide someone drug stash. I think evidence has now been presented that drug users do leave used needles lying around - maybe even under lamp post skirts. And there may cases where a drug dealer used a similar method as a drug drop. Drug dealers or users hiding their stash was not one of the three issues I asked be discussed here. It has only been brought up to indicate that a muggle seeing someone retrieving a cache may be suspicious and report what they saw to the police. I would think it more likely that a muggle would be concerned about a tupperware or larger container than if they say someone with a hide-a-key or a 35mm container. Please make this a discussion of why caches in places where muggles are likely to observe you could result in a cacher getting into trouble rather than referring to those who do not agree with position SDOEL.

 

I think Kit Fox's comments are no worse than TAR's saying that even if someone can show that drugs have been found in a cache location they aren't going to change their mind on the subject. If it can't change your mind why ask? Saying something like that is saying you are here for a fight. I believe Kit Fox was pointing out the blindness of the statement. He just might have said it differently...

 

As it seems to be a very polarizing label, some taking it as an insult, others wearing it like a medal, I'd like to suggest a moratorium on the phrase "Staunch Defenders of Everything Lame." The points meant to be discussed in this thread can cover caches that you may consider lame or might be your favorite caching experience ever. Not to mention that everyone has a different idea of what is lame and what isn't.

[+Criminal]

As one who has been detained till the police came by a restaurant owner when looking for a cache in the bushes in front of his restaurant, I can vouch that this does happen.

Detained? A restaurant owner does not have the authority to detain anyone. If you stayed, you stayed voluntarily.

 

I'd like to hear more about that.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I think Kit Fox's comments are no worse than TAR's saying that even if someone can show that drugs have been found in a cache location they aren't going to change their mind on the subject. If it can't change your mind why ask? Saying something like that is saying you are here for a fight. I believe Kit Fox was pointing out the blindness of the statement. He just might have said it differently...

 

I never said I couldn't be swayed by proof or logical argument! What I said was:

 

Actually I am not closed minded, though I am pretty certain of my beliefs!

 

I say dopers don't use dead-drops, but do leave the door open because anything is possible, few rules absolute, and my knowledge of the subject far from encyclopaedic.

 

What I mean by that is that if it happens at all I don't think it happens anywhere near often enough to be statistically signifigant and we should not worry that people will think that's what we're doing.

 

and I later replied to Clan Riffster thanking him for his informative comments on this topic.

 

If I couldn't be swayed and educated by what I read here it would be a terrible waste of time to come here!

 

And, though I may not be the best writer, I am never looking for a fight!

[+Too Tall John]

Mandatory express permission won't solve a thing and would create a records maintenence nightmare. It's not going to happen.

I've suggested this before in the other thread, but I think it's an idea worth consideration, thus worth repeating. Some have called it harsh. I agree, but if someone ever were to take action against Geocaching because of permission issues, I'd imagine it could be much harsher.

 

Make the permission clause stronger. Put another form on the "Hide & Seek a Cache" page. Call it the "Cache Placement Permission Worksheet." It would include a portion for how permission was received, be it blanket permission from a large property owner (ie Cracker Barrel) or explicit permission (as groups like The Nature Conservancy require). It would be the cache owner's responsibility to maintain this record. It doesn't come into play until later.

 

If a landowner asks GC.com to have a cache removed because no permission was given for the cache, there should be consequences. I'd suggest that the cache hider would be placed on probation for a certain time period or until they can fulfill certain requirements. They could still hunt caches unrestricted, but would couldn't hide caches until the probation was over.

 

When I brought this idea up before, someone brought up the point that they had asked for and received permission from a community's homeowners' association to place a cache. An individual in that association contacted GC.com & asked for the cache to be removed. He'd be on probation in my scenario. This is where the "Cache Placement Permission Worksheet" comes into play. All he'd need to do is produce the worksheet, showing that he'd received adequate permission. (Call it your "Get Out of Jail Free" card.) The reviewer could then reinstate the cache hider's abilities. Other conditions could include the next "X" caches would have to be reviewed by a local cacher to insure guideline compliance in addition to the regional reviewer.

 

If absolute proof of permission isn't required until there is a problem, the paperwork for the reviewers is kept to a minimum, and the danger of probation will get more cachers to ask for permission.

[+wimseyguy]

We do not have problem caches, we have problem cachers (and most of them will never visit the forums to know that we are talking about them).

I've been to plenty of hides in publicly visible areas and made the decision that now isn't the time to look for this one; there are too many people around and one of them might actually be paying attention to their wherabouts. I've also been in situations when there were people around, but I felt perfectly comfortable grabbing a public cache. I've spoken with store/business owners, private security guards and the police, and never been detained unecessarily. If they aren't satisfied with my explanation of my behavior, I'll simply leave. Most times they have allowed me to continue my search.

 

And just to digress since the tangent has already veered off the OP query-I've found crack pipes and drug paraphanalia in the shrubs in a park in a very nice residential neighborhood, as well as behind the 'grocery store', but never under a lamppost skirt. How should that affect the decision on where or where not to hide and seek caches?

Edited February 27, 2007 by wimseyguy

[+Too Tall John]

I never said I couldn't be swayed by proof or logical argument! What I said was:

 

Actually I am not closed minded, though I am pretty certain of my beliefs!

 

I say dopers don't use dead-drops, but do leave the door open because anything is possible, few rules absolute, and my knowledge of the subject far from encyclopaedic.

 

What I mean by that is that if it happens at all I don't think it happens anywhere near often enough to be statistically signifigant and we should not worry that people will think that's what we're doing.

 

and I later replied to Clan Riffster thanking him for his informative comments on this topic.

 

If I couldn't be swayed and educated by what I read here it would be a terrible waste of time to come here!

 

And, though I may not be the best writer, I am never looking for a fight!

You also said, and this is what Kit Fox was speaking to:

K, thanks for that, but where's the dope?

 

Cigarette butts, an empty bottle and a needle isn't exactly a dope stash, and can be found at any homeless hangout.

 

And was that stuff in the cache or collected from nearby?

 

I encourage you to keep trying, though!

 

I really want to see some dope in a LPC or parking lot cache, as I still don't think it's gonna happen!

 

In reality anything can, has or will happened... my point is that even if you can prove one or a dozen that does not make a precedent for all the angst over it!

I should stress that my entire point is that I think Mr. T was being a little harsh in reprimanding Kit Fox. The earlier post sounded a lot more argumentative, and I'm very glad you clarified yourself in the latter post.

 

I still think the point to be made is that the general public's perception is reality. They see you sniffing somewhere that makes them worried, they are calling the cops. If you're still there when they arrive, you've at minimum got to explain yourself, at worst you're gonna get to visit the inmates in the holding cell.

 

Getting placement permission will help eliminate some of those situations.

[+Too Tall John]

As one who has been detained till the police came by a restaurant owner when looking for a cache in the bushes in front of his restaurant, I can vouch that this does happen.

Detained? A restaurant owner does not have the authority to detain anyone. If you stayed, you stayed voluntarily.

 

I'd like to hear more about that.

 

Legally or not, he was detained.

 

(Not making any insinuations about size as I have no idea what Mr. T is like, but) If Mr. T's say 5'5" tall and weighs in at 150 lbs and the restaurant's owner is 6'6" and 250 lbs & looks like Mr T's avatar, unless he can outrun him, Mr. T is gonna stay where ever the guy wants him to. Not to mention many people aren't up on laws pertaining to situations like this.

 

Criminal's right, folks, the restaurateur had no right to detain Mr. T.

[+flask]

 

If a landowner asks GC.com to have a cache removed because no permission was given for the cache, there should be consequences. I'd suggest that the cache hider would be placed on probation for a certain time period or until they can fulfill certain requirements. They could still hunt caches unrestricted, but would couldn't hide caches until the probation was over.

 

 

oh, i'd'a' gotten busted but good on that one.

 

i had a cache WITH PERMISSION AND COLLABORATION of a facility manager. over the summer the management chaged. the new manager did not like the cache and went ballistic. not my fault.