Potential Problem Caches

[+tozainamboku]

If you want to debate, how about debating something meaningful? How about: what does the phrase "adequate permission" really mean? Just because I'm allowed to walk through the parking lot do I really have permission to hide a cache there?

[Mushtang]

If you want to debate, how about debating something meaningful? How about: what does the phrase "adequate permission" really mean? Just because I'm allowed to walk through the parking lot do I really have permission to hide a cache there?

It means that you have "enough" permission.

 

If you hide a cache in a NPS area that has fragile plant life, and you only got permission to do so from a guy that sweeps up the visitor's center, that probably means you didn't get "enough".

 

If you assume you can place a cache in a park that already has 3 or 4, then not asking anyone permission is probably "enough".

 

It's phrased that way so GC.com isn't responsible for permission, the cache owner is.

[+Team GeoBlast]

If you want to debate, how about debating something meaningful? How about: what does the phrase "adequate permission" really mean? Just because I'm allowed to walk through the parking lot do I really have permission to hide a cache there?

 

Adequate permission to me is defined as such: Top down.

 

If it's a business or store with a local owner, the top down chain starts with owner (and ultimately responsible person) travels down to management (if such a layer exists) and then to employees, security and so on.

 

If it's a corporate entity such as Walmart, the top might be somewhere else and filter down through many levels.

 

The permission level should be extensive enough so a cacher that assumes "adequate permission" is not put into harms way when seeking the cache. This includes confrontations with local store management and private security but could include law enforcement and such.

 

If this slows down the hiding of these types of caches, I personally do not see this as a loss to the game. If this type of permission is granted (currently it is not in the second example), I'm perfectly fine with not seeking them out as is often suggested.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I've said it before, a lot, but here it is again!

 

Add Placement Permission-Giver Contact Information to the cache page!

[Clan Riffster]

Add Placement Permission-Giver Contact Information to the cache page!

The perfect solution to the problem, Ed.

[+gh patriot]

you can usually park your car unless it is marked no parking. I haven't seen a no geocaching sign yet.

Edited March 9, 2007 by gh patriot

[+Too Tall John]

you can usually park your car unless it is marked no parking. I haven't seen a no geocaching sign yet.

The only place I recall seeing "No Shoplifting" signs consistently in a BBS (Big Box Store) is in the bathrooms. Does that mean that because there are no signs in the rest of the store that it's ok?

Just because something isn't specifically disallowed does not make it allowed.

[+gh patriot]

dont get all technical on me

[Mushtang]

you can usually park your car unless it is marked no parking. I haven't seen a no geocaching sign yet.

The only place I recall seeing "No Shoplifting" signs consistently in a BBS (Big Box Store) is in the bathrooms. Does that mean that because there are no signs in the rest of the store that it's ok?

Just because something isn't specifically disallowed does not make it allowed.

But shoplifting in the rest of the store IS specifically disallowed. There are well known and well documented laws against stealing.

 

Apparantly the idea of it being "trespassing" in a WalMart parking lot to hide a geocache, park a car with a For Sale sign on it, or play frisbee, is not as clearly defined.

[+Too Tall John]

If you assume you can place a cache in a park that already has 3 or 4, then not asking anyone permission is probably "enough".

 

I agree with the spirit of what you are saying here, but I'd like to add the qualifier "...in a park that already has 3 or 4 with permission..."

 

Apparantly the idea of it being "trespassing" in a WalMart parking lot to hide a geocache, park a car with a For Sale sign on it, or play frisbee, is not as clearly defined.

 

The BBSs have pretty explicit policies about what can and can't be done in the parking lots. Your car parked w/ a For Sale sign is a perfect example. Another manager at a store I worked in noticed a car that was in the lot every day with such a sign. Apparently this is not allowed. It turns out an associate was selling their car, but was still driving it to work. They had to remove the sign!

A parking lot at a BBS is private property, and thus they have a say in everything that happens there. Thus, permission is needed in order to place anything (no matter how benign) in it.

Edited March 9, 2007 by Too Tall John

[Mushtang]

If you assume you can place a cache in a park that already has 3 or 4, then not asking anyone permission is probably "enough".

 

I agree with the spirit of what you are saying here, but I'd like to add the qualifier "...in a park that already has 3 or 4 with permission..."

 

Apparantly the idea of it being "trespassing" in a WalMart parking lot to hide a geocache, park a car with a For Sale sign on it, or play frisbee, is not as clearly defined.

 

The BBSs have pretty explicit policies about what can and can't be done in the parking lots. Your car parked w/ a For Sale sign is a perfect example. Another manager at a store I worked in noticed a car that was in the lot every day with such a sign. Apparently this is not allowed. It turns out an associate was selling their car, but was still driving it to work. They had to remove the sign!

A parking lot at a BBS is private property, and thus they have a say in everything that happens there. Thus, permission is needed in order to place anything (no matter how benign) in it.

So did they just ask the guy to remove the sign, or did a team of lawyers from WalMart come down on the AutoTrader listing magazine that the car was in, bringing it to it's knees, and eliminating used car sales as we know it?

[+sbell111]

If you want to debate, how about debating something meaningful? How about: what does the phrase "adequate permission" really mean? Just because I'm allowed to walk through the parking lot do I really have permission to hide a cache there?

Adequate permission to me is defined as such: Top down.

 

If it's a business or store with a local owner, the top down chain starts with owner (and ultimately responsible person) travels down to management (if such a layer exists) and then to employees, security and so on.

 

If it's a corporate entity such as Walmart, the top might be somewhere else and filter down through many levels.

 

The permission level should be extensive enough so a cacher that assumes "adequate permission" is not put into harms way when seeking the cache. This includes confrontations with local store management and private security but could include law enforcement and such.

I apparently don't understand your post.

 

Are you suggesting that in order to hide a cache on a corporation's property, that permission must be obtained from the top? How would you prefer this, is permission from the CEO enough or does it need to be submitted to the Board of Directors? Perhaps this is an issue that is best voted on at the next annual stockholder's meeting.

If this slows down the hiding of these types of caches, I personally do not see this as a loss to the game. If this type of permission is granted (currently it is not in the second example), I'm perfectly fine with not seeking them out as is often suggested.

Sure. You would be perfectly happy doing away with caches that you don't like. We get that. Edited March 9, 2007 by sbell111

[+KBI]

Add Placement Permission-Giver Contact Information to the cache page!

The perfect solution to the problem, Ed.

If you want to talk about something that would be "bad for the game," that's one right there.

 

I recently placed my very first Earthcache: Norcross Divided. The folks who approve all Earchcaches, the Geological Society of America, are VERY strict about obtaining permission. While they don't actually require the cache owner to post the permission grantor's information on the cache page itself, as TheAlabamaRambler suggests, their guidelines DO require contact information (name and contact details -- see item number 6) to be included in the online cache submission form.

 

The resulting hassle and runaround I encountered while trying to obtain the required permission for this Earthcache very nearly caused me to give up. My cache is clearly a candidate for the ol' Frisbee Rule: It merely requires cachers to go to the posted coordinates (an out-of-the-way corner of a parking lot in the park) and look around for a few minutes in order to answer a few questions.

 

When I asked the local Person In Charge, he wavered and waffled for a while before finally deciding that he was afraid to stick his neck out, and referred me to his supervisor. When I finally was able to make contact with the elusive Supervisor, he wavered and waffled for a while before finally deciding that he was afraid to stick HIS neck out, and referred me to HIS boss. I followed several dead-end leads (naively believing that the parks department website was accurate and up-to-date) before locating the correct boss. When I finally made contact with the elusive boss, I got lucky -- only because he was familiar with our local caching organization and had given a talk at an Event meeting. Otherwise I'm convinced he would have sent me even farther up the line -- or, worse, simply said no ... because it's easier for a bureaucrat to say no than to risk his job.

 

The whole process took several weeks and about two dozen phone calls. I’m a patient person -- I think most people would have given up early on. I now understand why there aren't more Earthcaches.

 

My brother put it best: "All that, just to get permission for people to go stand in public park and look around for a few minutes?!?"

 

I think an "Add Placement Permission-Giver Contact Information to the cache page" rule is a bad idea. I understand the intent, and it's a good thought, but it would seem to be overkill. It might solve a small problem, but it would also take down a majority of first-rate existing (and future) caches in the process. It's called "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

 

As it has been explained before, sometimes the act of obtaining "official" or "documented" permission causes more problems than simply going with the Groundspeak common-sense concept of "adequate permission" -- or as some interpret it, the Frisbee Rule: If you'd feel comfortable playing Frisbee in a given place without first asking anyone for permission, then why would you ask their permission for anything as wholesome and benign as placing a guideline-compliant Geocache there?

Edited March 9, 2007 by KBI

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

If this slows down the hiding of these types of caches, I personally do not see this as a loss to the game.

Pardon, your agenda is showing!

[+KBI]

you can usually park your car unless it is marked no parking. I haven't seen a no geocaching sign yet.

I'm firmly on your side of this debate, but I have to agree with Too Tall John that that particular argument is not a valid one. The logic is not sound.

[+Totem Clan]

Add Placement Permission-Giver Contact Information to the cache page!

The perfect solution to the problem, Ed.

If you want to talk about something that would be "bad for the game," that's one right there.

 

<snipped for brevity>

 

As it has been explained before, sometimes the act of obtaining "official" or "documented" permission causes more problems than simply going with the Groundspeak common-sense concept of "adequate permission" -- or as some interpret it, the Frisbee Rule: If you'd feel comfortable playing Frisbee in a given place without first asking anyone for permission, then why would you ask their permission for anything as wholesome and benign as placing a guideline-compliant Geocache there?

I understand Ed's point. There are a lot of caches place where they shouldn't be without permission, but KBI hit the nail on the head. I think we need less paperwork and more responsible cachers.

 

I've been working with the local State Park on some different caching projects, most recently a CITO. Luckily they like caching and cachers. They see us as a another group of land-users and are willing to work with us. This makes the red tape that State imposes fly by. On the other hand.

The city Parks Department don't know what to think or do. They don't openly oppose caches, but ask them to let you CITO in a city park and they him and haw until it's too late. Oh well their loss.

The point is, written permission for every single cache is a little too draconian.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

As it has been explained before, sometimes the act of obtaining "official" or "documented" permission causes more problems than simply going with the Groundspeak common-sense concept of "adequate permission" -- or as some interpret it, the Frisbee Rule: If you'd feel comfortable playing Frisbee in a given place without first asking anyone for permission, then why would you ask their permission for anything as wholesome and benign as placing a guideline-compliant Geocache there?

Well, first "wholesome and benign" isn't exactly how land-owners unfamiliar with our game might see geocaching.

 

As to the rest, you seem to be saying that asking for permission is sometimes a PITA, so don't do it.

 

This is the 'stick your head in the sand and hope for the best' approach - good luck with it!

 

The caches of concern in this discussion are generally urban, private and commercial property caches - with limited exception public, rural and forest-land caches can indeed be assumed to have adequate permission.

 

All of my hides have permission, from City Parks Departments to this district's YMCA to Commercial Property Caches. Some permission was given immediately, some took months, the YMCA took a formal presentation of geocaching.

 

I will soon archive all of my caches, refurbish them and put them back out in different places as new hides. When I do there will be Placement Permission Contact Info on every listing.

 

Sort of a grass-roots movement that I would like to see catch on. I hope that you will do the same for any cache that needs more than assumed permission.

[+Totem Clan]

I'll be the first to stand up and say, "We need to stop and think about where we're putting caches and how they will be perceived", but forcing me to go city hall every time I want to put a cache in the Greenway or a park is so wrong. What's next? I'm I going to need to get a permission slip from the Parks Department walk along the Riversides trails. I wouldn't want them to think I'm stalking the collage girls that go jogging there. If it's a PUBLIC use area, why do I need more paperwork?

 

Now privately owned land is different.

 

Edit fur spellin

Edited March 9, 2007 by Totem Clan

[+KBI]

Sadly, many cachers only have enough sense to mark coordinates, and place a 35mm canister. They don't have enough sense to think about the implications, and hassle they cause, when they hide caches in bad spots. They (cache hiders lacking common sense) feign ignorance, when someone gets detained by LE because a cacher was seen tampering with an outlet panel on the back of a strip mall. I could spend all day giving other examples of why CPCs create problems.

While I agree that many cache owners could apply a bit more consideration for the finder, it is not the hider’s responsibility to protect the finder from the finder’s own poor judgment. Hence the disclaimer: "Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache" (emphasis mine).

 

If someone places a cache or searches for a cache in a way that draws LE (to the extent of detention) or the bomb squad, then he or she deserves the consequences.

Exactly.

 

One must use the very same common sense when hunting caches that one would use during ANY activity. Blaming the cache hider for your own poor judgment is simply invalid. You have the power to abandon the search process at any point before or during the hunt for the cache.

 

Please allow me to plagiarize myself:

 

... My second LPC hunt included me digging out a screwdriver and opening up the access panel until I came to my senses.. DNF. ... Another case in point was my first LPC hunt at a state prison nonetheless. I proceded to bypass the lamp post and go straight for the sprinkler head. When it proved obvious that it WAS a sprinkler head I couldn't get the darn thing back together, so I promptly took my leave. I came home and discovered that 4 of the previous finders had been approached by security personnel in a not-so-nice manner.

 

The moral to the story: Think before you hide urban micros....

The moral to the story: Use common sense and good judgment while searching for geocaches, and consider doing better homework before the hunt.

 

If everyone in this hobby were in the habit of using such judgment, and, more importantly, willing to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

 

Sure, it's nice when the cache owner places his cache with consideration toward helping seekers avoid such problems, but it would never occur to me to blame someone else for my own bad decisions if I were to cause trouble during a cache hunt.

 

It says as much in the standard disclaimer that links from the top of each and every cache page: "Always exercise common sense and caution" and "Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache."

 

 

The real moral of the story is that we should all use our heads when looking for a cache and not do damage to the area. This is true whether you are looking for a cache in the woods or in the asphalt jungle.

This is also true no matter WHAT you're doing -- geocaching or not.

 

Let’s say you’ve just arrived at a friend’s house for a visit. You don’t know for certain whether he’s at home at the moment. You’re not even entirely sure you’re at the right house – he just moved to this part of town last week. You’ve never been here before.

 

As with cache hunting, you start with the most common and obvious (and least damaging and disruptive) ‘find tactic’ in order to determine whether he’s at home. If that doesn’t produce a ‘find,’ you then work your way up to the most damaging/disruptive method with which you’re comfortable until you either get the desired result or you run out of options (or patience).

 

Do you call his home # from your cell phone? Let’s say this option is no good – he doesn’t have a phone installed yet, and he has no cell phone (and cache containers don't answer phones anyway -- this is an analogy ).

• Do you knock lightly on the door? Certainly.
  
• Do you ring the doorbell? Depending on the time of day ... sure, why not.
  
• Do you POUND on the door? Well, maybe, depending on certain factors. Judgment call.
  
• Do you knock on the BACK door? Again, that’s a big maybe. This option also comes with its own set of potential problems. Another judgment call.
  
• Do you stand out front and scream as loud as you can, or reach into your car and lay on the horn? More potential for trouble, and yet another common-sense decision required.
  
• Do you throw rocks at the front window? Not sure. Now we’re talking damage potential.
  
• Do you break in? Depends – just how badly to you need to see this guy (how bad do you need this find)? Is it an emergency? If so, do you look for a hidden key? Smash a window? Kick in the door?
  

What if it turns out that he was unexpectedly away at the moment (like a temporarily disabled cache) – and you could have simply left and come back later? What if it turns out to be the wrong house (like fat-fingered coords) – because you transposed a number in the address?

 

If your friend arrives from an errand a few moments later to see you standing next to his smashed-in front window – or worse, next to his neighbor’s smashed-in front window – are you going to apologize, or are you going to somehow try to blame your friend, the homeowner, for the damage?

 

Each cache seeker is faced with a very similar and very long list of find tactics to choose from when hunting a cache. Which tactics the seeker chooses to use is purely a matter of personal responsibility – a term which, unfortunately, seems to make a lot of people uncomfortable in our present culture of not-my-fault victimhood.

[+KBI]

If this slows down the hiding of these types of caches, I personally do not see this as a loss to the game.

Pardon, your agenda is showing!

Was that an accident or an intentional strawman? You just attributed Team Geoblast's words to sbell111. Sbell111 didn't say that -- he argued against it.

 

Follow your own quote-link to the original post and you’ll see.

[+Too Tall John]

The BBSs have pretty explicit policies about what can and can't be done in the parking lots. Your car parked w/ a For Sale sign is a perfect example. Another manager at a store I worked in noticed a car that was in the lot every day with such a sign. Apparently this is not allowed. It turns out an associate was selling their car, but was still driving it to work. They had to remove the sign!

A parking lot at a BBS is private property, and thus they have a say in everything that happens there. Thus, permission is needed in order to place anything (no matter how benign) in it.

So did they just ask the guy to remove the sign, or did a team of lawyers from WalMart come down on the AutoTrader listing magazine that the car was in, bringing it to it's knees, and eliminating used car sales as we know it?

They asked him to remove the sign. I suspect, however, that if AutoTrader decided that it was a good idea to endorse (which GC.com is basically doing with CPCs by ignoring what's going on) placing used cars in Wal-Mart parking lots the Home Office would have their lawyers all over it.

 

Thank you for the AutoTrader analogy. It is a good one.

 

[+KBI]

As it has been explained before, sometimes the act of obtaining "official" or "documented" permission causes more problems than simply going with the Groundspeak common-sense concept of "adequate permission" -- or as some interpret it, the Frisbee Rule: If you'd feel comfortable playing Frisbee in a given place without first asking anyone for permission, then why would you ask their permission for anything as wholesome and benign as placing a guideline-compliant Geocache there?

Well, first "wholesome and benign" isn't exactly how land-owners unfamiliar with our game might see geocaching.

Only the uninformed ones, as you say.

 

As to the rest, you seem to be saying that asking for permission is sometimes a PITA, so don't do it.

No, I'm not saying that asking for permission is sometimes a PITA so don't do it; I'm saying that REQUIRING each cache owner to not only ask permission for EVERY cache, but to also DOCUMENT such "Permission-Giver Contact Information to the cache page," is unworkable, and would likely grind the entire game to an abrupt halt. I was specificaly responding to your proposal. As I said: I understand the intent if your idea, and it's a good thought, but it would be overkill. You're trying to use a sledge hammer solution on a tweezer-sized problem.

 

This is the 'stick your head in the sand and hope for the best' approach - good luck with it!

Strawman fallacy. The approach I employ has worked perfectly so far, but it is not as you describe it. It is as I described it.

 

The caches of concern in this discussion are generally urban, private and commercial property caches - with limited exception public, rural and forest-land caches can indeed be assumed to have adequate permission.

Then please defend your proposal by describing how you predict all those public, rural and forest-land caches would be affected by your suggestion that each cache owner be required to "Add Placement Permission-Giver Contact Information to the cache page."

[+Team GeoBlast]

If this slows down the hiding of these types of caches, I personally do not see this as a loss to the game.

Pardon, your agenda is showing!

 

Perhaps to some degree it is, but please don't mistake me for a hater or a supporter of banning any one type of cache.

 

In fact, it's been so long since I actually found an LPC, all of this discussion and the systems of carpal tunnel it has caused, makes me what to go do it again. I'm serious about this, I want to see how it feels again because I never knew that so many people enjoyed finding them.

[Mushtang]

The BBSs have pretty explicit policies about what can and can't be done in the parking lots. Your car parked w/ a For Sale sign is a perfect example. Another manager at a store I worked in noticed a car that was in the lot every day with such a sign. Apparently this is not allowed. It turns out an associate was selling their car, but was still driving it to work. They had to remove the sign!

A parking lot at a BBS is private property, and thus they have a say in everything that happens there. Thus, permission is needed in order to place anything (no matter how benign) in it.

So did they just ask the guy to remove the sign, or did a team of lawyers from WalMart come down on the AutoTrader listing magazine that the car was in, bringing it to it's knees, and eliminating used car sales as we know it?

They asked him to remove the sign. I suspect, however, that if AutoTrader decided that it was a good idea to endorse (which GC.com is basically doing with CPCs by ignoring what's going on) placing used cars in Wal-Mart parking lots the Home Office would have their lawyers all over it.

 

Thank you for the AutoTrader analogy. It is a good one.

 

Interesting... so if GC.com doesn't actually say "Go hide micros at WalMart", but they still endorse it by ignoring what's going on (your words), then does that mean that just because something isn't specifically disallowed that makes it endorsed?

 

This reminds me of something you said just up the page in post number 107:

Just because something isn't specifically disallowed does not make it allowed.

 

I'm really confused. Please clarify what it means when someone doesn't say something specific about what is allowed. Does it mean it does not make it allowed, or does it mean it's endorsed?

[+Too Tall John]

Sadly, many cachers only have enough sense to mark coordinates, and place a 35mm canister. They don't have enough sense to think about the implications, and hassle they cause, when they hide caches in bad spots. They (cache hiders lacking common sense) feign ignorance, when someone gets detained by LE because a cacher was seen tampering with an outlet panel on the back of a strip mall. I could spend all day giving other examples of why CPCs create problems.

While I agree that many cache owners could apply a bit more consideration for the finder, it is not the hider’s responsibility to protect the finder from the finder’s own poor judgment. Hence the disclaimer: "Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache."

While I agree that cache seekers are ultimately responsible for their own actions, it is the hider’s responsibility to be sure the risk of a seeker and/or cache being perceived as a threat be kept at a minimum. Hence the guideline: "...think carefully about how your container and the actions of geocachers will be perceived by the public. For example, a cache hidden in full view of office or apartment building windows exposes a geocacher to being seen by someone who may think the cache search looks suspicious. ... Common sense in selecting hiding spots and containers can reduce the risk of your cache being perceived as a danger to those who are unaware of our sport."

[+Team GeoBlast]

I'll be the first to stand up and say, "We need to stop and think about where we're putting caches and how they will be perceived", but forcing me to go city hall every time I want to put a cache in the Greenway or a park is so wrong. What's next? I'm I going to need to get a permission slip from the Parks Department walk along the Riversides trails. I wouldn't want them to think I'm stalking the collage girls that go jogging there. If it's a PUBLIC use area, why do I need more paperwork?

 

Now privately owned land is different.

 

Edit fur spellin

 

I agree with this completely. It's not prudent to treat these two situations as equal.

[+sbell111]

If this slows down the hiding of these types of caches, I personally do not see this as a loss to the game.

Pardon, your agenda is showing!

Ummm, I didn't post that, someone else did.

[+KBI]

The BBSs have pretty explicit policies about what can and can't be done in the parking lots. Your car parked w/ a For Sale sign is a perfect example. Another manager at a store I worked in noticed a car that was in the lot every day with such a sign. Apparently this is not allowed. It turns out an associate was selling their car, but was still driving it to work. They had to remove the sign!

A parking lot at a BBS is private property, and thus they have a say in everything that happens there. Thus, permission is needed in order to place anything (no matter how benign) in it.

So did they just ask the guy to remove the sign, or did a team of lawyers from WalMart come down on the AutoTrader listing magazine that the car was in, bringing it to it's knees, and eliminating used car sales as we know it?

They asked him to remove the sign. I suspect, however, that if AutoTrader decided that it was a good idea to endorse (which GC.com is basically doing with CPCs by ignoring what's going on) placing used cars in Wal-Mart parking lots the Home Office would have their lawyers all over it.

 

Thank you for the AutoTrader analogy. It is a good one.

 

Yes it is, and that's a huge stretch. I would suspect that many employees' cars with 'For Sale' signs in employers' parking lots are also listed in the Auto Trader. Even if every one of those Auto Trader ads listed the address to the respective parking lot to allow prospective buyers to view the car in person, I doubt the Home Office would send a team of lawyers after the Auto Trader magazine itself. At the MOST they would simply ask the car owner to delete the address from the listing in addition to having them remove the sign from the car, and even then it's probably a rare occurrence that they would ever bother to go that far.

 

"For Sale" signs in cars in parking lots do not constitute a "serious threat" to the Auto Trader.

 

Lamp Post Caches in parking lots do not constitute a "serious threat" to the game of Geocaching.

[+Too Tall John]

Interesting... so if GC.com doesn't actually say "Go hide micros at WalMart", but they still endorse it by ignoring what's going on (your words), then does that mean that just because something isn't specifically disallowed that makes it endorsed?

 

This reminds me of something you said just up the page in post number 107:

Just because something isn't specifically disallowed does not make it allowed.

 

I'm really confused. Please clarify what it means when someone doesn't say something specific about what is allowed. Does it mean it does not make it allowed, or does it mean it's endorsed?

Just because GC.com is endorsing CPCs w/out permission (didn't someone have a clever acronym for that?) doesn't make it right. My two statements were in reference to the rights of a landowner, but from opposite ends. One stating that a landowner had the right to allow/disallow whatever it wants on the property, the other pointing to the fact that GC.com doesn't have that right.

[Mushtang]

Interesting... so if GC.com doesn't actually say "Go hide micros at WalMart", but they still endorse it by ignoring what's going on (your words), then does that mean that just because something isn't specifically disallowed that makes it endorsed?

 

This reminds me of something you said just up the page in post number 107:

Just because something isn't specifically disallowed does not make it allowed.

 

I'm really confused. Please clarify what it means when someone doesn't say something specific about what is allowed. Does it mean it does not make it allowed, or does it mean it's endorsed?

Just because GC.com is endorsing CPCs w/out permission (didn't someone have a clever acronym for that?) doesn't make it right. My two statements were in reference to the rights of a landowner, but from opposite ends. One stating that a landowner had the right to allow/disallow whatever it wants on the property, the other pointing to the fact that GC.com doesn't have that right.

You missed my point completely. GC.com is NOT "endorsing" CPCs without permission. Earlier you said that not saying "no" does not mean "yes", but now you're suggesting it does.

 

You can't argue both sides of the debate and make valid points.

[+sbell111]

I've said it before, a lot, but here it is again!

 

Add Placement Permission-Giver Contact Information to the cache page!

I believe that this would result in landowners who previously gave permission rescinding it because they were sick of well intentioned geocops contacting them to verify it.

[+Too Tall John]

The BBSs have pretty explicit policies about what can and can't be done in the parking lots. Your car parked w/ a For Sale sign is a perfect example. Another manager at a store I worked in noticed a car that was in the lot every day with such a sign. Apparently this is not allowed. It turns out an associate was selling their car, but was still driving it to work. They had to remove the sign!

A parking lot at a BBS is private property, and thus they have a say in everything that happens there. Thus, permission is needed in order to place anything (no matter how benign) in it.

So did they just ask the guy to remove the sign, or did a team of lawyers from WalMart come down on the AutoTrader listing magazine that the car was in, bringing it to it's knees, and eliminating used car sales as we know it?

They asked him to remove the sign. I suspect, however, that if AutoTrader decided that it was a good idea to endorse (which GC.com is basically doing with CPCs by ignoring what's going on) placing used cars in Wal-Mart parking lots the Home Office would have their lawyers all over it.

 

Thank you for the AutoTrader analogy. It is a good one.

 

Yes it is, and that's a huge stretch. I would suspect that many employees' cars with 'For Sale' signs in employers' parking lots are also listed in the Auto Trader. Even if every one of those Auto Trader ads listed the address to the respective parking lot to allow prospective buyers to view the car in person, I doubt the Home Office would send a team of lawyers after the Auto Trader magazine itself. At the MOST they would simply ask the car owner to delete the address from the listing in addition to having them remove the sign from the car, and even then it's probably a rare occurrence that they would ever bother to go that far.

 

"For Sale" signs in cars in parking lots do not constitute a "serious threat" to the Auto Trader.

 

Lamp Post Caches in parking lots do not constitute a "serious threat" to the game of Geocaching.

Read what I said:

I suspect, however, that if AutoTrader decided that it was a good idea to endorse... placing used cars in Wal-Mart parking lots the Home Office would have their lawyers all over it.

That's pretty reasonable, if you think about it.

 

Auto Trader telling people to go park their cars in a BBS parking lot constitutes a "serious threat" to the Auto Trader.

 

GC.com telling people that it is ok to place CPCs w/out permission constitutes a "serious threat" to the game of Geocaching.

 

One has happened, the other hasn't.

[+KBI]

Sadly, many cachers only have enough sense to mark coordinates, and place a 35mm canister. They don't have enough sense to think about the implications, and hassle they cause, when they hide caches in bad spots. They (cache hiders lacking common sense) feign ignorance, when someone gets detained by LE because a cacher was seen tampering with an outlet panel on the back of a strip mall. I could spend all day giving other examples of why CPCs create problems.

While I agree that many cache owners could apply a bit more consideration for the finder, it is not the hider’s responsibility to protect the finder from the finder’s own poor judgment. Hence the disclaimer: "Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache."

While I agree that cache seekers are ultimately responsible for their own actions, it is the hider’s responsibility to be sure the risk of a seeker and/or cache being perceived as a threat be kept at a minimum. Hence the guideline: "...think carefully about how your container and the actions of geocachers will be perceived by the public.

I disagree with your interpretation of that guideline.

 

Suggesting that hiders "think carefully" is a great suggestion, and one that I follow myself to the point of being anal about it, but it does NOT necessarily imply that "it is the hider’s responsibility to be sure the risk of a seeker ... being perceived as a threat be kept at a minimum." No hider can forsee every possible bad judgment call that a cache seeker might make.

 

As you said yourself: Cache seekers are ultimately responsible for their own actions.

 

For example, a cache hidden in full view of office or apartment building windows exposes a geocacher to being seen by someone who may think the cache search looks suspicious. ... Common sense in selecting hiding spots and containers can reduce the risk of your cache being perceived as a danger to those who are unaware of our sport."

Common sense when placing caches can reduce the risk, as the guideline states, but it can't eliminate it. Hiders can (and should) control their own hides, but they can't control those who seek their hides.

[Mushtang]

GC.com telling people that it is ok to place CPCs w/out permission constitutes a "serious threat" to the game of Geocaching.

 

One has happened, the other hasn't.

Please show me where on the site, or anywhere else, GC.com told people it was okay to place CPCs without permission.

 

(crickets)

[+KBI]

The BBSs have pretty explicit policies about what can and can't be done in the parking lots. Your car parked w/ a For Sale sign is a perfect example. Another manager at a store I worked in noticed a car that was in the lot every day with such a sign. Apparently this is not allowed. It turns out an associate was selling their car, but was still driving it to work. They had to remove the sign!

A parking lot at a BBS is private property, and thus they have a say in everything that happens there. Thus, permission is needed in order to place anything (no matter how benign) in it.

So did they just ask the guy to remove the sign, or did a team of lawyers from WalMart come down on the AutoTrader listing magazine that the car was in, bringing it to it's knees, and eliminating used car sales as we know it?

They asked him to remove the sign. I suspect, however, that if AutoTrader decided that it was a good idea to endorse (which GC.com is basically doing with CPCs by ignoring what's going on) placing used cars in Wal-Mart parking lots the Home Office would have their lawyers all over it.

 

Thank you for the AutoTrader analogy. It is a good one.

 

Yes it is, and that's a huge stretch. I would suspect that many employees' cars with 'For Sale' signs in employers' parking lots are also listed in the Auto Trader. Even if every one of those Auto Trader ads listed the address to the respective parking lot to allow prospective buyers to view the car in person, I doubt the Home Office would send a team of lawyers after the Auto Trader magazine itself. At the MOST they would simply ask the car owner to delete the address from the listing in addition to having them remove the sign from the car, and even then it's probably a rare occurrence that they would ever bother to go that far.

 

"For Sale" signs in cars in parking lots do not constitute a "serious threat" to the Auto Trader.

 

Lamp Post Caches in parking lots do not constitute a "serious threat" to the game of Geocaching.

Read what I said:

I suspect, however, that if AutoTrader decided that it was a good idea to endorse... placing used cars in Wal-Mart parking lots the Home Office would have their lawyers all over it.

That's pretty reasonable, if you think about it.

 

Auto Trader telling people to go park their cars in a BBS parking lot constitutes a "serious threat" to the Auto Trader.

I agree with that statement, but if that's what you really meant to say then you weren't responding to Mushtang's analogy at all; you were merely being irrelevent and off-topic. Mushtang was pointing out that Home Office lawyers would not waste their time on the Auto Trader if an employee were to place a sign in his car window, a car that also happened to be listed in the magazine.

 

GC.com telling people that it is ok to place CPCs w/out permission constitutes a "serious threat" to the game of Geocaching.

 

One has happened, the other hasn't.

Really? Which one has happened?

[+Team GeoBlast]

Add Placement Permission-Giver Contact Information to the cache page!

The perfect solution to the problem, Ed.

If you want to talk about something that would be "bad for the game," that's one right there.

 

I recently placed my very first Earthcache: Norcross Divided. The folks who approve all Earchcaches, the Geological Society of America, are VERY strict about obtaining permission. While they don't actually require the cache owner to post the permission grantor's information on the cache page itself, as TheAlabamaRambler suggests, their guidelines DO require contact information (name and contact details -- see item number 6) to be included in the online cache submission form.

 

The resulting hassle and runaround I encountered while trying to obtain the required permission for this Earthcache very nearly caused me to give up. My cache is clearly a candidate for the ol' Frisbee Rule: It merely requires cachers to go to the posted coordinates (an out-of-the-way corner of a parking lot in the park) and look around for a few minutes in order to answer a few questions.

 

When I asked the local Person In Charge, he wavered and waffled for a while before finally deciding that he was afraid to stick his neck out, and referred me to his supervisor. When I finally was able to make contact with the elusive Supervisor, he wavered and waffled for a while before finally deciding that he was afraid to stick HIS neck out, and referred me to HIS boss. I followed several dead-end leads (naively believing that the parks department website was accurate and up-to-date) before locating the correct boss. When I finally made contact with the elusive boss, I got lucky -- only because he was familiar with our local caching organization and had given a talk at an Event meeting. Otherwise I'm convinced he would have sent me even farther up the line -- or, worse, simply said no ... because it's easier for a bureaucrat to say no than to risk his job.

 

The whole process took several weeks and about two dozen phone calls. I’m a patient person -- I think most people would have given up early on. I now understand why there aren't more Earthcaches.

 

My brother put it best: "All that, just to get permission for people to go to a public park and look around for a few minutes?!?"

 

I think an "Add Placement Permission-Giver Contact Information to the cache page" rule is a bad idea. I understand the intent, and it's a good thought, but it would seem to be overkill. It might solve a small problem, but it would also take down a majority of first-rate existing (and future) caches in the process. It's called "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

 

As it has been explained before, sometimes the act of obtaining "official" or "documented" permission causes more problems than simply going with the Groundspeak common-sense concept of "adequate permission" -- or as some interpret it, the Frisbee Rule: If you'd feel comfortable playing Frisbee in a given place without first asking anyone for permission, then why would you ask their permission for anything as wholesome and benign as placing a guideline-compliant Geocache there?

 

I'd have to agree that is a lot to go through to place a cache with nothing physically place at the location. I suppose I will add it to another reason that I feel that earthcaches are special and if I am traveling, why I will at a minimum always read every one of the cache pages. They present an interesting opportunity to learn about an area and someone obviously had to think long and hard about placing one. The fact that the content and hide is really reviewed, to me, is a good thing. Thanks for the trouble you went through.

 

Allow me to apply this to a Walmart hide for a moment. If someone would actually take the time and energy to go through their matrix as you did just once and get real permission, this would not be necessary for each and every cache placed on their property. Walmart would then fall into the Cracker Barrel category of already obtained top down permission. If that happened, just once, and then all the hider would need to do is check in with the local store manager.

 

Not a five minute hide like it is now but a twenty minute hide.

[+Team GeoBlast]

GC.com telling people that it is ok to place CPCs w/out permission constitutes a "serious threat" to the game of Geocaching.

 

One has happened, the other hasn't.

Please show me where on the site, or anywhere else, GC.com told people it was okay to place CPCs without permission.

 

(crickets)

 

It's done so frequently and that it's logical that a hider would assume that permission was granted to somebody, sometime, at someplace.

Edited March 9, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[Mushtang]

GC.com telling people that it is ok to place CPCs w/out permission constitutes a "serious threat" to the game of Geocaching.

 

One has happened, the other hasn't.

Please show me where on the site, or anywhere else, GC.com told people it was okay to place CPCs without permission.

 

(crickets)

 

It's done so frequently and that it's logical that a hider would assume that permission was granted to somebody, sometime, at someplace.

That doesn't mean that GC.com has said that it's okay to place LPCs without permission.

Edited March 9, 2007 by Mushtang

[+Totem Clan]

GC.com telling people that it is ok to place CPCs w/out permission constitutes a "serious threat" to the game of Geocaching.

 

One has happened, the other hasn't.

Please show me where on the site, or anywhere else, GC.com told people it was okay to place CPCs without permission.

 

(crickets)

 

It's done so frequently and that it's logical that a hider would assume that permission was granted to somebody, sometime, at someplace.

We all know what happens when we "assume".

[+KBI]

If someone would actually take the time and energy to go through their matrix as you did just once and get real permission, this would not be necessary for each and every cache placed on their property. Walmart would then fall into the Cracker Barrel category of already obtained top down permission. If that happened, just once, and then all the hider would need to do is check in with the local store manager.

 

Not a five minute hide like it is now but a twenty minute hide.

If that could be accomplished I certainly would not be opposed to it.

 

For the sake of argument let's assume that it can and will be done -- for Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and every single other business out there which owns or manages a public parking lot. Do you think that would satisfy those people, who our Original Poster refers to in his original post, who consistently preach that so-called "lame" hides constitute a threat to the game?

 

Tozainamboku uses the Chicken Little analogy because he believes the potential problems being discussed here are being exaggerated, and I tend to agree with his analysis.

 

As he points out, these problems apply to ALL types of caches, yet to some people they only seem to cause concern in relation to certain controversial types of caches.

[+Team GeoBlast]

If someone would actually take the time and energy to go through their matrix as you did just once and get real permission, this would not be necessary for each and every cache placed on their property. Walmart would then fall into the Cracker Barrel category of already obtained top down permission. If that happened, just once, and then all the hider would need to do is check in with the local store manager.

 

Not a five minute hide like it is now but a twenty minute hide.

If that could be accomplished I certainly would not be opposed to it.

 

For the sake of argument let's assume that it can and will be done -- for Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and every single other business out there which owns or manages a public parking lot. Do you think that would satisfy those people, who our Original Poster refers to in his original post, who consistently preach that so-called "lame" hides constitute a threat to the game?

 

Tozainamboku uses the Chicken Little analogy because he believes the potential problems being discussed here are being exaggerated, and I tend to agree with his analysis.

 

As he points out, these problems apply to ALL types of caches, yet to some people they only seem to cause concern in relation to certain controversial types of caches.

 

I can only speak for myself. If I knew that there was knowledge and permission at a higher corporate level, I would be totally satisfied. As for the "but it's lame" argument, this completely validates the "then don't get out of your car" response. The standard accompanying statement "why should this concern you?" also has more teeth too. It truly cannot affect everyone playing the game.

 

I favor risk management for the game of geocaching and I see the Chicken Little analogy as a bit careless and uninformed. I've done my homework on this and talked to a corporate lawyer (a relative) about it and presented a "what if" scenario. He spent at least an hour reviewing the permission slip and what he said was not to my liking nor would it be to anyone who wants to keep caching the way we cache today. For the record, I found his keen interest in something he terms as "actionable" quite distrubing on a lot of levels. So, to me, the existence of the possibility is something to consider and it is not far fetched at all.

 

However, if there's a top down knowledge of the game of geocaching being played on a BBS property (or other deep pocket commercial owner) then my worst case scenario of legal action against GC.com and or worse making some poor cacher an example and prosecuting him or her becomes a lot less likely. So, yes, I'm cool at that point.

Edited March 9, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+tozainamboku]

Auto Trader telling people to go park their cars in a BBS parking lot constitutes a "serious threat" to the Auto Trader.

 

GC.com telling people that it is ok to place CPCs w/out permission constitutes a "serious threat" to the game of Geocaching.

 

One has happened, the other hasn't.

The guidelines at Geocaching.com are that you get adequate permission before placing a cache (on either private or public property). There is disagreement among geocachers and perhaps even among reviewers as to the definition of adequate. It is quite a reach to go from there to saying the GC.com is telling people it is OK to place CPCs without permission.

 

TTJ may think that the BBS will think that the adequate guideline as it interpreted by some geocachers and reviewers might be saying - It's OK to put a cache there because its a public parking lot. Geocaching.com has never come right out to say that - perhaps so if the BBS were to accuse them of it they could plausibly deny that intent. I believe the word adequate is used to leave it up to the cache hider as to what kind of permission they need to get. In some cases you may want to have a verbal approval of a store manager, in others a letter from the corporate office. I don't think it makes sense for a big box store, but perhaps in a parking lot at the city park or rec. center where there is already a policy allowing caches in the park you might not need any additional permission.

[+tozainamboku]

Tozainamboku uses the Chicken Little analogy because he believes the potential problems being discussed here are being exaggerated, and I tend to agree with his analysis.

 

As he points out, these problems apply to ALL types of caches, yet to some people they only seem to cause concern in relation to certain controversial types of caches.

I wish KBI wouldn't put words in my mouth. But then he has his reputation to maintain.

 

For the most part people have been playing well here and avoiding calling for a ban on any particular kind of cache. Certainly the location of the cache is one of the issues that causes the problems in my original post. So it's fine to refer to CPCs (both with and without permission). Permission of some type may help alleviate the problems (if they are real) but won't eliminate the problems.

[+K0BKL]

There are other types of locations that are troublesome.

Homo hangouts. One cache near Burlington IA was archived,

because of the kind of visitors the site was having, and not

very far from the cache.

I am watching closely several of my sites, for the same reason.

Any problems like this reported could result in the caches being

withrawn. Strange type people can ruin the day!

[+sbell111]

... I've done my homework on this and talked to a corporate lawyer (a relative) about it and presented a "what if" scenario. He spent at least an hour reviewing the permission slip and what he said was not to my liking nor would it be to anyone who wants to keep caching the way we cache today. For the record, I found his keen interest in something he terms as "actionable" quite distrubing on a lot of levels. So, to me, the existence of the possibility is something to consider and it is not far fetched at all. ...

I think we can all agree that there are plenty of lawyers out there that would consider nearly everything 'actionable'. This opinion doesn't make me automatically defer to them.

There are other types of locations that are troublesome.

Homo hangouts. One cache near Burlington IA was archived,

because of the kind of visitors the site was having, and not

very far from the cache.

I am watching closely several of my sites, for the same reason.

Any problems like this reported could result in the caches being

withrawn. Strange type people can ruin the day!

The sad thing is that if we would get out there and use the parks for 'good' activities (like geocaching), the individuals that use the parks for 'bad' activities (like pickle parking) would move along to more private locations.

[+KBI]

Tozainamboku uses the Chicken Little analogy because he believes the potential problems being discussed here are being exaggerated, and I tend to agree with his analysis.

 

As he points out, these problems apply to ALL types of caches, yet to some people they only seem to cause concern in relation to certain controversial types of caches.

I wish KBI wouldn't put words in my mouth.

Where did I do that? All the things I quoted you as saying are straight from your original post.

 

If I misconstrued you somehow, please correct me.

 

But then he has his reputation to maintain.

What reputation is that, Toz?

 

I know you better than to think you'd hide behind a personal attack.

 

For the most part people have been playing well here and avoiding calling for a ban on any particular kind of cache. Certainly the location of the cache is one of the issues that causes the problems in my original post. So it's fine to refer to CPCs (both with and without permission). Permission of some type may help alleviate the problems (if they are real) but won't eliminate the problems.

If and when the permission issue is solved to everyone's satisfaction, those who are opposed to the very existence of certain types of caches, and who have called for such bans in the past, will likely switch to another tactic for pushing their agenda. I know that’s just speculation, but it has happened before.

[+KBI]

... I've done my homework on this and talked to a corporate lawyer (a relative) about it and presented a "what if" scenario. He spent at least an hour reviewing the permission slip and what he said was not to my liking nor would it be to anyone who wants to keep caching the way we cache today. For the record, I found his keen interest in something he terms as "actionable" quite distrubing on a lot of levels. So, to me, the existence of the possibility is something to consider and it is not far fetched at all. ...

I think we can all agree that there are plenty of lawyers out there that would consider nearly everything 'actionable'. This opinion doesn't make me automatically defer to them.

I think it's also safe to assume that Groundspeak has long ago done their own homework and availed themselves of the advice of their own carefully chosen legal experts, and that they continue to consult with their lawyers as circumstances dictate.

[Mushtang]

... I've done my homework on this and talked to a corporate lawyer (a relative) about it and presented a "what if" scenario. He spent at least an hour reviewing the permission slip and what he said was not to my liking nor would it be to anyone who wants to keep caching the way we cache today. For the record, I found his keen interest in something he terms as "actionable" quite distrubing on a lot of levels. So, to me, the existence of the possibility is something to consider and it is not far fetched at all. ...

I think we can all agree that there are plenty of lawyers out there that would consider nearly everything 'actionable'. This opinion doesn't make me automatically defer to them.

I think it's also safe to assume that Groundspeak has long ago done their own homework and availed themselves of the advice of their own carefully chosen legal experts, and that they continue to consult with their lawyers as circumstances dictate.

Yeah, Jeremy talked to a relative (his brother-in-law's sister's cousin) and they said it was okay to go with "adequate" permission.

 

It's hard to believe that one lawyer would disagree with another lawyer, but it looks like this is the case.

[+sbell111]

If all lawyers agreed, we wouldn't need lawyers.

[+TMAACA]

Could someone explain to me how permission makes any difference in problem cache placement - because I just can't see the connection?? It seems to me that it is not permission, or lack thereof, that makes a problem placement. The multiple threads on this topic seem to indicate a problem placement arises almost exclusively when a cache is placed in such a way that it attracts the attention of what I can only characterize as "a needlessly paranoid element of society". Someone will invariably call the police when they see someone poking around an area and all the permission is the world doesn't really matter after the police/bomb squad/National Guard respond - the cache just became a problem - permission or not.

 

The solution seems to be to hide your cache (wherever and whatever it is) in an area that allows the seeker a chance to be discrete in finding it. And of course, get permission because that is a guideline of the game.