Potential Problem Caches

[+sbell111]

This is where electronic media has failed us. No, I am not snapping my fingers at all, my palms are placed together like I am preparing to pray. I'd like to move forward.

And yet, no one is stopping you from doing just that. Normally, when people wish to move on, they just do it. They don't lament about the decision for ever. Edited March 11, 2007 by sbell111

[+Team GeoBlast]

I'd like to pose a question to KBI, sbell111, Mushtang and TAR:

In your opinion, what would be the most likely outcome of someone approaching a BBS headquarters asking for blanket permission?

(No, I neither suggest or support this action)

First, I doubt that blanket permission would be given. I suspect that they would want to handle this issue on a case-by-case basis. That being said, I think I already answered your question in this post:

Or, are you suggesting that if someone -really- asked permission and it was brought to their attention what was -really- happening on their property on a global level that geocaching would get banned on their property?

I think that it's all about the negotiating skills and motivations of the asker. I'm pretty sure that one of those that posted in the other thread with an axe to grind could get them denied very quickly. (BTW, I also still believe that it's silly to believe that Wal-Mart and most other corporations aren't already well aware of geocaching and would have taken action if they thought that it was a problem. Further, forcing the corporate powers that be to make a formal decision regarding it may result in denial since they would no longer be able to maintain plausible deniability.

 

If a manager gave explict permission on a local level, in any kind of written form. And the cache owner did as promised, maintained it and took care of it, I think this is a possible first step toward blanket permission. Until someone steps up and says that they have actually done this, I am going to assume that even this step is unexplored.

Apparently you completely missed this post. Clan Riffster says he's gotten permission for a CPC, so don't assume that this is unexplored.

 

No offense, but I've never heard of that store. There was also someone who said they got permission at a fishing tackle store too. I'm not ignoring that and I think it is great. When I say BBS, I am talking about national or international chains. Someone who would have the inclination to address geocaching in a system wide ban using legal force against GC.com.

[+Team GeoBlast]

This is where electronic media has failed us. No, I am not snapping my fingers at all, my palms are placed together like I am preparing to pray. I'd like to move forward.

And yet, no one is stopping you from doing just that. Normally, when people wish to move on, they just do it. They don't lament about the decision for ever.

 

Okay.. I'm actually willing to step into the real world on this issue since you are not. I just need your promise that you aren't going to do a turn coat on me and start calling me a geocop later. I will happily divert some energy to actually obtaining permission per GC.com guideline from my local Walmart.

Edited March 11, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+sbell111]

If a manager gave explict permission on a local level, in any kind of written form. And the cache owner did as promised, maintained it and took care of it, I think this is a possible first step toward blanket permission. Until someone steps up and says that they have actually done this, I am going to assume that even this step is unexplored.

Apparently you completely missed this post. Clan Riffster says he's gotten permission for a CPC, so don't assume that this is unexplored.

No offense, but I've never heard of that store. There was also someone who said they got permission at a fishing tackle store too. I'm not ignoring that and I think it is great. When I say BBS, I am talking about national or international chains. Someone who would have the inclination to address geocaching in a system wide ban using legal force against GC.com.

You won't accept it because there are no Winn-Dixies in Hawaii? That kind of souds like a dodge, to me.

 

I guess you aren't going to accept TAR's example of a Wal-Mart manager tacit approval because no approval was written, notorized, and messengered to you.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Bison Tube Bomb Scare!

 

Another bit of media-driven insanity! http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=...&id=5110698

 

The police handled it with sense and professionalism.

 

And the response from GC.com?

 

(crickets)

[+sbell111]

This is where electronic media has failed us. No, I am not snapping my fingers at all, my palms are placed together like I am preparing to pray. I'd like to move forward.

And yet, no one is stopping you from doing just that. Normally, when people wish to move on, they just do it. They don't lament about the decision for ever.

Okay.. I'm actually willing to step into the real world on this issue since you are not. I just need your promise that you aren't going to do a turn coat on me and start calling me a geocop later. I will happily divert some energy to actually obtaining permission per GC.com guideline from my local Walmart.

If you are threatening to attempt to obtain global 'approval' for caches that you clearly don't like, I'm going to be calling you harsher names than that. Edited March 11, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Bison Tube Bomb Scare!

 

Another bit of media-driven insanity! http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=...&id=5110698

 

The police handled it with sense and professionalism.

And the response from GC.com?

 

(crickets)

Why would TPTB need to respond to this. It clearly turned into a non-issue.

 

It is clear that you are just trying to cause angst. You cannot be satisfied because your arguments are unreasonable, in my opinion.

Edited March 11, 2007 by sbell111

[Clan Riffster]

My thoughts to my own question closely mirror TAR's & sbell's. It's been my, (limited), experience that working through the layers betwixt us lowly mortals and the big cheeses would prove frustrating and prohibitive at best. If one of us somehow made it through all the layers, the big cheese would say "No", for liability reasons if for no other. Once a corporation blesses an activity on their property, the corporation can technically be perceived by a civil jury as being liable for any injuries resulting from their permission. Those ambulance chasers lawyers who make their living suing people love going after corporations, cuz they know the corporation is statistically likely to settle out of court, and that corporation will have a large amount of $$$ to draw from for that settlement.

 

That's why I stayed local in my permission search for my CPC. Winn Dixie, (where my CPC is), is a much smaller entity than Wally World, however, I still think their corporate office would say "No" if asked about blanket permission. If I were a big cheese of a corporate entity, I would certainly say "No" to geocaching on our business properties.

 

It is my stated belief that CPC's without explicit permission are bad for the game. Quite a few of the latest posts seem geared toward what I, (or anyone else who shares this belief), should do about that belief. The actions I've decided on are threefold: 1) Lead by example by obtaining explicit permission on any CPC I hide. 2) Educate the caching public by stating my belief whenever possible. 3) Promote the suggestion that Groundspeak direct their reviewers to determine if explicit permission has been granted for any submitted CPC.

[+Team GeoBlast]

This is where electronic media has failed us. No, I am not snapping my fingers at all, my palms are placed together like I am preparing to pray. I'd like to move forward.

And yet, no one is stopping you from doing just that. Normally, when people wish to move on, they just do it. They don't lament about the decision for ever.

Okay.. I'm actually willing to step into the real world on this issue since you are not. I just need your promise that you aren't going to do a turn coat on me and start calling me a geocop later. I will happily divert some energy to actually obtaining permission per GC.com guideline from my local Walmart.

If you are threatening to attempt to obtain global 'approval' for caches that you clearly don't like, I'm going to be calling you harsher names than that.

 

I am just not willing to accept statements like "I think they already know."

 

Oh, and I was timing you this time, do you realize that it took you less than 24 hours to forget that if a cache was placed at any BBS store under current GC.com guidelines, I have no problems with finding, logging it, and doing a lil jig afterwards? If going through correct channels to get a geocache placed is what is bothering you, just say so.

 

Why do you and others keep wanting to use the word Ban? Do you feel it makes your position stronger or something?

[+sbell111]

...Why do you and others keep wanting to use the word Ban? Do you feel it makes your position stronger or something?

I can only speak for myself, but I use it because you were for it in the other thread. I assume that your beliefs haven't changed just because you are posting in a new thread.

[+Team GeoBlast]

The actions I've decided on are threefold: 1) Lead by example by obtaining explicit permission on any CPC I hide. 2) Educate the caching public by stating my belief whenever possible. 3) Promote the suggestion that Groundspeak direct their reviewers to determine if explicit permission has been granted for any submitted CPC.

 

All hail the Ranster.

[Clan Riffster]

No offense, but I've never heard of that store.

No offense taken. Winn Dixie is a fairly small chain of grocery stores. Here is a list of all their stores. I haven't counted, but it looks to be at least a couple hundred. Winn Dixie only covers 5 states, as this map indicates.

 

I will happily divert some energy to actually obtaining permission per GC.com guideline from my local Walmart.

TGB, I don't know if those of us in Camp 3 have any influence, but in case we do, let me be the first to ask you not to do this. The consequences can not be forseen, and might result in geotragedy. Can we just stick to asking folks to obtain explicit, local permission?

[+Team GeoBlast]

...Why do you and others keep wanting to use the word Ban? Do you feel it makes your position stronger or something?

I can only speak for myself, but I use it because you were for it in the other thread. I assume that your beliefs haven't changed just because you are posting in a new thread.

 

I will admit to thinking a lot about this in the last month. Far more than I ever had in the past. If I ever did say that I was for an outright ban, which I don't think I ever actually said, then I've changed my mind. K?

[+sbell111]

...Why do you and others keep wanting to use the word Ban? Do you feel it makes your position stronger or something?

I can only speak for myself, but I use it because you were for it in the other thread. I assume that your beliefs haven't changed just because you are posting in a new thread.

I will admit to thinking a lot about this in the last month. Far more than I ever had in the past. If I ever did say that I was for an outright ban, which I don't think I ever actually said, then I've changed my mind. K?

Do you see what you did, there?

[+sbell111]

No offense, but I've never heard of that store.

No offense taken. Winn Dixie is a fairly small chain of grocery stores. Here is a list of all their stores. I haven't counted, but it looks to be at least a couple hundred. Winn Dixie only covers 5 states, as this map indicates.

Huh. They used to be more widespread. I know that they used to be in Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and (I think) Arkansas. Times, they are achanging. Edited March 11, 2007 by sbell111

[+Team GeoBlast]

No offense, but I've never heard of that store.

No offense taken. Winn Dixie is a fairly small chain of grocery stores. Here is a list of all their stores. I haven't counted, but it looks to be at least a couple hundred. Winn Dixie only covers 5 states, as this map indicates.

 

I will happily divert some energy to actually obtaining permission per GC.com guideline from my local Walmart.

TGB, I don't know if those of us in Camp 3 have any influence, but in case we do, let me be the first to ask you not to do this. The consequences can not be forseen, and might result in geotragedy. Can we just stick to asking folks to obtain explicit, local permission?

 

I appreciate you saying this and do not take offense to it all. It could be that I am the only one that feels that we've over discussed this and need to move to the next level. Would you be opposed to starting at the local Walmart manager as well? If so, then I think I might need a subset of my own.

[+sbell111]

I appreciate you saying this and do not take offense to it all. It could be that I am the only one that feels that we've over discussed this and need to move to the next level. Would you be opposed to starting at the local Walmart manager as well? If so, then I think I might need a subset of my own.

If you are not planning on hiding a cache there, don't go through the motions of asking permission. Based on the following post, I don't believe that you are really planning on hiding such a cache.

It's the trend, not the cache, that bothers me. The faster, easier, and quicker part equates into massive growth of numbers of cache hides. I believe this trend is not good for the game and it's future. I think at some point it will reach a critical mass and cause problems for everyone that plays the game. This is why I care.

 

I support managing the growth from this point forward. I'm okay with leaving every existing LPC PLC CPC hide in place unless there's a individual local problem with them. However, I just don't see the value of millions more of the same.

[Clan Riffster]

Would you be opposed to starting at the local Walmart manager as well?

Not at all. My next CPC is going to be at a new Wally World going up a few miles from my home. Prior to it being placed, it'll have explicit permission from the local management. It's gonna be a skirt lifter/film canister titled "Lame Caching 101", focused on teaching folks how to create the lamest cache possible. I was hoping to find the link to the lame cache log generator, but my Markwelling skills leave a lot to be desired. If I find that link, I'll encourage folks to use it to log their finds.

 

Edit to add: Kit Fox found the link for me. Thanx Brother!

http://loungingatwalden.googlepages.com/RandomLog.html

Edited March 11, 2007 by Clan Riffster

[Clan Riffster]

I think I might need a subset of my own.

Talk to that Mushtang guy. He's handing out tents today.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I appreciate you saying this and do not take offense to it all. It could be that I am the only one that feels that we've over discussed this and need to move to the next level. Would you be opposed to starting at the local Walmart manager as well? If so, then I think I might need a subset of my own.

If you are not planning on hiding a cache there, don't go through the motions of asking permission. Based on the following post, I don't believe that you are really planning on hiding such a cache.

It's the trend, not the cache, that bothers me. The faster, easier, and quicker part equates into massive growth of numbers of cache hides. I believe this trend is not good for the game and it's future. I think at some point it will reach a critical mass and cause problems for everyone that plays the game. This is why I care.

 

I support managing the growth from this point forward. I'm okay with leaving every existing LPC PLC CPC hide in place unless there's a individual local problem with them. However, I just don't see the value of millions more of the same.

 

Actually, I would place a cache there for the sake of this discussion. I'll post you a link when it gets approved. .

[+Team GeoBlast]

I appreciate you saying this and do not take offense to it all. It could be that I am the only one that feels that we've over discussed this and need to move to the next level. Would you be opposed to starting at the local Walmart manager as well? If so, then I think I might need a subset of my own.

If you are not planning on hiding a cache there, don't go through the motions of asking permission. Based on the following post, I don't believe that you are really planning on hiding such a cache.

It's the trend, not the cache, that bothers me. The faster, easier, and quicker part equates into massive growth of numbers of cache hides. I believe this trend is not good for the game and it's future. I think at some point it will reach a critical mass and cause problems for everyone that plays the game. This is why I care.

 

I support managing the growth from this point forward. I'm okay with leaving every existing LPC PLC CPC hide in place unless there's a individual local problem with them. However, I just don't see the value of millions more of the same.

 

You seem to be diametrically opposed to doing anything at all but arguing the same point over and over too. I do not have the same tolerance for spending my time like that. I'd just rather go find out. If it requires action or energy expended on my part, so be it.

 

Wally World here I come!

[+Team GeoBlast]

No offense, but I've never heard of that store.

No offense taken. Winn Dixie is a fairly small chain of grocery stores. Here is a list of all their stores. I haven't counted, but it looks to be at least a couple hundred. Winn Dixie only covers 5 states, as this map indicates.

Huh. They used to be more widespread. I know that they used to be in Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and (I think) Arkansas. Times, they are achanging.

 

Shocking that I have never seen one in Hawaii or during any of my travel in the western US huh?

[+Team GeoBlast]

...Why do you and others keep wanting to use the word Ban? Do you feel it makes your position stronger or something?

I can only speak for myself, but I use it because you were for it in the other thread. I assume that your beliefs haven't changed just because you are posting in a new thread.

I will admit to thinking a lot about this in the last month. Far more than I ever had in the past. If I ever did say that I was for an outright ban, which I don't think I ever actually said, then I've changed my mind. K?

Do you see what you did, there?

 

No. What? Thinking about the issue and the facts presented? You should try it sometime, it's very enlightening.

[+sbell111]

I appreciate you saying this and do not take offense to it all. It could be that I am the only one that feels that we've over discussed this and need to move to the next level. Would you be opposed to starting at the local Walmart manager as well? If so, then I think I might need a subset of my own.

If you are not planning on hiding a cache there, don't go through the motions of asking permission. Based on the following post, I don't believe that you are really planning on hiding such a cache.

It's the trend, not the cache, that bothers me. The faster, easier, and quicker part equates into massive growth of numbers of cache hides. I believe this trend is not good for the game and it's future. I think at some point it will reach a critical mass and cause problems for everyone that plays the game. This is why I care.

 

I support managing the growth from this point forward. I'm okay with leaving every existing LPC PLC CPC hide in place unless there's a individual local problem with them. However, I just don't see the value of millions more of the same.

You seem to be diametrically opposed to doing anything at all but arguing the same point over and over too. I do not have the same tolerance for spending my time like that. I'd just rather go find out. If it requires action or energy expended on my part, so be it.

Unlike you who apparently will twist your own positions as long as you keep creating more angst.

[+sbell111]

No offense, but I've never heard of that store.

No offense taken. Winn Dixie is a fairly small chain of grocery stores. Here is a list of all their stores. I haven't counted, but it looks to be at least a couple hundred. Winn Dixie only covers 5 states, as this map indicates.

Huh. They used to be more widespread. I know that they used to be in Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and (I think) Arkansas. Times, they are achanging.

Shocking that I have never seen one in Hawaii or during any of my travel in the western US huh?

You might note that Clan Riffster's map is neither of Hawaii nor the west coast. Edited March 11, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

...Why do you and others keep wanting to use the word Ban? Do you feel it makes your position stronger or something?

I can only speak for myself, but I use it because you were for it in the other thread. I assume that your beliefs haven't changed just because you are posting in a new thread.

I will admit to thinking a lot about this in the last month. Far more than I ever had in the past. If I ever did say that I was for an outright ban, which I don't think I ever actually said, then I've changed my mind. K?

Do you see what you did, there?

No. What? Thinking about the issue and the facts presented? You should try it sometime, it's very enlightening.

You changed the verbiage to 'outright ban' to make it appear that you are anti-ban, even though you have posted that you would like future LPCs/CPCs to be not allowed (ie banned). Edited March 11, 2007 by sbell111

[+Totem Clan]

Okay, the last couple of pages of this thread has confused me.

 

Should property owners/leasors have the right of approving/disapproving caches on their property? And if they do have that right shouldn't they be able to exercise that right before the cache is hidden? And does the answer to this question speak to the heart of whether a cache can be a "problem" or not?

 

My head is spinning from all the double talk.

Yes! No! Uh wait....... uh I'll go with what they said.

 

 

I think the question is, what is considered approval?

[+KBI]

Also -- you never answered my question:

 

Slowing growth, controlling growth, and critical mass were all things I was discussing there. I never -once- said that we should do away with any kind of cache.

So ... you're not talking about banning all CPC hides, you're only talking about banning or preventing some of them? Is that what you mean? If not, how else to you foresee Groundspeak "slowing growth, controlling growth" or preventing so-called "critical mass?"

 

Banning all of a particular type of hide vs. banning only a specified percentage of them is still "banning." The difference between a total ban and a partial ban is only a matter of degree, and the arguments that have been presented are equally valid against either suggestion.

I'm still curious to hear a clarification as to exactly what level of bannination of other people's caches you're trying to accomplish.

Talk about someone not listening.

You specifically pressed for “slowing growth” and “controlling the growth” of a very specific type of cache. I simply observed that the difference between a total ban and a partial ban is only a matter of degree, and wanted to hear your rationale for wanting to control how others play the game.

 

My concern is about -any cache- that is placed that could possibly effect my ability to Geocache. Something that could happen system wide, shut things down, things like that. I'd feel the same way if someone was putting ammo cans in National Parks and somehow skirt the permission issue too.

Then why aren't you satisfied with the current guidelines, and the efforts of all those reviewers out there whose job it is to worry about the very stuff you're talking about? Are you criticizing the reviewers' decisions on a wholesale basis?

 

Maybe you should lobby to become a reviewer yourself if this concerns you so much. My guess is you'd be surprised what you would learn in that capacity.

[+KBI]

Why do you and others keep wanting to use the word Ban? Do you feel it makes your position stronger or something?

Probably because of statements like this:

 

Slowing growth, controlling growth, and critical mass were all things I was discussing there.

Again, the difference between a total ban and a partial ban is only a matter of degree. Whether you successfully shut down every XYZ cache in the world, or just one XYZ cache, the owner of that one XYZ cache will still be just as cranky about you imposing your version of the game on him. In this case you will have called him -- AND his reviewer -- a liar, refusing to believe that he had adequate permission to place his cache. Maybe you'll feel better, but your cache-owner victims certainly won't.

 

No need to repeat your premises. I’ve heard them over and over. I understand and respect that you are passionate about this. With all due respect, however, I'm still not convinced that your proposals contain any justice, reason, or sense.

[+KBI]

This is where electronic media has failed us. No, I am not snapping my fingers at all, my palms are placed together like I am preparing to pray. I'd like to move forward.

And yet, no one is stopping you from doing just that. Normally, when people wish to move on, they just do it. They don't lament about the decision for ever.

Okay.. I'm actually willing to step into the real world on this issue since you are not. I just need your promise that you aren't going to do a turn coat on me and start calling me a geocop later.

I for one can't make that promise.

 

I can't see much good coming of this. If your efforts result in the banning of ALL geocaches from Wal-Mart's (and/or any other large retailer's) property, then you might want to prepare yourself for a long list of epithets from your fellow players that are much stronger and much more negative than the word "geocop."

Edited March 12, 2007 by KBI

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Okay.. I'm actually willing to step into the real world on this issue since you are not. I just need your promise that you aren't going to do a turn coat on me and start calling me a geocop later. I will happily divert some energy to actually obtaining permission per GC.com guideline from my local Walmart.

There was never any doubt that this was your intent from the beginning.

 

You have alluded to it and made increasingly stronger threats, making it quite obvious to me that you would soon go 'proactive' in hopes of furthering your agenda.

 

Based on your arguments and statements in this and other threads I would have to say there is no way that you can honestly approach big box management at the local or corporate level with a fair and honest proposal for caches to be placed on their properties.

 

I just need your promise that you aren't going to do a turn coat on me and start calling me a geocop later.

Not sure how we'd be turncoats, since we have asked you to leave it alone from the beginning. I have other words for someone who does this kind of stunt than geocop, but this is a moderated forum.

[+tozainamboku]

Bison Tube Bomb Scare!

 

Another bit of media-driven insanity! http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=...&id=5110698

 

The police handled it with sense and professionalism.

 

And the response from GC.com?

 

(crickets)

The owner has disabled the cache and will probably end up archiving it. Like the experience I had with the restaurant owner, had permission be asked for in the first place the problem may not have happened. The owner of that cache went and asked and received permission after I posted a SBA log. I also know for a fact that if a property owner contacts GC.com the cache is immediately archived.

 

I'm not sure why Team GeoBlast thinks that GC.com must respond to every incident. Most of the time the cache owner is able to take care of the problems on their own. GC.com is just a listing service. They provide "guidelines" to give hiders some guidance in placing caches that don't make property owners angry and reduce the chances of police bomb squads being involved.

 

The current permission guideline is for the cache hider to determine what is adequate permission. Only in a few case, will the reviewer ask what permission was obtained before accepting a cache listing. Perhaps we can be discussing whether CPC's should be added to National Parks, State and Local Parks where reviewers are aware of a permit policy, elementary and secondary schools, cemeteries in certain states, courthouses and other public buildings.

[Clan Riffster]

Perhaps we can be discussing whether CPC's should be added to National Parks, State and Local Parks where reviewers are aware of a permit policy, elementary and secondary schools, cemeteries in certain states, courthouses and other public buildings.

That's one of my objectives.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I appreciate you saying this and do not take offense to it all. It could be that I am the only one that feels that we've over discussed this and need to move to the next level. Would you be opposed to starting at the local Walmart manager as well? If so, then I think I might need a subset of my own.

If you are not planning on hiding a cache there, don't go through the motions of asking permission. Based on the following post, I don't believe that you are really planning on hiding such a cache.

It's the trend, not the cache, that bothers me. The faster, easier, and quicker part equates into massive growth of numbers of cache hides. I believe this trend is not good for the game and it's future. I think at some point it will reach a critical mass and cause problems for everyone that plays the game. This is why I care.

 

I support managing the growth from this point forward. I'm okay with leaving every existing LPC PLC CPC hide in place unless there's a individual local problem with them. However, I just don't see the value of millions more of the same.

You seem to be diametrically opposed to doing anything at all but arguing the same point over and over too. I do not have the same tolerance for spending my time like that. I'd just rather go find out. If it requires action or energy expended on my part, so be it.

Unlike you who apparently will twist your own positions as long as you keep creating more angst.

 

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that I switched my original position from wanting to outright ban LPCs to saying that I come to understand and appreciate that there are people who really like hunting them and being okay with them as long as they have explict permission?

 

How in Jeremy's Green Earth can you have a problem with this? It's clearly moving more to middle ground. Although I never said we should ban anything, believe it or not, I did listen to you and others. How you can manage to turn that into in fuel for an argument is beyond belief.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Bison Tube Bomb Scare!

 

Another bit of media-driven insanity! http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=...&id=5110698

 

The police handled it with sense and professionalism.

 

And the response from GC.com?

 

(crickets)

The owner has disabled the cache and will probably end up archiving it. Like the experience I had with the restaurant owner, had permission be asked for in the first place the problem may not have happened. The owner of that cache went and asked and received permission after I posted a SBA log. I also know for a fact that if a property owner contacts GC.com the cache is immediately archived.

 

I'm not sure why Team GeoBlast thinks that GC.com must respond to every incident. Most of the time the cache owner is able to take care of the problems on their own. GC.com is just a listing service. They provide "guidelines" to give hiders some guidance in placing caches that don't make property owners angry and reduce the chances of police bomb squads being involved.

 

The current permission guideline is for the cache hider to determine what is adequate permission. Only in a few case, will the reviewer ask what permission was obtained before accepting a cache listing. Perhaps we can be discussing whether CPC's should be added to National Parks, State and Local Parks where reviewers are aware of a permit policy, elementary and secondary schools, cemeteries in certain states, courthouses and other public buildings.

 

I guess it's just me. But a geocacher doesn't follow the guidelines and does a park and run hide on a commercial property, get's caught, the bomb squad is called. I'm GC.com, I am going spend a little energy looking into this in the interest of knowing how it happened and how it can be prevented.

 

As far as CPCs to be dumped into the same pot with National Park and the like. I'm not with that because it is too broad of a stroke. There's some great caches that would be disallowed.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+Team GeoBlast]

Okay.. I'm actually willing to step into the real world on this issue since you are not. I just need your promise that you aren't going to do a turn coat on me and start calling me a geocop later. I will happily divert some energy to actually obtaining permission per GC.com guideline from my local Walmart.

There was never any doubt that this was your intent from the beginning.

 

You have alluded to it and made increasingly stronger threats, making it quite obvious to me that you would soon go 'proactive' in hopes of furthering your agenda.

 

Based on your arguments and statements in this and other threads I would have to say there is no way that you can honestly approach big box management at the local or corporate level with a fair and honest proposal for caches to be placed on their properties.

 

I just need your promise that you aren't going to do a turn coat on me and start calling me a geocop later.

Not sure how we'd be turncoats, since we have asked you to leave it alone from the beginning. I have other words for someone who does this kind of stunt than geocop, but this is a moderated forum.

 

I have a question for you. Do you think we are moving toward middle ground in any aspect of this conversation? If it was my intention to approach Walmart from the beginning, what do you think I am doing in this forum taking about it? That makes no sense at all, I'd go forward.

 

You took this completely out of context as well. Not all of you have been asking me to leave it alone in fact I asked why KBI didn't go ask for permission and produce real world proof to silence all us that don't agree "that they already know" and "they just want to maintain plausible deniability." He reasoned why he wouldn't do it himself and then asked me why I don't go do it myself.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

I have no intention of hiding a Wally World cache, so I'm won't be contacting anyone regarding a cache there.

 

But I've been thinking about what steps I'd take if I were thinking of hiding one. And this is what I've decided for myself.

 

I believe that speaking to an authorized representative of the company would be sufficient for adequate permission. In the case of a Wally World, that would be a General Manager. I don't think it's necessarily my responsibility to go to their corporate- it's their responsibility to train their management to handle such situations. Should they kick it upstairs and they say no, then it's no cache. If they don't, and then okay the cache, that's between Wally World and their management.

 

In my opinion, these cache violate the "frisbee rule." I don't think permission should be assumed whatsoever.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Googling Hrpty Hrrs

[+Team GeoBlast]

This is where electronic media has failed us. No, I am not snapping my fingers at all, my palms are placed together like I am preparing to pray. I'd like to move forward.

And yet, no one is stopping you from doing just that. Normally, when people wish to move on, they just do it. They don't lament about the decision for ever.

Okay.. I'm actually willing to step into the real world on this issue since you are not. I just need your promise that you aren't going to do a turn coat on me and start calling me a geocop later.

I for one can't make that promise.

 

I can't see much good coming of this. If your efforts result in the banning of ALL geocaches from Wal-Mart's (and/or any other large retailer's) property, then you might want to prepare yourself for a long list of epithets from your fellow players that are much stronger and much more negative than the word "geocop."

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=2756509

 

Besides, if you feel so strongly about this, why don't YOU do it? Instead of telling others what they should think and how they should behave, why not just do this yourself? One should be careful what one asks for, however ... and be wary of the ol' Law Of Unintended Consequences.

 

Wasn't this you suggesting that -I- go ahead and do it? Or was that someone else?

Edited March 12, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+Team GeoBlast]

Good night everyone.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+Team GeoBlast]

Also -- you never answered my question:

 

Slowing growth, controlling growth, and critical mass were all things I was discussing there. I never -once- said that we should do away with any kind of cache.

So ... you're not talking about banning all CPC hides, you're only talking about banning or preventing some of them? Is that what you mean? If not, how else to you foresee Groundspeak "slowing growth, controlling growth" or preventing so-called "critical mass?"

 

Banning all of a particular type of hide vs. banning only a specified percentage of them is still "banning." The difference between a total ban and a partial ban is only a matter of degree, and the arguments that have been presented are equally valid against either suggestion.

I'm still curious to hear a clarification as to exactly what level of bannination of other people's caches you're trying to accomplish.

Talk about someone not listening.

You specifically pressed for “slowing growth” and “controlling the growth” of a very specific type of cache. I simply observed that the difference between a total ban and a partial ban is only a matter of degree, and wanted to hear your rationale for wanting to control how others play the game.

 

My concern is about -any cache- that is placed that could possibly effect my ability to Geocache. Something that could happen system wide, shut things down, things like that. I'd feel the same way if someone was putting ammo cans in National Parks and somehow skirt the permission issue too.

Then why aren't you satisfied with the current guidelines, and the efforts of all those reviewers out there whose job it is to worry about the very stuff you're talking about? Are you criticizing the reviewers' decisions on a wholesale basis?

 

Maybe you should lobby to become a reviewer yourself if this concerns you so much. My guess is you'd be surprised what you would learn in that capacity.

 

Honest question, are you a reviewer? Even if you are not, I think you are right on the money in that it would be totally enlightening. I'd love if they'd let me do a ride along to gain a better understanding of the challenges and permission process but it's not for me. It would leave me no time for caching and getting batted around by you and your buddies.

[+sbell111]

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that I switched my original position from wanting to outright ban LPCs to saying that I come to understand and appreciate that there are people who really like hunting them and being okay with them as long as they have explict permission?

 

How in Jeremy's Green Earth can you have a problem with this? It's clearly moving more to middle ground. Although I never said we should ban anything, believe it or not, I did listen to you and others. How you can manage to turn that into in fuel for an argument is beyond belief.

You claim to have changed your position from wanting them banned to wanting to own one. Forgive me, but I don't buy it.

[+sbell111]

... If it was my intention to approach Walmart from the beginning, what do you think I am doing in this forum taking about it? ...

Since you asked, I'll tell you. I think that you could care less about this issue and that you are more concerned with causing forum angst.

[+KBI]

This is where electronic media has failed us. No, I am not snapping my fingers at all, my palms are placed together like I am preparing to pray. I'd like to move forward.

And yet, no one is stopping you from doing just that. Normally, when people wish to move on, they just do it. They don't lament about the decision for ever.

Okay.. I'm actually willing to step into the real world on this issue since you are not. I just need your promise that you aren't going to do a turn coat on me and start calling me a geocop later.

I for one can't make that promise.

 

I can't see much good coming of this. If your efforts result in the banning of ALL geocaches from Wal-Mart's (and/or any other large retailer's) property, then you might want to prepare yourself for a long list of epithets from your fellow players that are much stronger and much more negative than the word "geocop."

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=2756509

 

Besides, if you feel so strongly about this, why don't YOU do it? Instead of telling others what they should think and how they should behave, why not just do this yourself? One should be careful what one asks for, however ... and be wary of the ol' Law Of Unintended Consequences.

 

Wasn't this you suggesting that -I- go ahead and do it? Or was that someone else?

Re-read the second part of what you quoted:

 

One should be careful what one asks for, however ... and be wary of the ol' Law Of Unintended Consequences.

That was pretty much the whole point of what I had to say. I didn't say I wanted you to "do it yourself." Quite the contrary: I was warning you, as many others in this debate have warned you, that you might actually cause more trouble instead of solving anything.

[+KBI]

Honest question, are you a reviewer?

No.

 

Even if you are not, I think you are right on the money in that it would be totally enlightening.

Yes. It might help you to accept what a couple of them have already tried to tell you in this debate.

 

I'd love if they'd let me do a ride along to gain a better understanding of the challenges and permission process but it's not for me. It would leave me no time for caching and getting batted around by you and your buddies.

Debating is fun, ain't it?

[+Too Tall John]

1. Like sbell111 said:

Since I am not in the market for a new cache, I have no need to obtain any cache placement-related permission...

Is that a cop out? Maybe.

Not a cop-out, just irrelevant to your point.

 

Sbell only said he isn't interested in hiding any CPC caches. Neither am I, for that matter.

 

Whether he (or I) were to be interested in finding any such caches is what you're talking about.

Nice try. Here's what I actually said:

Personally, the reasons I'm not pursuing permission are twofold:

1. Like sbell111 said:

Since I am not in the market for a new cache, I have no need to obtain any cache placement-related permission...

Is that a cop out? Maybe.

You say I'm talking about your wanting to find CPCs. It seems that my words, highlighted in red, say that isn't what I'm saying at all. In fact, it seems like I'm saying exactly what you are.

[+sbell111]

1. Like sbell111 said:

Since I am not in the market for a new cache, I have no need to obtain any cache placement-related permission...

Is that a cop out? Maybe.

Not a cop-out, just irrelevant to your point.

 

Sbell only said he isn't interested in hiding any CPC caches. Neither am I, for that matter.

 

Whether he (or I) were to be interested in finding any such caches is what you're talking about.

Nice try. Here's what I actually said:

Personally, the reasons I'm not pursuing permission are twofold:

1. Like sbell111 said:

Since I am not in the market for a new cache, I have no need to obtain any cache placement-related permission...

Is that a cop out? Maybe.

You say I'm talking about your wanting to find CPCs. It seems that my words, highlighted in red, say that isn't what I'm saying at all. In fact, it seems like I'm saying exactly what you are.

Welcome back. Perhaps you can answer my question as to why that is a cop-out. Edited March 12, 2007 by sbell111

[+Too Tall John]

Why have I called for permission? Because I see it as a Potential Problem Cache.

First: I see no problem.

I think that's been established pretty well. Doesn't mean you are correct.

Second: I see no need to "call for permission" when such permission is already assumed.

You know what they say happens when you assume.

[+Team GeoBlast]

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that I switched my original position from wanting to outright ban LPCs to saying that I come to understand and appreciate that there are people who really like hunting them and being okay with them as long as they have explict permission?

 

How in Jeremy's Green Earth can you have a problem with this? It's clearly moving more to middle ground. Although I never said we should ban anything, believe it or not, I did listen to you and others. How you can manage to turn that into in fuel for an argument is beyond belief.

You claim to have changed your position from wanting them banned to wanting to own one. Forgive me, but I don't buy it.

 

If I had my way, one of you folks that are really behind the idea of uncontrolled growth would step up and do this instead of me. I asked why they didn't do it and got a few reasons and then they asked why I didn't do it.

 

I just saw this as a continuation of the ongoing stalemale that exsits with a lot of conversations in this forum. We need a real life experience to draw on. Unfortunately, nobody has stepped up to offer a real world example of a lot of things you are saying.... AND The same goes for some of the things that I am saying.

[Mushtang]

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that I switched my original position from wanting to outright ban LPCs to saying that I come to understand and appreciate that there are people who really like hunting them and being okay with them as long as they have explict permission?

 

How in Jeremy's Green Earth can you have a problem with this? It's clearly moving more to middle ground. Although I never said we should ban anything, believe it or not, I did listen to you and others. How you can manage to turn that into in fuel for an argument is beyond belief.

You claim to have changed your position from wanting them banned to wanting to own one. Forgive me, but I don't buy it.

 

If I had my way, one of you folks that are really behind the idea of uncontrolled growth would step up and do this instead of me. I asked why they didn't do it and got a few reasons and then they asked why I didn't do it.

 

I just saw this as a continuation of the ongoing stalemale that exsits with a lot of conversations in this forum. We need a real life experience to draw on. Unfortunately, nobody has stepped up to offer a real world example of a lot of things you are saying.... AND The same goes for some of the things that I am saying.

So when are you going to talk to them, which store (WalMart, Target, Winn Dixie) will you go to, and what type of hide are you going to ask about (LPC, magnetic container on their electrical box, container in their bushes, etc.)?

[+tozainamboku]

I prefer if we keep this thread on topic and not talk about banning anything or about ways to control the growth of any particular sector of geocaching. It may be on-topic to make a claim that rapid growth in the numbers of CPCs increases the chances of caches causing problems or make make some property owners perceive the problem to be more significant.

 

It seems that some people believe that only the corporate office for a big box chain can make the decision as to whether to allow caches, others feel that the local store manager has the authority, and still others feel that since the store allows the public to use their parking lot that is already adequate permission. It seems now that one side may want to prove their site by going to the corporate management to ask permission for blanket geocache approval.

 

I don't see where the guidelines call for blanket approval of all geocaches by any particular land owner/land manager. If there is blanket approval that the reviewers know about it makes it easier for them to approve the cache. If there is a blanket ban, then they will not approve a cache unless the placer can demonstrate that they received explicit permission. For example, caches have been approved in some National Parks because they got explicit permission. Lacking a known policy, the reviewers rely on the cache placer to make the decision as to what is adequate. Since they have been to the cache location they may be in a better position than the reviewer. Asking Wal*Mart Corporate offices for a blanket geocaching policy will result in one of three things happening

• A blanket ban on caches in Wal*Mart parking lots
  
• Some kind of permission from corporate, likely allowing local stores the descretion to allow caches or not
  
• the status quo - either because you'll get no response from corporate officials or they will tacitly accept the GC.com policy