Potential Problem Caches

[+Renegade Knight]

Just for the record, The U.S. is not, and has never been, a Democracy. Welcome to the Republic.

Quit obfuscating the truth with the facts!

[+gh patriot]

Just for the record, The U.S. is not, and has never been, a Democracy. Welcome to the Republic.

A fact that a lot of Democrats forget while they're crying, "Al Gore really won - boo hoo".

 

How true.

[+sbell111]

Just for the record, The U.S. is not, and has never been, a Democracy. Welcome to the Republic.

A fact that a lot of Democrats forget while they're crying, "Al Gore really won - boo hoo".

Are they still whining about that?

Well, I wouldn't call it whining, exactly, but sometimes I wish that we could have a do-over.

[+gh patriot]

Just for the record, The U.S. is not, and has never been, a Democracy. Welcome to the Republic.

A fact that a lot of Democrats forget while they're crying, "Al Gore really won - boo hoo".

Are they still whining about that?

Well, I wouldn't call it whining, exactly, but sometimes I wish that we could have a do-over.

 

Now thats just funny

[+Too Tall John]

What I really don’t like is that this discussion is really about moving responsibility from the cache owner to others. Who will the others be?

 

Edit: There is a lot of irony in that last sentance.

Is the irony that requiring permission to place a cache would actually be requiring the cache owner to be responsible?

[+Renegade Knight]

What I really don’t like is that this discussion is really about moving responsibility from the cache owner to others. Who will the others be?

 

Edit: There is a lot of irony in that last sentance.

Is the irony that requiring permission to place a cache would actually be requiring the cache owner to be responsible?

Cache owners already are responsible for their caches. 100% responsible. That’s how the system in place works. What some people are arguing for is actually making someone else responsible to ensure that caches themselves meet some higher standard than Joe Cacher is happy with. Now Joe Cacher and Big Brother Joe are both on the line.

 

The irony is in my sig line. Check the mission for Terracachers. Here I am fighting a delaying action before something like that is a necessity rather than planning for the future.

[+Confucius' Cat]

You do not have my consent either implied or explicit to do anything on my behalf. Even if you believe it is for my own good.

Now THERE"S a great post!

 

in a republic, we ELECT people by VOTING in free elections who will represent us ("for our own good" because we all need a "daddy" if we elect Dems IMO).

 

Well, GC.com is NOT a republic and to the best of my knowledge only Jeremy and whomever HE appoints has authority to seek blanket permission from anyone for geocaches listed here.

 

Since we have not VOTED on the person or persons proposing to seek "permission" for us, and Jeremy has not given us authority to do so, nor has he appointed someone, anyone seeking such permission, on their own initiative is, in effect, impersonating a public servant.

 

It is ESPECIALLY ridiculous for a person to seek permission who has as part of his agenda proving that permission cannot or should not be granted. Any darn fool can fail if they set out to fail.

[+sbell111]

... Well, GC.com is NOT a republic and to the best of my knowledge only Jeremy and whomever HE appoints has authority to seek blanket permission from anyone for geocaches listed here.

 

Since we have not VOTED on the person or persons proposing to seek "permission" for us, and Jeremy has not given us authority to do so, nor has he appointed someone, anyone seeking such permission, on their own initiative is, in effect, impersonating a public servant. ...

While I agree with the underlying point of your post, I think that it's important to note that Jeremy (and GC.com) is not in charge of permission. It would not be within his charter to obtain permission for caches to be placed. If it were, GC.com would, in fact, be responsible for ensuring that permission had been received for all caches. Instead, all permission responsibility falls on cache owners. If a player wishes to attempt to obtain some sort of global permission with a corporation, such as was done with Cracker Barrel, it is his/her right to do so. I would rather that an individual cacher does not exercise this right unless they have a significant relationship with the deciding entity. Edited March 16, 2007 by sbell111

[+Renegade Knight]

...Well, GC.com is NOT a republic and to the best of my knowledge only Jeremy and whomever HE appoints has authority to seek blanket permission from anyone for geocaches listed here.

 

Since we have not VOTED on the person or persons proposing to seek "permission" for us, and Jeremy has not given us authority to do so, nor has he appointed someone, anyone seeking such permission, on their own initiative is, in effect, impersonating a public servant.

 

It is ESPECIALLY ridiculous for a person to seek permission who has as part of his agenda proving that permission cannot or should not be granted. Any darn fool can fail if they set out to fail.

 

TPTB have full authority to seek permission to list my cache on this site. They have full authority to ask anyone they choose what they think about listing my cache on this site. The authority actually ends when it comes to the cache itself. This site is a listing site. They work very hard to maintain that distinction for very good reasons. They don't approve caches or seek permission for caches. They list or don't list caches. Authority over caches in indirect and comes from "If you want your cache listed here, you will..."

 

Your last paragraph is very, very, true.

[+sbell111]

...Well, GC.com is NOT a republic and to the best of my knowledge only Jeremy and whomever HE appoints has authority to seek blanket permission from anyone for geocaches listed here.

 

Since we have not VOTED on the person or persons proposing to seek "permission" for us, and Jeremy has not given us authority to do so, nor has he appointed someone, anyone seeking such permission, on their own initiative is, in effect, impersonating a public servant.

 

It is ESPECIALLY ridiculous for a person to seek permission who has as part of his agenda proving that permission cannot or should not be granted. Any darn fool can fail if they set out to fail.

TPTB have full authority to seek permission to list my cache on this site. They have full authority to ask anyone they choose what they think about listing my cache on this site. The authority actually ends when it comes to the cache itself. This site is a listing site. They work very hard to maintain that distinction for very good reasons. They don't approve caches or seek permission for caches. They list or don't list caches. Authority over caches in indirect and comes from "If you want your cache listed here, you will..."

 

Your last paragraph is very, very, true.

Once again, you summed up my feelings better than I did.

[Mushtang]

It is ESPECIALLY ridiculous for a person to seek permission who has as part of his agenda proving that permission cannot or should not be granted. Any darn fool can fail if they set out to fail.

It's been two days since he's posted in this thread. I wonder how the discussion with WalMart is going?

 

I have to assume he hasn't talked to them yet since the web site is still up and running, and the game is still being played.

[+Too Tall John]

It is ESPECIALLY ridiculous for a person to seek permission who has as part of his agenda proving that permission cannot or should not be granted. Any darn fool can fail if they set out to fail.

It's been two days since he's posted in this thread. I wonder how the discussion with WalMart is going?

 

I have to assume he hasn't talked to them yet since the web site is still up and running, and the game is still being played.

You do realize that it's snarky statements like that that have goaded TGB to the point he's at now, right?

 

It sounds to me like he's actually making a sincere effort to get this cache approved. He's planning out a cache that actually might be something fun to do, he's trying to get info that will make a good impression on the Wal-Mart manager, he's taking his time. The more you keep flaming here, the longer he'll spend responding, the longer we have to wait to get results. Also, the more likely he is to say "The heck with it!" and blow the whole permission thing, just like you are suggesting he is doing already.

 

What are you afraid of? If the manager says "Hey, this is great! I want one at every lamppost!" you win! If they say "Sorry, no," it's TGB's cache that gets canned, not yours. If you're really afraid Wal-Mart Corp. is going to turn around and say "Hey, get those caches off our property!" don't you think that they shouldn't be there in the first place? Or are you afraid that this argument will be over and we'll have to move on?

 

Edited to add: It may be in the other thread, but I told a story about a Wally World LPC I did. I noticed the other day that it's archived. I emailed the owner to ask why. He said it was due to lack of permission. I haven't inquired further, but wonder if he was approached by Wal-Mart? And for all you 'cache police' police, I had nothing to do with it.

Edited March 16, 2007 by Too Tall John

[Mushtang]

Wow, that's a lot of questions. I'll try to answer them.

 

You do realize that it's snarky statements like that that have goaded TGB to the point he's at now, right?

That sort of sounds like you think TGB should be free to give his opinion and not have anyone give theirs in return. He made claims that I didn't think were true, I told him so, he decided to find out for sure by asking, and now we're all waiting for the result. If you don't like the "snarkiness", I think you should direct it to both of us and not just me. He's certainly posted his share.

 

It sounds to me like he's actually making a sincere effort to get this cache approved. He's planning out a cache that actually might be something fun to do, he's trying to get info that will make a good impression on the Wal-Mart manager, he's taking his time.

It sounds to me like he's not planning on asking for permission to hide an LPC at all, which is what he claimed he would do at first. He said recently he's planning on hiding a multi-cache with only the initial coords at WalMart. If this is what he "hides" there, it won't show anything.

 

The more you keep flaming here, the longer he'll spend responding, the longer we have to wait to get results.

So if he takes a minute or two out of his busy day of cache planning to give us an update on what's happening, we'll have to wait a minute or two longer to find out if it's okay or not. I can live with that. Yet another sign that he's not placing an LPC since those take nearly zero effort or time to get ready, right? One of the arguments against LPCs is that they're so quick and easy and effortless.

 

Also, the more likely he is to say "The heck with it!" and blow the whole permission thing, just like you are suggesting he is doing already.

I'm going to be very surprised if that's not what happens. I fully expect him to find a reason to not go through with it. Not that it'll matter either way since he's not trying to hide what he initially claimed he was.

 

What are you afraid of?

Carnies. Carnival folk. They have small hands.

 

If the manager says "Hey, this is great! I want one at every lamppost!" you win!

Really? What do I win? I certainly don't want a cache at every lamppost. Nor do I want one at every parking not. If I've ever said so I'm sure you can show me where.

 

If they say "Sorry, no," it's TGB's cache that gets canned, not yours.

And then the manager will start a chain reaction that will result in the web site being shut down and geocaching dying without a home - according to TGB

 

If you're really afraid Wal-Mart Corp. is going to turn around and say "Hey, get those caches off our property!" don't you think that they shouldn't be there in the first place?

I'm not afraid that will happen at all. It's more likely that if the manager says no, then TGB will leave and the manager will forget about it within a few minutes.

 

Or are you afraid that this argument will be over and we'll have to move on?

If TGB actually asks a WalMart manager for permission to hide an LPC and reports the results here, I'd have no problem not discussing what may or may not happen if he would actually ask a manager. Don't forget, however, that it was TGB that claimed it would be a problem, and that nobody has ever asked a manager for permission before.

 

Don't you remember TGB saying this...

Let's say someone approached a high level manager at Walmart and asked for permission to lift up a light pole skirt and hide something under it for others to find. Given that it is clearly spelled out behind the little box you check, isn't it logical to assume that someone has actually done this before?

 

That manager has the foresight to go one step further after telling the person he was nuts. He goes to the GC.com website and punches in the zip code of every Walmart in America. They decide they have a very big problem. Big enough to file suit against GC.com, shutting down the site completely until they work things out in court. Meanwhile, the game dies without a home.

 

Far fetched? I'd be interested in hearing why you think so.

 

Since HE said it, and how HE'S the one trying to prove it, I'm only saying that I'm curious how he's doing on that project.

[+Renegade Knight]

Mushtang, I'm glad you dredged up that TBG post. I think it is far fetched. Looking up all the zip codes is work. Zooming in on the map is more work, can cross checking each wally world is more work still.

 

It would be so much easier to say to the one cacher "take this thing and go home". If the store manager did want to make an issue he may take it up with corporate who in turn isn't going to want to take the time for all that work and if they decide to have them pulled would probably just make a demand letter to GC.com.

 

Of course every time you make a blanket assertion along some someone who proves to be the exeption and all the dang caches that had explicit permission just the way some folks like are going to start coming out of the woodwork.

 

Next thing you know you have angry cachers who found out that explict permission didn't mean anything more than adequate permission.

 

Yeah, it's far fetched. But if it did come to pass, X-Caching would be born.

[Mushtang]

It would be so much easier to say to the one cacher "take this thing and go home". If the store manager did want to make an issue he may take it up with corporate who in turn isn't going to want to take the time for all that work and if they decide to have them pulled would probably just make a demand letter to GC.com.

Agreed. If WalMart does decide to ban caching from their property at every store in the world, that will only eliminate a very small percentage of LPCs and CPCs anyway.

 

Target (or some other WalMart competitor) will be more than happy to step up to gc.com and say "Permission granted. One per store. Let the local manager know. Follow existing site guidelines. And by the way, feel free to stop in our snack bar when you come by to find each cache."

 

Neither this web site, nor the game in general, will suffer, much less come to a grinding halt.

[Clan Riffster]

Just an update on my Wally World LPC:

I was at our new Wally World last night buying swag, and went to the Customer Service Dept. I was hoping Wally World would have something similar to a Public Relations Manager at a local level, but the looks I received upon asking made me want to check a mirror to see if I sprouted a second head. My fallback position was to speak to the store's General Manager, but he wasn't in, so I got an Assistant Manager. English didn't seem to be his primary language, so there was an initial communications barrier which I was eventually able to overcome. After explaining the game, "J.C." told me I needed to talk to the General Manager. Back to square 1. I work a strange schedule, combined with an old friend coming into town from out of state, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to go back. I'll keep y'all posted.

[+Too Tall John]

Just an update on my Wally World LPC:

I was at our new Wally World last night buying swag, and went to the Customer Service Dept. I was hoping Wally World would have something similar to a Public Relations Manager at a local level, but the looks I received upon asking made me want to check a mirror to see if I sprouted a second head. My fallback position was to speak to the store's General Manager, but he wasn't in, so I got an Assistant Manager. English didn't seem to be his primary language, so there was an initial communications barrier which I was eventually able to overcome. After explaining the game, "J.C." told me I needed to talk to the General Manager. Back to square 1. I work a strange schedule, combined with an old friend coming into town from out of state, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to go back. I'll keep y'all posted.

CR -

 

Don't know if this will help, and maybe you read it in my post to TGB, but the store manager typically works at least one night a week, in my experience, typically on Tuesdays. It might be a worthwhile inquiry if you're trying to get ahold of them.

[+KBI]

Just an update on my Wally World LPC:

I was at our new Wally World last night buying swag, and went to the Customer Service Dept. I was hoping Wally World would have something similar to a Public Relations Manager at a local level, but the looks I received upon asking made me want to check a mirror to see if I sprouted a second head. My fallback position was to speak to the store's General Manager, but he wasn't in, so I got an Assistant Manager. English didn't seem to be his primary language, so there was an initial communications barrier which I was eventually able to overcome. After explaining the game, "J.C." told me I needed to talk to the General Manager. Back to square 1. I work a strange schedule, combined with an old friend coming into town from out of state, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to go back. I'll keep y'all posted.

CR -

 

Don't know if this will help, and maybe you read it in my post to TGB, but the store manager typically works at least one night a week, in my experience, typically on Tuesdays. It might be a worthwhile inquiry if you're trying to get ahold of them.

Or maybe you could go straight to the top and have a friendly meeting with Wally himself.

 

[+Too Tall John]

Wow, that's a lot of questions. I'll try to answer them.

Well, I think I actually only asked 2, but it looks like you read my post, which is more than I can say for some people I've encountered in the past, so, WO-HOO!!

 

You do realize that it's snarky statements like that that have goaded TGB to the point he's at now, right?

That sort of sounds like you think TGB should be free to give his opinion and not have anyone give theirs in return. He made claims that I didn't think were true, I told him so, he decided to find out for sure by asking, and now we're all waiting for the result. If you don't like the "snarkiness", I think you should direct it to both of us and not just me. He's certainly posted his share.

I was specifically referring to the "Now I'm just waiting for geocaching to come grinding to a halt" type comments, which I've seen a few too many times. I realize that both sides have been snarky, but it's more obvious when you use a catchy phrase like that.

 

It sounds to me like he's actually making a sincere effort to get this cache approved. He's planning out a cache that actually might be something fun to do, he's trying to get info that will make a good impression on the Wal-Mart manager, he's taking his time.

It sounds to me like he's not planning on asking for permission to hide an LPC at all, which is what he claimed he would do at first. He said recently he's planning on hiding a multi-cache with only the initial coords at WalMart. If this is what he "hides" there, it won't show anything.

Actually, I don't think that it'll make any difference to a Wal-Mart manager between hiding a LPC or the 1st stage of a multi. The part they'll object to is the physical hiding & seeking of the container, not if you sign the log or not.

 

The more you keep flaming here, the longer he'll spend responding, the longer we have to wait to get results.

So if he takes a minute or two out of his busy day of cache planning to give us an update on what's happening, we'll have to wait a minute or two longer to find out if it's okay or not. I can live with that. Yet another sign that he's not placing an LPC since those take nearly zero effort or time to get ready, right? One of the arguments against LPCs is that they're so quick and easy and effortless.

This may be the argument some have used, but the discussion right now is focused on permission, not the ease of the hide. I think you'd call me off topic if I tried to redirect like that.

 

Also, the more likely he is to say "The heck with it!" and blow the whole permission thing, just like you are suggesting he is doing already.

I'm going to be very surprised if that's not what happens. I fully expect him to find a reason to not go through with it. Not that it'll matter either way since he's not trying to hide what he initially claimed he was.

I'm not suggesting that he won't go through with it, I saying that if I were going out of my way to do something to prove myself wrong & was still getting flamed for it, I'd say "To Heck With It," go to plan B, and prove myself right. I pray that this does not happen.

[+Too Tall John]

Whoops... truncated post...

What are you afraid of?

Carnies. Carnival folk. They have small hands.

So, we have some common ground!

 

If the manager says "Hey, this is great! I want one at every lamppost!" you win!

Really? What do I win? I certainly don't want a cache at every lamppost. Nor do I want one at every parking not.

You win a toaster! Actually, I was referring to the argument. I don't think anyone wins if LPCs pop up in every Wal-Mart in the country, except maybe Wal-Mart.

 

If I've ever said so I'm sure you can show me where.

You have an overinflated view of my memory skills.

 

If you're really afraid Wal-Mart Corp. is going to turn around and say "Hey, get those caches off our property!" don't you think that they shouldn't be there in the first place?

I'm not afraid that will happen at all. It's more likely that if the manager says no, then TGB will leave and the manager will forget about it within a few minutes.

So, if it is likely the manager is going to say "No," does that still mean that all those caches still actually have "adequate" permission? If you place a cache knowing that the landowner is likely to turn it down, is that right?

 

Don't you remember TGB saying this...

Let's say someone approached a high level manager at Walmart and asked for permission to lift up a light pole skirt and hide something under it for others to find. Given that it is clearly spelled out behind the little box you check, isn't it logical to assume that someone has actually done this before?

 

That manager has the foresight to go one step further after telling the person he was nuts. He goes to the GC.com website and punches in the zip code of every Walmart in America. They decide they have a very big problem. Big enough to file suit against GC.com, shutting down the site completely until they work things out in court. Meanwhile, the game dies without a home.

 

Far fetched? I'd be interested in hearing why you think so.

 

Since HE said it, and how HE'S the one trying to prove it, I'm only saying that I'm curious how he's doing on that project.

Except, that isn't the only thing you are saying, is it?

 

In all seriousness, I may be a Pollyanna, but I truly think TGB is approaching this trying to make the cache succeed, despite his past posts.

[+sbell111]

It sounds to me like he's not planning on asking for permission to hide an LPC at all, which is what he claimed he would do at first. He said recently he's planning on hiding a multi-cache with only the initial coords at WalMart. If this is what he "hides" there, it won't show anything.

Actually, I don't think that it'll make any difference to a Wal-Mart manager between hiding a LPC or the 1st stage of a multi. The part they'll object to is the physical hiding & seeking of the container, not if you sign the log or not.

I don't know if I agree. I'm reminded of one of the reasons that virts went away. You see, they gave a land manager the option of saying, 'just put a virt here.' A manager may see a steep in a multi as 'less of a draw' for people to come into the store and suggest that the stage be moved somewhere else. An LPC is a destination, however. He may believe that this would result in more people coming in.

I'm not afraid that will happen at all. It's more likely that if the manager says no, then TGB will leave and the manager will forget about it within a few minutes.

So, if it is likely the manager is going to say "No," does that still mean that all those caches still actually have "adequate" permission? If you place a cache knowing that the landowner is likely to turn it down, is that right?

The flaw in your argument is that a person with an axe to grind can make any request be turned down. Let's say I own a vacant parcel of land and everybody knows I enjoy caching. My friend hides a cache on it. I have a big laugh and go find the cache. TGB then approaches my wife about hiding a cache on the same parcel, but he doesn't really want to do it. He's actually trying to get caches like my buddy's archived. He makes my wife mad and she tells him to get lost. Should my buddy archive his cache because TGB was denied?

In all seriousness, I may be a Pollyanna, but I truly think TGB is approaching this trying to make the cache succeed, despite his past posts.

I hope you're correct, but I really think that you're wrong. Edited March 17, 2007 by sbell111

[Clan Riffster]

Or maybe you could go straight to the top and have a friendly meeting with Wally himself.

Ya know, I've had a strong dislike for that moose for many years.

 

So, if it is likely the manager is going to say "No," does that still mean that all those caches still actually have "adequate" permission?

That's where things get tricky. Geocaching is still a lawful activity, and I'm still allowed on that particular property, but I don't think I could honestly fall back on the "adequate" permission rule once they tell me "No". However, if JoeyBagOfDonuts hid one there, unbeknownst to me and my efforts to obtain explicit permission, I would have no problem saying his cache had adequate permission, since by my interpretation of Florida law, the cache is there legally.

[Mushtang]

It sounds to me like he's not planning on asking for permission to hide an LPC at all, which is what he claimed he would do at first. He said recently he's planning on hiding a multi-cache with only the initial coords at WalMart. If this is what he "hides" there, it won't show anything.

Actually, I don't think that it'll make any difference to a Wal-Mart manager between hiding a LPC or the 1st stage of a multi. The part they'll object to is the physical hiding & seeking of the container, not if you sign the log or not.

I'd guess it depends on what form his first stage takes. If it's a 35mm film canister or other small container that he puts under the lamp post skirt, with something inside that has the coords, then perhaps this will be pretty much the same thing. If he puts the coords on something and attaches it to a lamp post (or other permanent fixture) so the cachers just walk up, look, write down numbers, and leave, then it's apples and oranges.

 

I'd still prefer that if he's doing this to prove what happens when someone tries to ask permission to hide an LPC, that he just ask permission to hide an LPC. Anything different will give someone room to say, "But it's not the same, so it doesn't prove anything".

[Mushtang]

If you're really afraid Wal-Mart Corp. is going to turn around and say "Hey, get those caches off our property!" don't you think that they shouldn't be there in the first place?

I'm not afraid that will happen at all. It's more likely that if the manager says no, then TGB will leave and the manager will forget about it within a few minutes.

So, if it is likely the manager is going to say "No," does that still mean that all those caches still actually have "adequate" permission? If you place a cache knowing that the landowner is likely to turn it down, is that right?

Not at all.

• 1) It means that TGB will likely not ask permission in a way that will give the manager warm fuzzies about it. I'm sure he's more likely to present the request in a way that's sure to get a no.
   
  2) It also means that a manager will probably not put his neck on the line. It's easier to say no, then to say yes, even if it's okay. Did you read the story KBI related about getting his EarthCache approved? He asked the park manager for permission for people to come stand in the park, look around, take notes, and leave. The manager said he'd rather not give permission, and sent KBI up the chain. He wouldn't even give permission for people to stand in his public park! But I wouldn't think that should mean people didn't really have adequate permission to go in the park at all.
  

[+Too Tall John]

I'm not afraid that will happen at all. It's more likely that if the manager says no, then TGB will leave and the manager will forget about it within a few minutes.

So, if it is likely the manager is going to say "No," does that still mean that all those caches still actually have "adequate" permission? If you place a cache knowing that the landowner is likely to turn it down, is that right?

The flaw in your argument is that a person with an axe to grind can make any request be turned down. Let's say I own a vacant parcel of land and everybody knows I enjoy caching. My friend hides a cache on it. I have a big laugh and go find the cache. TGB then approaches my wife about hiding a cache on the same parcel, but he doesn't really want to do it. He's actually trying to get caches like my buddy's archived. He makes my wife mad and she tells him to get lost. Should my buddy archive his cache because TGB was denied?

The problem with your scenario is that the parcel owner in this case is a huge company that owns thousands of pieces of property and has no big motivation to allow caches on any of them.

The core of my statement quoted above is this:

If you place a cache knowing that the landowner is likely to turn it down, is that right?

So, your scenario doesn't speak to my question at all.

[+Too Tall John]

So, if it is likely the manager is going to say "No," does that still mean that all those caches still actually have "adequate" permission? If you place a cache knowing that the landowner is likely to turn it down, is that right?

Not at all.

• 1) It means that TGB will likely not ask permission in a way that will give the manager warm fuzzies about it. I'm sure he's more likely to present the request in a way that's sure to get a no.
  

Ok...

To be sure we're clear here, let me ask the highlighted question with more specifics:

Let's say you're planning on placing an LPC at the local Wal-Mart. You believe that Wal-Mart, the landowner, would say "No," for whatever reason, if you asked for permission to do so. Is it right to place the cache anyways?

It appears you said "Not at all" to the more general question, but the statements afterward, while not speaking directly to the question, sound like otherwise.

• 2) It also means that a manager will probably not put his neck on the line. It's easier to say no, then to say yes, even if it's okay. Did you read the story KBI related about getting his EarthCache approved? He asked the park manager for permission for people to come stand in the park, look around, take notes, and leave. The manager said he'd rather not give permission, and sent KBI up the chain. He wouldn't even give permission for people to stand in his public park! But I wouldn't think that should mean people didn't really have adequate permission to go in the park at all.
  

If a landowner/manager wants to say "NO" to a geocache being placed on their property, regardless of their reason they have the right to do so. The guy in KBI's story was a fool IMO, but that's beside the point.

[+sbell111]

... The core of my statement quoted above is this:

If you place a cache knowing that the landowner is likely to turn it down, is that right?

So, your scenario doesn't speak to my question at all.

First of all, I don't buy the 'landowner is likely to turn it down' argument. I feel that this is an attempt to frame the debate unfairly. Therefore, my answer is this:

 

It is perfectly fine for someone to place a cache in a location that doesn't require permission, without asking permission.

 

Anthing beyond this is a debate regarding whether specific hides in specific locations would require permission.

Edited March 17, 2007 by sbell111

[+Too Tall John]

... The core of my statement quoted above is this:

If you place a cache knowing that the landowner is likely to turn it down, is that right?

So, your scenario doesn't speak to my question at all.

First of all, I don't buy the 'landowner is likely to turn it down' argument. I feel that this is an attempt to frame the debate unfairly.

How about if I say "If you place a cache knowing that the landowner might have reason to turn it down, is that right?"

Therefore, my answer is this:

 

It is perfectly fine for someone to place a cache in a location that doesn't require permission, without asking permission.

The highlighted portion above is exactly what we are talking about. Who gets to determine if a location requires permission? No you, not me. The Landowner does. Which means you need to ask first.

Anthing beyond this is a debate regarding whether specific hides in specific locations would require permission.

Umm... maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that exactly what we're talking about? Specific locations, ie comercial properties?

[+sbell111]

... The core of my statement quoted above is this:

If you place a cache knowing that the landowner is likely to turn it down, is that right?

So, your scenario doesn't speak to my question at all.

First of all, I don't buy the 'landowner is likely to turn it down' argument. I feel that this is an attempt to frame the debate unfairly.

How about if I say "If you place a cache knowing that the landowner might have reason to turn it down, is that right?"

No. That's basically the same question.

Therefore, my answer is this:

 

It is perfectly fine for someone to place a cache in a location that doesn't require permission, without asking permission.

The highlighted portion above is exactly what we are talking about. Who gets to determine if a location requires permission? No you, not me. The Landowner does. Which means you need to ask first.

Not all hides in all locations require permission. Therefore, I must disagree.

Anthing beyond this is a debate regarding whether specific hides in specific locations would require permission.

Umm... maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that exactly what we're talking about? Specific locations, ie comercial properties?

Your question was rather generic. It wasn't a question about specific hides in specific locations.

[+Too Tall John]

How about if I say "If you place a cache knowing that the landowner might have reason to turn it down, is that right?"

No. That's basically the same question.

Well, I'm sorry you don't like the question. Would you care to answer it directly?

Not all hides in all locations require permission. Therefore, I must disagree.

Whether explicit or implied, all caches require permission. Otherwise it wouldn't be in the guidelines.

Anthing beyond this is a debate regarding whether specific hides in specific locations would require permission.

Umm... maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that exactly what we're talking about? Specific locations, ie comercial properties?

Your question was rather generic. It wasn't a question about specific hides in specific locations.

Let me ask it more specifically then:

In the case of commercial property*, if you place a cache knowing that the business might have reason to turn it down, is it ok to place the cache?

*Want more specific? Insert Wal-Mart here.

Edit: fixed quotes.

Edited March 17, 2007 by Too Tall John

[+KBI]

So, if it is likely the manager is going to say "No," does that still mean that all those caches still actually have "adequate" permission? If you place a cache knowing that the landowner is likely to turn it down, is that right?

That's an excellent pair of questions, Too Tall. When I read them I knew they deserved to be answered, but I had to think about them for a while first.

 

I think there are two elements to address here: "likely" and "permission."

 

First: "likely"

 

Is it likely the manager is going to say "No?" Do I think the landowner is likely to turn down my request? Just because one cache placer's request for verbal or written permission is accepted OR denied doesn't mean the next cache placer will get the same result. I can't presume to know what the manager of any given Big Box store will say on any given day to any given cacher, therefore to say that it is likely the manager is going to say "No" based on someone else's experience is not much better than a wild guess.

 

Second: "permission"

 

The way I see it, there are several levels of permission, including:

• "Implied" permission (i.e. the type Clan Riffster alludes to as existing under Florida law)
  
• "verbal" permission (from the local manager)
  
• "local written" permission (from the local manager)
  
• "universal written" permission (from the store's headquarters)
  

Which level of permission is satisfactory? Which level of permission is "adequate?" That's up to the person placing the cache.

 

Analogy: Let's say I work in an office near a Wal-Mart store. Every day for lunch I like to visit one of the local fast-food drive-thru windows, and then spend the rest of my lunch hour parked in the Wal-Mart parking lot. I eat my lunch and listen to the radio, I take a short nap, and then I leave. Do I have "permission" for these activities? Speaking only for myself, I believe the answer is yes -- I'm perfectly comfortable that I have "adequate permission" for my regular lunchtime activities. It's a public parking lot.

 

If, on the other hand, I were to approach the General Manager of the store and request "official permission" (verbal, local written or universal written) for my daily parking lot routine, I can see why he might be hesitant. Is there a potential upside anywhere in this for him personally? Not really. Is there a potential downside? Well, if he can think of ANY remote scenario in which saying "yes" to my daily parking lot picnic might hurt his career or cost him his job, he's going to turn me down. He doesn't really care what peaceful, legal and moral activities I'm doing in his parking lot. He might not even be all that interested in the other kind. All he knows is that my request for something beyond "implied" permission has stuck him with a dilemma, and he's now been forced into putting his own personal needs above mine. I can't blame him -- if I were in his position I'd likely do the same.

 

Would I feel comfortable eating a hamburger and having a snooze in a Wal-Mart parking lot? Yes.

Would I ever ask the store manager for any type of "official" permission to eat a hamburger and have a snooze in his Wal-Mart parking lot? No.

 

Would I feel comfortable having a brisk exercise walk with my iPod in a Wal-Mart parking lot? Aside from the traffic hazard ... yes.

Would I ever ask the store manager for any type of "official" permission to have a brisk exercise walk with my iPod in his Wal-Mart parking lot? No.

 

Would I feel comfortable either placing or hunting a geocache in a Wal-Mart parking lot? Yes.

Would I ever ask the store manager for any type of "official" permission to either place or hunt a geocache in his Wal-Mart parking lot? No.

 

I tend to agree with Clan Riffster's view on adequate permission.

 

Another analogy: We have a trampoline in our back yard. When we first set it up years ago we invited the neighbors to use it any time they like. The kids next door use it fairly regularly. Do they have "adequate" permission? I'd say they do. What would I say, however, if the parents came to me with a printed permission-to-use-the-trampoline form for me to sign? Would YOU sign such a form? I wouldn't -- not even if jumping on a trampoline were no more risky than the act of lifting a lamppost skirt during a cache hunt. Not only that, but if such a thing were asked of me, it might even spook me into repealing my earlier verbal permission, and those nice neighbor kids would be the ones to suffer.

[+sbell111]

How about if I say "If you place a cache knowing that the landowner might have reason to turn it down, is that right?"

No. That's basically the same question.

Well, I'm sorry you don't like the question. Would you care to answer it directly?

If I did not need his permission to place the cache? Yes, I would.

Not all hides in all locations require permission. Therefore, I must disagree.

Whether explicit or implied, all caches require permission. Otherwise it wouldn't be in the guidelines.

You might want to take another quick read of the guidelines. Otherwise, I'm thinking that you definition of 'implied' is different than most.

Anthing beyond this is a debate regarding whether specific hides in specific locations would require permission.

Umm... maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that exactly what we're talking about? Specific locations, ie comercial properties?

Your question was rather generic. It wasn't a question about specific hides in specific locations.

Let me ask it more specifically then:

In the case of commercial property*, if you place a cache knowing that the business might have reason to turn it down, is it ok to place the cache?

*Want more specific? Insert Wal-Mart here.

In general terms, yes. Edited March 17, 2007 by sbell111

[+boda]

I appreciate the passion on both sides of this discussion, and many points have opened my eyes on the permission issue. I do have one basic question pertaining to this thread specifically, however.

 

TGB goes to a Wally World in Hawaii and asks one manager for permission to place a cache. Basically, he talked himself into doing this because members of the other side in this thread felt that "adequate" permission already exists. TGB also seems to be asking to place a cache of a type that is not what was originally agreed upon.

 

There are two outcomes: He gets permission at one Wally World in Hawaii—or he doesn't.

 

We are all anxiously awaiting the result but when it comes in, what is proved (proven)?

 

Neither side will be happy with the other side's interpretation of the results.

 

I'm not trying to be snarky. I really am curious where you think this will go from here.

[+sbell111]

I think most of us are just waiting to see if he tanks it, or not. It's a curiosity, nothing more.

 

The fact is, if he doesn't get permission, we will have no idea how good of a try he gave. If he gets permission, those that contend that no one gets permission (and that permission would not be given) have to factor that into their reality.

[+boda]

Makes sense, sbell111.

 

I think the results of CR's efforts in Florida and his comments about Florida law might also define or confuse reality. I'm not sure which.

[+KBI]

I do have one basic question pertaining to this thread specifically....TGB goes to a Wally World in Hawaii and asks one manager for permission to place a cache. Basically, he talked himself into doing this because members of the other side in this thread felt that "adequate" permission already exists. TGB also seems to be asking to place a cache of a type that is not what was originally agreed upon.

 

There are two outcomes: He gets permission at one Wally World in Hawaii—or he doesn't.

 

We are all anxiously awaiting the result but when it comes in, what is proved (proven)?

As I understood TGB's original premise he was under the impression that none, or almost none, of the existing caches hidden on commercial property were placed there under any type of permission. He further stated a belief that the game would crumble and die if anyone were to ever make Wal-Mart (or any other multinational retail chain) aware of the existence of the game of Geocaching and the common placement of caches on their property.

 

TGB has now stated his intent to ask [someone] at Wal-Mart for permission to place [something]. This will presumably serve as the experimental variable (the control group being the large number of commercial property caches already in existence which, according to TGB, do not have permission to be there).

 

Two possible outcomes:

 

1. The game of Geocaching will NOT crumble and grind to a halt.

1a: Wal-Mart will formally accept commercial property caches, TGB will have set a happy precedent, and he will have lost his primary argument for insisting that the owners of this website do something to "control" or "limit" the rapid growth of such hides.

-OR-

1b: Wal-Mart will NOT grant TGB permission for his cache, but will also NOT attack the game of Geocaching with the full force of their legal department. TGB will have lost his primary argument for insisting that the owners of this website do something to "control" or "limit" the rapid growth of such hides.

 

2. The game of Geocaching WILL crumble and grind to a halt. Prompted by TGB's inquiry, Wal-Mart WILL attack the game of Geocaching with the full force of their legal department, setting off a chain reaction that, to the delight of the media, results in Geocaching.com rapidly going the way of the original Napster.com. We'll all be out the next day selling our Garmins and looking for a new hobby, but TGB will be satisfied in the knowledge that he was right all along to be concerned about what he perceived to be a threat to the game.

 

Neither side will be happy with the other side's interpretation of the results.

If TGB's experimental procedure is done properly and the results can be shown to be valid, there won't be anything to interpret.

 

If the game survives, that'll be one less argument for complainers to use against allowing the existence of easy/drive-by/lame/cookie-cutter hides.

 

If the game dies, the only person who has much chance of being happy with the results is TGB, who will have proven himself right.

 

I'm not trying to be snarky. I really am curious where you think this will go from here.

As for me, I'm putting my money on the game NOT collapsing, no matter what answer TGB gets from whoever he talks to at the store. I'm predicting either 1a or 1b.

[+KBI]

The last time Team Geoblast discussed his intentions was when he last posted to this thread three days ago on March 14th.

 

Stay tuned for late-breaking developments as our live coverage of Permission Watch 2007 continues ...

[+boda]

KBI, I agree with your overall analysis of the "problem."

 

You are responding as if this experiment will be the answer from Wally World; however, it only involves one manager in Hawaii making a decision. The decision may be based on his/her mood at the time.

 

I still think both sides will have the same argument, with just a bit more data to throw into the mix. I think sbell111 hit it on the head with the curiosity factor.

 

BTW, I will be using my Garmin tomorrow - and if it cuts off as I approach GZ because you guys poked the monster in the eye with a stick, I will not be happy.

 

edit to add missing word

Edited March 17, 2007 by boda

[+KBI]

You are responding as if this experiment will be the answer from Wally World;

I am only describing the premise and "solution" as presented by TGB; I didn't say I agreed with it.

 

however, it only involves one manager in Hawaii making a decision. The decision may be based on his/her mood at the time.

All this (and more) has been carefully pointed out to TGB already. He continues to press forward.

 

BTW, I will be using my Garmin tomorrow - and if it cuts off as I approach GZ because you guys poked the monster in the eye with a stick, I will not be happy.

As far as I can tell TGB is the only one doing the poking. He only asks that nobody call him a Turncoat Geocop if and when the monster rises up and mauls our favorite hobby.

[Clan Riffster]

Who gets to determine if a location requires permission? No you, not me. The Landowner does. Which means you need to ask first.

John, I respectfully disagree. I think the property owner, the laws of a particular jurisdiction, and Groundspeak policy, combine to determine if a specific location needs explicit permission vs. implied permission.

[+Too Tall John]

Who gets to determine if a location requires permission? No you, not me. The Landowner does. Which means you need to ask first.

John, I respectfully disagree. I think the property owner, the laws of a particular jurisdiction, and Groundspeak policy, combine to determine if a specific location needs explicit permission vs. implied permission.

If the property owner, laws, and policies combine to decide if explicit permission is needed, then I don't see how you are disagreeing with me. If the property owner is in the mix, aren't we saying the same thing?

 

As the entity that is ultimately liable if someone gets hurt geocaching in a parking lot, don't you think that a BBS has a right to say yes or no? Even if not, do you think they'll stand and take it if they get sued?

 

What do you mean, liable Too Tall John? How can they be liable if they don't know what is going on? Since it seems, CR that only you and I have done any research into laws, I decided to look at some of the Florida property laws since you are there.

 

According to Fla law, someone who enters a property for purposes beyond those implied by the owner is a licensee. Beyond wanton negligence, a property owner is required to warn the licensee of any dangers "which someone would not readily notice." It occurs to me that a place that someone might not readily notice is the perfect place for a cache.

 

When the BBS gets sued, guess who they're coming after? I don't care how many waivers we read on the GC.com website, a good lawyer can tear one of those to shreds, or at least make the opposing lawyers work really hard for their money. Oh, wait... they won't work harder for the money, they'll work harder for MORE money.

 

Aside from all this, does anyone else see that it really is the right thing to do?

 

On a somewhat related side note, I'm in the early planning stages of a multi cache that starts at the beginning of an old dismantled tramway at a closed ski area and ends at the top of the tramway. As I'll be dealing with two landowners with differing ideals, wish me luck!

[Clan Riffster]

Who gets to determine if a location requires permission? No you, not me. The Landowner does. Which means you need to ask first.

John, I respectfully disagree. I think the property owner, the laws of a particular jurisdiction, and Groundspeak policy, combine to determine if a specific location needs explicit permission vs. implied permission.

If the property owner, laws, and policies combine to decide if explicit permission is needed, then I don't see how you are disagreeing with me. If the property owner is in the mix, aren't we saying the same thing?

We may be talking about two different critters. The confusion is probably on my end, since I'm often referred to as being dumber than a bag of hammers. I thought you meant who gets to determine if Groundspeak needs to look for explicit permission, not who gets to make the actual call.

 

As the entity that is ultimately liable if someone gets hurt geocaching in a parking lot, don't you think that a BBS has a right to say yes or no?

Absolutely. Remember, my stated belief runs kinda contrary to the existing standard. What I was defining earlier is the current reality based upon my interpretation of state law and Groundspeak policy. I am a proponent of explicit permission being demonstrated for all commercial property caches, but I feel this way because I think a lack of explicit permission on these hides can have a detrimental effect on the game down the road, and I feel it's the honorable course to take in playing a game in somebody else's sandbox. I did not come by my belief through any extensive legal or civil evaluation. Could Wally World sue Groundspeak because they are listing caches on their property? Sure. We live in a litigation society. Would they? I believe the chances are very slim. Wally World knows how to maximize efficiency, and they could "cure" any problem they might perceive with one simple E-mail. That's a whole lot cheaper, and has a much lesser negative impact than them firing up their lawsuit machine.

 

On a somewhat related side note, I'm in the early planning stages of a multi cache that starts at the beginning of an old dismantled tramway at a closed ski area and ends at the top of the tramway. As I'll be dealing with two landowners with differing ideals, wish me luck!

Only one problem I see with that set up. It's not in Florida!

Good luck, Brother!

-Sean-

 

Post script: Is my spell check the only one that tries to change "geocaching" to "cowcatching"?

[+Too Tall John]

Who gets to determine if a location requires permission? No you, not me. The Landowner does. Which means you need to ask first.

John, I respectfully disagree. I think the property owner, the laws of a particular jurisdiction, and Groundspeak policy, combine to determine if a specific location needs explicit permission vs. implied permission.

If the property owner, laws, and policies combine to decide if explicit permission is needed, then I don't see how you are disagreeing with me. If the property owner is in the mix, aren't we saying the same thing?

We may be talking about two different critters. The confusion is probably on my end, since I'm often referred to as being dumber than a bag of hammers. I thought you meant who gets to determine if Groundspeak needs to look for explicit permission, not who gets to make the actual call.

Well, first off, a bag of hammers still smarts if you drop it on your foot. As far as the rest, like I said, it didn't actually seem like we were saying different things.

Could Wally World sue Groundspeak because they are listing caches on their property? Sure. We live in a litigation society. Would they? I believe the chances are very slim. Wally World knows how to maximize efficiency, and they could "cure" any problem they might perceive with one simple E-mail. That's a whole lot cheaper, and has a much lesser negative impact than them firing up their lawsuit machine.

Until something dawned on me, I agreed with this 100%. Here's what dawned on me:

When the BBS gets sued, guess who they're coming after? I don't care how many waivers we read on the GC.com website, a good lawyer can tear one of those to shreds, or at least make the opposing lawyers work really hard for their money. Oh, wait... they won't work harder for the money, they'll work harder for MORE money.

If Wal-Mart were to be sued by a geocacher, they will come after GC.com.

On a somewhat related side note, I'm in the early planning stages of a multi cache that starts at the beginning of an old dismantled tramway at a closed ski area and ends at the top of the tramway. As I'll be dealing with two landowners with differing ideals, wish me luck!

Only one problem I see with that set up. It's not in Florida!

Good luck, Brother!

-Sean-

Find me an abandoned ski area with a tramway in Florida & I'll be there! Actually, the guy I've been brewing this up with has family in Florida, maybe he can transpose the elements into something that'd work there.

Post script: Is my spell check the only one that tries to change "geocaching" to "cowcatching"?

There's a few words I need to add to my browsers spell check... geocaching, my last name... anyone know if this is possible with Firefox? Thankfully, it doesn't auto-correct for me. I'd be in real trouble.

Oh, and my spellchecker flags "cowcatching" as misspelled.... and "spellchecker"...

[+Dread_Pirate_Bruce]

Here's my 2 cents on permissin:

 

Someone suggested that “Lands and properties open to public access that have no direct prohibition against geocaching can be assumed to be acceptable hiding places.” I’m mostly in agreement, but would add that the assumption is dependent on whether finding the cache requires rooting around.

 

Take lamp post caches, for example. I draw a distinction between caches hidden under lamp post skirts and caches that are openly attached to the lamp post itself. My current favorite example of the latter are junction box covers that are magnetically attached to the lamp post itself. A magnetic cache attached to the lamp post itself is little different from a flier taped to the post or an empty soda can left standing atop the skirt. Its not really “messing” with someone else’s “stuff” as is the case with lifting the skirt.

 

If finding and grabbing a cache requires conspicuous activity, I see it as an “adequacy of permission” problem. There is no way to discretely grab a cache that is under the skirt of a lamp post or a newspaper machine. (And that does not even count looking under several newspaper machines for the cache, first.) It seems to me that conspicuous activity requires more permission to be considered “adequate.” However, grabbing a cache that is attached to the lamp post or hidden behind a guardrail or a sign can be done without drawing undue attention and needs “less” permission to be considered “adequate.”

 

As to caches that are in plain sight, I’ve seen a number of caches that are junction box covers, some painted to match their surroundings, affixed with magnets. They don’t require getting into anything, disassembling anything, etc. In fact, one of my favorites of this type is attached to the support post of a pay phone. Hundreds of people pass within 20 feet of it every day. They can’t but help see it even if they don’t appreciate it. It is so obvious that graffiti artists have scratched their marks on it, but have otherwise left it entirely unmolested. I doubt there was express permission for it. However, it would be little different from a passerby leaving an empty soda can or a flier.

 

If you would not get in trouble for leaving an empty soda can, then permission to leave an empty soda can/cache or equivalent should not require permission.

[+Renegade Knight]

....If the property owner, laws, and policies combine to decide if explicit permission is needed, ...

 

One thing I have found in my career. Some agencies only desire you to bring before them the things they need to review. Others want to review everything to determine if they needed to review it at all.

 

Land owners are similar in that I as a cache owner I am put in the position of deciding which category the land owner is in.

 

Geocaching consists of walking, hiking, looking, and a small, normally unobtrusive container of a limited life span. All of the activities that comprise geocaching are allowed in any land that provides for public accommodation. The only real issue is the container itself. There are locations that by their nature permission should be asked. There are many other locations that deserve no more time and consideration than is given when kids get together to play some hacky sack.

 

There is no one size fits all generalization that can be applied across the board.

[CoyoteRed]

If you would not get in trouble for leaving an empty soda can, then permission to leave an empty soda can/cache or equivalent should not require permission.

I, personally, am not comfortable with your analogy in that an empty soda can may (read: most likely) be considered garbage to be cleaned up. A geocache is far from being litter. It is a deliberate and permanent (as in designed to be durable or persistent, not permanent as in "forever and ever, amen") object placed in the environment with the purpose to be in place for the other participants to find and leave for the next person. Also, the vast majority of caches are designed to blend in and not be a visual blight as a piece of garbage or a flier could be.

 

Otherwise, I agree with the general thrust of your post.

[Mushtang]

...I draw a distinction between caches hidden under lamp post skirts and caches that are openly attached to the lamp post itself. My current favorite example of the latter are junction box covers that are magnetically attached to the lamp post itself.

 

....However, grabbing a cache that is attached to the lamp post or hidden behind a guardrail or a sign can be done without drawing undue attention

This assumes that the hider goes right to the fake junction box cover first. It's likely he first lifts the skirt, then looks around the lamp post, lifts the skirt again, checks the bushes nearby, checks the trees 60 feet away in case your coords were off, comes back to the lamp post and checks the skirt again, goes back to the car to read the description and recent logs, checks the skirt yet again, and finally spots the cache on the side of the pole.

 

That could draw a LOT more attention than a cache under the skirt.

 

Then he leaves his soda can on the skirt before driving off.

[+tozainamboku]

Wow! I agree with both Coyote Red and Mushtang's analysis of this post.

 

HH242 is local to me and I've met him at an event where we had a long talk about these kinds of caches. One thing that newbies bring to this conversation is that they lack experience of all the kinds of hides people put out. So they fall back to using common sense in interpreting the guidelines and in deciding which caches they feel comfortable searching for or not. We could all learn something from the newbies - "Use common sense".

 

Of course someone will point out that common sense is not common. If you find a cache that you think is potentially problematic - don't use it to justify placing a similar cache yourself. Perhaps another area of discussion is "what do you do if you find a cache that may cause a problem?" Do you say something in your log? Do you try to contact the owner for an explaination? Do you use the 'Needs Archiving' log?

[+Too Tall John]

Status report, TGB? Have you talked with anyone yet?

 

My own update:

On a somewhat related side note, I'm in the early planning stages of a multi cache that starts at the beginning of an old dismantled tramway at a closed ski area and ends at the top of the tramway. As I'll be dealing with two landowners with differing ideals, wish me luck!

Talked with the owner of the ski area today, I have "carte blanch" to place caches on over 1000 acres of mountain! If he weren't so busy developing an extreme sports park I think he'd have gone caching with me. Quite a guy.

[Mushtang]

Status report, TGB? Have you talked with anyone yet?

It's been a week since we've heard from him. I wonder if he's still working on it, or just staying away from this conversation?

 

Perhaps he was mostly right, and only achieved getting geocaching banned from Hawaii and not the whole world?