Potential Problem Caches

[+sbell111]

...The solution seems to be to hide your cache (wherever and whatever it is) in an area that allows the seeker a chance to be discrete in finding it. ...

and for seekers to use discretion regardless of what the hider did. No one is requiring anyone to log any cache. If you can't log it without giving it away, move along.

[+KBI]

Could someone explain to me how permission makes any difference in problem cache placement - because I just can't see the connection?? It seems to me that it is not permission, or lack thereof, that makes a problem placement. The multiple threads on this topic seem to indicate a problem placement arises almost exclusively when a cache is placed in such a way that it attracts the attention of what I can only characterize as "a needlessly paranoid element of society".

Lack of permission can cause a problem, but that's not the only topic that's being discussed here.

 

According to the Original Poster:

The thread To ban or not to ban LPC's is currently at 13 pages. In additional to the same old sorry arguments to ban lamp post hides because they are lame (i.e. the poster doesn't like them), a number of issue with lamp post caches have been brought up in that thread.... The three problems brought up in the other thread are:

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

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

The 'permission' issue is only 1/3 of this thread, as defined by the OP.

 

The solution seems to be to hide your cache (wherever and whatever it is) in an area that allows the seeker a chance to be discrete in finding it.

It's always nice when the cache hider takes this into consideration, but some cache owners actually go the other way and intentionally place their cache so as to make stealth part of the challenge. I've found plenty of these, and it can be a lot of fun doing the James Bond thing in a busy place when you feel like you're in a fishbowl. It's not for everybody, of course. As sbell111 pointed out, one always has the option to abandon any cache search the moment one becomes uncomfortable with any element of the search. All caching is optional.

 

It is ultimately the responsibility of the cache finder to avoid drawing attention, damaging the environment, hurting themselves, etc., etc.

 

And of course, get permission because that is a guideline of the game.

"Adequate" permission.

[+Team GeoBlast]

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

So, while I make an honest attempt to not to be argumentative, you feel alright mocking me like this? Whatever.

 

I am not privy to the inter-workings of Groudspeak and I don't think either of us is really in a position to comment intelligently on how much homework they have done or haven't done. If they did do homework, I wonder what facts and figures they based it on and more importantly how they arrived at the data.

 

From where I sit here on the outside, I see most of their resources being used on keeping the day to day operations going, such as rewriting the hobby code running GC.com and things like that. Long term risk management seems to come later the business evolution cycle in my own experience.

 

I wish we did know actually, it would probably save hours of speculating.

Edited March 9, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[Clan Riffster]

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

Our legal system is based upon the English System of Laws, the basic tenant of which is, if an action is not specifically prohibited, it must be regarded by the courts as lawful. So, yes, if something is not specifically disallowed, it is allowed. This tenant works in our favor in regards to cache placement.

 

Sbell111 didn't say that -- he argued against it.

I was wondering if I was the only one to catch that.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Does anyone here have any idea how many attorneys are on staff, on contract to and available amongst the volunteer body that supports and advises Groundspeak?

 

For a company this size it's an impressive number, and I don't know of all of them!

 

I believe that Groundspeak is well advised and knows exactly what it is doing.

 

All this chatter about what's legal and what's not regarding caches deemed to be listable on their site is a waste.

 

(Mushtang @ Mar 9 2007, 12:55 PM) *

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

I almost spewed my coffee over this one! If you ever find two lawyers who are NOT disagreeing you're likely in a graveyard!

[+Too Tall John]

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Read what I said:

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

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

 

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

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

Ok, I brought up the car for sale scenario to point out that Wal-Mart is very concerned about what happens in

their parking lots. Mushtang pointed out that WM lawyers weren't going to go after anybody after an individual put a for sale sign on a car in their lot, which didn't really have anything to do with my point. I then drew the parallel between the hypothetical situation where Auto Trader tells people to go put cars in BBS parking lots and the current situation with GC.com & CPCs.

I'd say that a scenario where a large organization endorses doing something on someone else's property is very relevant. We are talking about many caches spread around the thousands of Wal-Marts, not one car at one store.

As to:

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

 

One has happened, the other hasn't.

Really? Which one has happened?

and

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

 

(crickets)

How many caches are there on Wal-Mart property? Hard to say. Lots. Find me one that has permission to be placed given by someone who has the authority to give that permission.

 

(crickets)

 

Hmm... and yet, they are approved. They sure aren't saying you can't!

 

Maybe saying GC.com says people can place CPCWPs is incorrect, but I can say that they seem to be sanctioning it.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Too many quotes flying to keep track, but somebody said:

How many caches are there on Wal-Mart property? Hard to say. Lots. Find me one that has permission to be placed given by someone who has the authority to give that permission.

 

(crickets)

 

Hmm... and yet, they are approved. They sure aren't saying you can't!

 

Maybe saying GC.com says people can place CPCWPs is incorrect, but I can say that they seem to be sanctioning it.

Unless Groundspeak has been explicitly informed of off-limits or restricted areas they place the responsibility and accountability for permission issues squarely in the lap of the cache owner.

 

By checking the two boxes at the bottom of your cache submission page you state that you have read and agree to adhere to and abide by their published Cache Listing Guidelines and Terms of Service... a part of which is your assurance to them that your cache has adequate permission.

 

Groundspeak takes you at your word.

 

Outside of that mentioned in their Guidelines for Listing caches and for lands for which they have been informed that restrictions apply Groundspeak does not question, examine, regulate or approve cache placement permission issues nor issue any form of permission for your placement.

 

Every cache listed has an owner who has stated to Groundspeak that their cache has adequate permission.

 

As far as Groundspeak knows, then, every cache listed has the promised adequate permission.

 

If you really feel the need to make a name for yourself you can always pin a Cache Cops badge to your forehead and start reporting every cache that you suspect has been placed without adequate permission.

 

Otherwise, I do as Groundspeak does and assume that every cache I find has adequate permission.

Edited March 10, 2007 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+sbell111]

Does anyone else believe that this 'problem' is being blown WAY out of proportion?

 

Personally, I'm doubtful that there are 'thousands' of caches on Wal-Mart property (I don't think I've ever seen one) and I remain doubtful that Wal-Mart isn't already well aware of the game and the fact that some caches are in their parking lots.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I assume for purposes of this discussion that they are using WalMart as a euphemism for all Commercial Property Caches, as the issue is the same with a mom-n-pop convenience store as it is with a big retailer.

 

I agree, however, that the 'issue' is of the forums more than of real life.

Edited March 10, 2007 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+tozainamboku]

Could someone explain to me how permission makes any difference in problem cache placement - because I just can't see the connection?? It seems to me that it is not permission, or lack thereof, that makes a problem placement. The multiple threads on this topic seem to indicate a problem placement arises almost exclusively when a cache is placed in such a way that it attracts the attention of what I can only characterize as "a needlessly paranoid element of society".

Lack of permission can cause a problem, but that's not the only topic that's being discussed here.

 

According to the Original Poster:

The thread To ban or not to ban LPC's is currently at 13 pages. In additional to the same old sorry arguments to ban lamp post hides because they are lame (i.e. the poster doesn't like them), a number of issue with lamp post caches have been brought up in that thread.... The three problems brought up in the other thread are:

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

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

The 'permission' issue is only 1/3 of this thread, as defined by the OP.

 

I listed 3 areas which other people brought up in other threads as being a problem with certain type of caches. I though we mike make some progress by addressing these issues as separate from any type of cache.

1. There should be no doubt that some sort of permission is required to place a cache on private property. We can disagree on what adequate permission is - especially in an areas where the property owner has invited the general public.
   
2. There should be no doubt that cachers should not damage private property when searching for a cache.
   
3. Permission is clearly not going stop suspicious people from report a cache or the behavior of cachers. There may or may not be things we can be doing to reduce this.
   

This thread is for discussing these issues, whether these are real or perceived problems, and ways to handle the risk. The only thing I asked for is that no one propose banning any particular type of cache they feel mike be more likely to cause one of these problems.

I'm sorry that I said KBI put words in my mouth. I should have said that he left out some of the words that were in my mouth. If he feels that the problems are only a perception or that the seriousness of the consequences is being exaggerated he is free to make that point. If he agrees there is a problem and disagrees with the solutions that are being proposed, he is free to propose a different solution.

 

Too Tall John makes the assumption that all caches on Wal*Mart property are placed without permission simply because no one in the forum has come forward to say that they got permission - plus his experience managing a department in a Wal*Mart store has lead him to believe that if permission were ask it would not be given. He may be right - however he assumes that Geocaching.com and the reviewers must have reached the same conclusion and since they continue to approve caches on Wal*Mart property they are now telling people that it's OK to place one without permission. I don't see why either Geocaching.com or the reviewers should reach the same conclusion as Too Tall John. Keystone has noted that he often, but not always, gets a reviewer note indicating that permission was received for placing a cache on private property. In addition, Geocaching.com is often informed by property owners of caches that were place without permission and their policy is to archive these caches immediately. For all we know Geocaching.com lawyers have sent a letter to Wal*Mart indicating that cachers who place caches on Wal*Mart property have stated that they received adequate permission and if this is not the case all Wal*Mart has to do is ask for the listing to be removed. I'm pretty certain that Geocaching.com has taken no action that could be construed as telling cachers that it is OK to place caches without permission.

[+sbell111]

...Too Tall John makes the assumption that all caches on Wal*Mart property are placed without permission simply because no one in the forum has come forward to say that they got permission - plus his experience managing a department in a Wal*Mart store has lead him to believe that if permission were ask it would not be given. ...

I may be horribly mistaken, but I thought someone in the other thread mentioned one that had received permission. Truth be told, I had the flu during several pages of that thread, so it could have been a nyquil induced hallucination.

[+Too Tall John]

...Too Tall John makes the assumption that all caches on Wal*Mart property are placed without permission simply because no one in the forum has come forward to say that they got permission - plus his experience managing a department in a Wal*Mart store has lead him to believe that if permission were ask it would not be given. ...

I may be horribly mistaken, but I thought someone in the other thread mentioned one that had received permission. Truth be told, I had the flu during several pages of that thread, so it could have been a nyquil induced hallucination.

Hope you are feeling better. Having not been sick it's hard to recall everything that was posted on the 20-some-odd pages of that thread.

 

I believe what you are referring to is someone got permission at a Winn-Dixie from the store manager. I'm not familiar with the management structure in these stores, but if a Wal-Mart mgr were asked, they'd likely refer you "up the ladder" as they don't really have the authority.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Personally, I'm doubtful that there are 'thousands' of caches on Wal-Mart property (I don't think I've ever seen one) and I remain doubtful that Wal-Mart isn't already well aware of the game and the fact that some caches are in their parking lots.

 

I wish we could be so lucky in my area. There's a cache in just about every East Texas Wal-Mart parking lot.

 

Wouldn't it be pretty easy to contact Wal-Mart's corporate offices and get a up or down answer on caches, once and for all? Why so much conjecture? Regardless of whether local management knows about the cache or not, if the guys in Arkansas don't want them there, they shouldn't be there. Maybe they'd say no caches out of simplicity and a lack of desire to deal with the issue, but that is certainly their prerogative. Or on the other hand, they could say yea and there wouldn't be a question anymore. Perhaps they'd look at it like a nice bit of advertising.

 

I won't be sending that email, because I don't long to hunt or hide one there. But it does seem like an easy question to answer. That's if you wanted to know the answer.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

...Too Tall John makes the assumption that all caches on Wal*Mart property are placed without permission simply because no one in the forum has come forward to say that they got permission - plus his experience managing a department in a Wal*Mart store has lead him to believe that if permission were ask it would not be given. ...

I may be horribly mistaken, but I thought someone in the other thread mentioned one that had received permission. Truth be told, I had the flu during several pages of that thread, so it could have been a nyquil induced hallucination.

Hope you are feeling better. Having not been sick it's hard to recall everything that was posted on the 20-some-odd pages of that thread.

 

I believe what you are referring to is someone got permission at a Winn-Dixie from the store manager. I'm not familiar with the management structure in these stores, but if a Wal-Mart mgr were asked, they'd likely refer you "up the ladder" as they don't really have the authority.

May be referring to a micro I mentioned that's up the butt of a kids rocking-horse machine outside the doors of a WalMart in Florida. The manager asked what we were up to, we explained the game, showed him the cache, he was satisfied and split.

 

Not exactly explicit permission but certainly tacit.

[+sbell111]

May be referring to a micro I mentioned that's up the butt of a kids rocking-horse machine outside the doors of a WalMart in Florida. The manager asked what we were up to, we explained the game, showed him the cache, he was satisfied and split.

 

Not exactly explicit permission but certainly tacit.

Tacit permission works for me.

 

I used to have a micro on the square, here in Franklin, TN. When I initially placed it, I didn't get permission. However, after a while the landscaper started helping maintain the cache and often helped searchers find it.

 

Your example is even better. If the manager knew about it and didn't have a problem with it, that's as good as having his permission.

Edited March 10, 2007 by sbell111

[+KBI]

I'm sorry that I said KBI put words in my mouth....

No worries, Mate!

 

No offence taken. I assumed you probably only meant it as a friendly ribbing anyway, and I was merely ribbing you back.

 

This is a great thread, Toz. You framed the discussion well with your first post, and you're doing a nice job moderating it. Good work!

[+Team GeoBlast]

Personally, I'm doubtful that there are 'thousands' of caches on Wal-Mart property (I don't think I've ever seen one) and I remain doubtful that Wal-Mart isn't already well aware of the game and the fact that some caches are in their parking lots.

 

I wish we could be so lucky in my area. There's a cache in just about every East Texas Wal-Mart parking lot.

 

Wouldn't it be pretty easy to contact Wal-Mart's corporate offices and get a up or down answer on caches, once and for all? Why so much conjecture?

 

Makes complete sense to me. It is curious why this discussion as gone on as long as it has. If we are all so sure that Walmart would embrace geocaching on their property 24/7 why hasn't somebody just done this to prove their point?

Edited March 10, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[Mushtang]

Personally, I'm doubtful that there are 'thousands' of caches on Wal-Mart property (I don't think I've ever seen one) and I remain doubtful that Wal-Mart isn't already well aware of the game and the fact that some caches are in their parking lots.

 

I wish we could be so lucky in my area. There's a cache in just about every East Texas Wal-Mart parking lot.

 

Wouldn't it be pretty easy to contact Wal-Mart's corporate offices and get a up or down answer on caches, once and for all? Why so much conjecture?

 

Makes complete sense to me. It is curious why this discussion as gone on as long as it has. If we are all so sure that Walmart would embrace geocaching on their property 24/7 why hasn't somebody just done this to prove their point?

There are 2 main camps in this discussion. 1) Those that are against CPCs and don't want to find them (and wouldn't mind if they were removed), and 2) Those that appreciate CPCs and will hunt them when available.

 

The people from the first group don't want to go to WalMart and ask permission because they'd rather sit back and hope that the CPCs get removed due to lack of permission. They're not going to help out a cache hiding technique that they don't like. Even if one does go you can be sure they'll explain it in the worst light in order to guarantee the manager (or whoever) says no.

 

The folks from the second group maintain that adequate permission already exists in these caches, and feel no need to go behind someone else and be cache cop.

 

That's why.

[Clan Riffster]

There are 2 main camps in this discussion. 1) Those that are against CPCs and don't want to find them (and wouldn't mind if they were removed), and 2) Those that appreciate CPCs and will hunt them when available.

You're forgetting about a 3rd camp.

3) Those who feel that CPC's should have explicit permission, and feel strongly enough about this belief that they are willing to post their opinions in threads such as this one. Those belonging to this camp have typically taken the time to ensure that any CPC they might hide does have explicit permission. The good folks in this apparently overlooked camp often choose not to hunt CPC's if they feel they have not been placed with explicit permission.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

One should seriously examine one's motives for even wanting to stir a pot that doesn't feed you.

 

If you don't like WalMart caches (or any other), stay the hell away from them!

 

Calling WalMart corporate and shaking that nest in hopes that we who like caches there will get stung is a pretty low-down thing to do, by any but the worst-motivated's standards.

 

If you don't like it, leave it alone, go play where you are happy.

 

And yes, I do take the tone and content of some of the posts from those who propose this as a threat to carry it out.

 

WalMart hides are just a minute fraction of CPCs. If you get us baned from there, who is next on your list?

 

Please don't. If it ain't broke don't fix it!

[Mushtang]

There are 2 main camps in this discussion. 1) Those that are against CPCs and don't want to find them (and wouldn't mind if they were removed), and 2) Those that appreciate CPCs and will hunt them when available.

You're forgetting about a 3rd camp.

3) Those who feel that CPC's should have explicit permission, and feel strongly enough about this belief that they are willing to post their opinions in threads such as this one. Those belonging to this camp have typically taken the time to ensure that any CPC they might hide does have explicit permission. The good folks in this apparently overlooked camp often choose not to hunt CPC's if they feel they have not been placed with explicit permission.

It seems to me that the folks in your 3rd camp are a subset of the first camp. But since you defined them are you going to either explain why this 3rd camp won't go to WalMart and ask permission for the hides, or will you actually contact them to "prove your point" as Team GB suggests?

[+Team GeoBlast]

One should seriously examine one's motives for even wanting to stir a pot that doesn't feed you.

 

If you don't like WalMart caches (or any other), stay the hell away from them!

 

Calling WalMart corporate and shaking that nest in hopes that we who like caches there will get stung is a pretty low-down thing to do, by any but the worst-motivated's standards.

 

If you don't like it, leave it alone, go play where you are happy.

 

And yes, I do take the tone and content of some of the posts from those who propose this as a threat to carry it out.

 

WalMart hides are just a minute fraction of CPCs. If you get us baned from there, who is next on your list?

 

Please don't. If it ain't broke don't fix it!

 

Why should this be a threat if "the problem" has been blown so far out of proportion as regularly suggested by many in this thread? Who said anything about getting them banned anyway? 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'm adjusting my dial and this picture is still fuzzy.

[+sbell111]

There are 2 main camps in this discussion. 1) Those that are against CPCs and don't want to find them (and wouldn't mind if they were removed), and 2) Those that appreciate CPCs and will hunt them when available.

You're forgetting about a 3rd camp.

3) Those who feel that CPC's should have explicit permission, and feel strongly enough about this belief that they are willing to post their opinions in threads such as this one. Those belonging to this camp have typically taken the time to ensure that any CPC they might hide does have explicit permission. The good folks in this apparently overlooked camp often choose not to hunt CPC's if they feel they have not been placed with explicit permission.

From the posts in the other thread, it would appear that this group is a subset of the first group.

[+sbell111]

It seems to me that the folks in your 3rd camp are a subset of the first camp. ...

I guess I should read the entire thread before replying, huh?

[+Team GeoBlast]

There are 2 main camps in this discussion. 1) Those that are against CPCs and don't want to find them (and wouldn't mind if they were removed), and 2) Those that appreciate CPCs and will hunt them when available.

You're forgetting about a 3rd camp.

3) Those who feel that CPC's should have explicit permission, and feel strongly enough about this belief that they are willing to post their opinions in threads such as this one. Those belonging to this camp have typically taken the time to ensure that any CPC they might hide does have explicit permission. The good folks in this apparently overlooked camp often choose not to hunt CPC's if they feel they have not been placed with explicit permission.

It seems to me that the folks in your 3rd camp are a subset of the first camp. But since you defined them are you going to either explain why this 3rd camp won't go to WalMart and ask permission for the hides, or will you actually contact them to "prove your point" as Team GB suggests?

 

That isn't what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that -camp two- approach WalMart to prove -their- point that we are blowing this "problem" out of proportion. It seems to me that we need some more solid facts on both sides of this discussion, right? Or.. is this much reality going to take all the fun out of it?

[+sbell111]

Why should this be a threat if "the problem" has been blown so far out of proportion as regularly suggested by many in this thread?

Does it matter if you ruin something for two cachers or two thousand?

Who said anything about getting them banned anyway?

Are you for real? You were pretty darn active an the bannination thread.

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.

I'm adjusting my dial and this picture is still fuzzy.

I don't know why, since all of this was addressed in the other thread about twenty times.

[+sbell111]

That isn't what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that -camp two- approach WalMart to prove -their- point that we are blowing this "problem" out of proportion. It seems to me that we need some more solid facts on both sides of this discussion, right? Or.. is this much reality going to take all the fun out of it?

Reality is a funny thing. Your's clearly isn't the same as mine.

[+KBI]

As TAR says, Wal-Mart hides are just a minute fraction of CPCs. I believe that if Wal-Mart ever actually got around to banning Geocaches from their property, it would have even less effect on the game than the long-standing Nat'l Park Service ban.

 

In fact, it might give future permission-seekers an even better sales pitch when talking to local managers of Wal-Mart's competitors: "And further, Mr (Target/Kmart/etc) manager, it seems that Wal-Mart has now officially told Geocachers that they aren't welcome to play at Wal-Mart. If I place my cache in YOUR parking lot -- with your generous permission -- where do you think cachers would be more likely to shop from now on?"

[+Team GeoBlast]

There are 2 main camps in this discussion. 1) Those that are against CPCs and don't want to find them (and wouldn't mind if they were removed), and 2) Those that appreciate CPCs and will hunt them when available.

You're forgetting about a 3rd camp.

3) Those who feel that CPC's should have explicit permission, and feel strongly enough about this belief that they are willing to post their opinions in threads such as this one. Those belonging to this camp have typically taken the time to ensure that any CPC they might hide does have explicit permission. The good folks in this apparently overlooked camp often choose not to hunt CPC's if they feel they have not been placed with explicit permission.

It seems to me that the folks in your 3rd camp are a subset of the first camp. But since you defined them are you going to either explain why this 3rd camp won't go to WalMart and ask permission for the hides, or will you actually contact them to "prove your point" as Team GB suggests?

 

There's definitely a third camp. I'd love to find CPCs that I do not fear getting busted for hunting. I also come from a perspective of a commercial property owner and really struggle with anyone organizing and promoting a game where they feel it is okay to use it without my expressed permission.

[+sbell111]

I suspect that if one of the CPC/LPC haters were successful in getting caches at Wal-Mart archived that we would see CPCs/LPCs spring up at nearly every other possible place, simply out of protest.

[+KBI]

There are 2 main camps in this discussion. 1) Those that are against CPCs and don't want to find them (and wouldn't mind if they were removed), and 2) Those that appreciate CPCs and will hunt them when available.

You're forgetting about a 3rd camp.

3) Those who feel that CPC's should have explicit permission, and feel strongly enough about this belief that they are willing to post their opinions in threads such as this one. Those belonging to this camp have typically taken the time to ensure that any CPC they might hide does have explicit permission. The good folks in this apparently overlooked camp often choose not to hunt CPC's if they feel they have not been placed with explicit permission.

It seems to me that the folks in your 3rd camp are a subset of the first camp. But since you defined them are you going to either explain why this 3rd camp won't go to WalMart and ask permission for the hides, or will you actually contact them to "prove your point" as Team GB suggests?

That isn't what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that -camp two- approach WalMart to prove -their- point that we are blowing this "problem" out of proportion. It seems to me that we need some more solid facts on both sides of this discussion, right? Or.. is this much reality going to take all the fun out of it?

I'll quote what Mushtang has already said in answer to that question:

The folks from the second group maintain that adequate permission already exists in these caches, and feel no need to go behind someone else and be cache cop.

 

That's why.

Camp Two doesn't see a problem in the first place. Camp Two sees no need to fix what isn't broken.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Why should this be a threat if "the problem" has been blown so far out of proportion as regularly suggested by many in this thread?

Does it matter if you ruin something for two cachers or two thousand?

Who said anything about getting them banned anyway?

Are you for real? You were pretty darn active an the bannination thread.

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.

I'm adjusting my dial and this picture is still fuzzy.

I don't know why, since all of this was addressed in the other thread about twenty times.

 

And you pretty much misunderstood what I was saying all the way through it then. I'm going to refer you back to this post when you forget this again. 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. Sure, I think people could do better than those hides but I think it was you or someone else that pointed out very astutely that this might be the best some hiders can do and I accepted that.

 

So... all long this has been about the concept of pausible deniablity? The picture is getting clearer now.

[+KBI]

I suspect that if one of the CPC/LPC haters were successful in getting caches at Wal-Mart archived that we would see CPCs/LPCs spring up at nearly every other possible place, simply out of protest.

... and the owners of those newly-cached properties would be the biggest beneficiaries. I try to combine caching and errands/appointments whenever possible. If I usually buy my groceries at the Publix, but today's newest protest hide is in the parking lot of the Kroger, guess where I'm buying the milk and cookies today?

[+Team GeoBlast]

I suspect that if one of the CPC/LPC haters were successful in getting caches at Wal-Mart archived that we would see CPCs/LPCs spring up at nearly every other possible place, simply out of protest.

... and the owners of those newly-cached properties would be the biggest beneficiaries. I try to combine caching and errands/appointments whenever possible. If I usually buy my groceries at the Publix, but today's newest protest hide is in the parking lot of the Kroger, guess where I'm buying the milk and cookies today?

 

You know, it's my hope that the property owners would feel the same way you and I do about geocaching. As long as they are given the opportunity to learn about it before it is done I see no harm in this what-so-ever.

[+sbell111]

...So... all long this has been about the concept of pausible deniablity? The picture is getting clearer now.

This has been about many things, but I did mention plausible deniability about three times in the other thread.

[+Team GeoBlast]

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.

 

Then why not take the bull by the horns and do it yourself before the evil camp goes and does it? You seem to believe in upside of these caches more than anyone and would be a good advocate. Heck, you are probably going to be telling them about something they already know about anyway, right? What is keeping you from being proactive?

 

I guess what bugs me is that this is a perpetual treadmill of a discussion until somebody actually steps up and does this.

[+sbell111]

I suspect that if one of the CPC/LPC haters were successful in getting caches at Wal-Mart archived that we would see CPCs/LPCs spring up at nearly every other possible place, simply out of protest.

... and the owners of those newly-cached properties would be the biggest beneficiaries. I try to combine caching and errands/appointments whenever possible. If I usually buy my groceries at the Publix, but today's newest protest hide is in the parking lot of the Kroger, guess where I'm buying the milk and cookies today?

That's a very good point. Not too long ago, I was out caching and came upon an LPC in an ALDI's parking lot. I've never been in one before, so I went in. I thought there 'shopping cart rental' policy was brilliant as it kept their lot from being littered with carts and saved on manpower cost. I bought my cookies and finished my caching. I've since been back twice.

[+sbell111]

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.

Then why not take the bull by the horns and do it yourself before the evil camp goes and does it? You seem to believe in upside of these caches more than anyone and would be a good advocate. Heck, you are probably going to be telling them about something they already know about anyway, right? What is keeping you from being proactive?

 

I guess what bugs me is that this is a perpetual treadmill of a discussion until somebody actually steps up and does this.

I'm not going to do it for two reasons. First, I don't own any LPCs and am not currently in the market for more caches. The second reason you quoted above (I changed the text to blue to help you find it). Edited March 10, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

... I guess what bugs me is that this is a perpetual treadmill of a discussion until somebody actually steps up and does this.

What bugs me is that you are so strident about the issue when you've stated that this isn't an issue at all in your neck of the woods. It's strange that you're demanding action on a hypothetical issue (unless you are just trying to do away with caches that you don't like). Edited March 10, 2007 by sbell111

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

It could very well be that Wally World corporate would say no to caches because of the "plausible deniability" claim, but that is their property and their prerogative. I feel chances are decent they'd say yes. As mentioned earlier they let the Girl Scouts and everyone else do their business. But they do ask.

 

Do we not ask permission when we feel the answer will be no?

 

If you don't like WalMart caches (or any other), stay the hell away from them!

 

Very persuasive discussion style there.

 

I can' t understand how some folks who are for specific permission info to be a part of every cache page would be against specific permission when dealing with a corporation.

 

I'm not a fortune teller. I can't guarantee that any corporate cache would have ever have a "problem", nor do I know how big the "problem" would be. I do feel the best way to circumvent ill will if that were to happen, though, is permission from the top.

Edited March 10, 2007 by Googling Hrpty Hrrs

[+KBI]

Then why not take the bull by the horns and do it yourself ... ? ... I guess what bugs me is that this is a perpetual treadmill of a discussion until somebody actually steps up and does this.

Your premise it that it needs to be done at all. I disagree with your premise. Many of us disagree with this premise, and have been telling you this for quite a while now.

[+KBI]

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 forsee 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.

[Clan Riffster]

If it ain't broke don't fix it!

And let's not forget the logical other side of that coin: If you perceive it to be broken, you should make every effort to fix it.

 

It seems to me that the folks in your 3rd camp are a subset of the first camp.

Then you obviously have no idea what "my" 3rd camp believes. As stated by you, this so called 1st camp consists of "Those that are against CPCs and don't want to find them (and wouldn't mind if they were removed)". How is proclaiming a belief that CPC's should have explicit permission any indication that the 3rd camp is against them in any way?

 

But since you defined them are you going to either explain why this 3rd camp won't go to WalMart and ask permission for the hides, or will you actually contact them to "prove your point" as Team GB suggests?

Did you even read "my" definition of this 3rd camp? Remember the part that said "Those belonging to this camp have typically taken the time to ensure that any CPC they might hide does have explicit permission."? Is that really so hard to comprehend? I own a CPC, and it is there with explicit permission. I'm planning another CPC, and it too will have explicit permission.

 

I think that it's all about the negotiating skills and motivations of the asker.

Exactly. A person's demeanor, tone & timber are far more important conveyors of information than the words they speak. I can practically guarantee a positive or negative response to any question, simply by altering my approach. This little trick of kinesics is one that I use as a cop on a daily basis. One possible exception to this would be a single individual such as myself, approaching a corporate headquarters. I think, if someone were to contact the big cheese at Wally World asking for permission to hide things in their parking lots, the corporate answer would be a resounding "No". That's just my opinion, as I've never worked for Wally World or any other major corporation. I wouldn't want to risk asking the big cheeses, which is why I limit my permission asking to the local level.

[Mushtang]

If it ain't broke don't fix it!

And let's not forget the logical other side of that coin: If you perceive it to be broken, you should make every effort to fix it.

 

It seems to me that the folks in your 3rd camp are a subset of the first camp.

Then you obviously have no idea what "my" 3rd camp believes. As stated by you, this so called 1st camp consists of "Those that are against CPCs and don't want to find them (and wouldn't mind if they were removed)". How is proclaiming a belief that CPC's should have explicit permission any indication that the 3rd camp is against them in any way?

From the other thread I got the strong impression that many folks over there that argued against LPCs were doing so because of the title. Several on your side of the argument were actually arguing for the LPCs to no longer be approved, which to me is a ban, and I didn't go back to see if you'd specifically said so or not. I'll take your word for it and assume you're only asking for LPCs (and the rest of the CPCs) to have explicit permission.

 

But since you defined them are you going to either explain why this 3rd camp won't go to WalMart and ask permission for the hides, or will you actually contact them to "prove your point" as Team GB suggests?

Did you even read "my" definition of this 3rd camp? Remember the part that said "Those belonging to this camp have typically taken the time to ensure that any CPC they might hide does have explicit permission."? Is that really so hard to comprehend? I own a CPC, and it is there with explicit permission. I'm planning another CPC, and it too will have explicit permission.

Awesome! It sounds like someone already approached the Big Box Stores like Team GB suggested.

 

The cache wasn't denied, and the game didn't come to a screeching halt as some of the Camp 1 folks were speculating would happen if someone actually did ask for explicit permission.

[+KBI]

But since you defined them are you going to either explain why this 3rd camp won't go to WalMart and ask permission for the hides, or will you actually contact them to "prove your point" as Team GB suggests?

Did you even read "my" definition of this 3rd camp? Remember the part that said "Those belonging to this camp have typically taken the time to ensure that any CPC they might hide does have explicit permission."? Is that really so hard to comprehend? I own a CPC, and it is there with explicit permission. I'm planning another CPC, and it too will have explicit permission.

You might want to go back and read the discussion again in context, CR. Nobody's criticizing your motives or procedures. Your point is correct, yet irrelevant. The question that was raised dealt only with that fact that nobody in this thread has approached the headquarters of any of the large retail firms to seek blanket permission. Did you get permission for any of your hides in the form of permanent and blanket permission for all future hides at all locations from the world headquarters of the company?

 

Mushtang's point was that The Camp #1 side doesn't want to do so because it would only serve to encourage the existence of CPCs, thereby helping the Camp #2 side; and that the folks in Camp #2 don't see any problem that needs solving in the first place, assumes by default that adequate permission for a given cache has been sought and received, and therefore sees no reason to call current owners of CPCs liars.

 

Hence Mushtang’s question, the one you quoted. He was trying to determing the relevance of your Camp #3 definition. I still think Camp #3 is just a subset of Camp #1.

 

Edited March 10, 2007 by KBI

[+Kit Fox]

Who actually owns the parking lots of large shopping centers? Don't the large stores lease the property, unless the property is exclusive to the store?

[+Too Tall John]

Personally, I'm doubtful that there are 'thousands' of caches on Wal-Mart property (I don't think I've ever seen one) and I remain doubtful that Wal-Mart isn't already well aware of the game and the fact that some caches are in their parking lots.

Ok, this has been bugging me. This statement was in response to something I said. I never said anything about the number of WM property caches being in the thousands, I said something about many caches being spread across the thousands of Wal-Marts.

There are 2 main camps in this discussion. 1) Those that are against CPCs and don't want to find them (and wouldn't mind if they were removed), and 2) Those that appreciate CPCs and will hunt them when available.

While we're all defining the third group, here's where I see my position:

I'm not against any particular type of cache. I see that there is great diversity in the types of geocachers out there resulting in many types of caches. When I first read the thread on banning LPCs it got me thinking. If a company like Wal-Mart were to make blanket statement banning all LPCs from their property, that would be very disappointing for many people. Something needs to be done. Not to mention the black eye GC.com gets every time a cache is investigated by LEOs and it turns out they didn't have permission.

Calling WalMart corporate and shaking that nest in hopes that we who like caches there will get stung is a pretty low-down thing to do, by any but the worst-motivated's standards.

 

If you don't like it, leave it alone, go play where you are happy.

 

And yes, I do take the tone and content of some of the posts from those who propose this as a threat to carry it out.

The only reason I haven't contacted Wal-Mart is I see value in these CPCs & my negotiating skills (and complete lack of authority in relation to GC.com) would probably result in their banning! That's a title I can do without!

 

So, that's my camp, call it camp 4 if you want.

[+Team GeoBlast]

... I guess what bugs me is that this is a perpetual treadmill of a discussion until somebody actually steps up and does this.

What bugs me is that you are so strident about the issue when you've stated that this isn't an issue at all in your neck of the woods. It's strange that you're demanding action on a hypothetical issue (unless you are just trying to do away with caches that you don't like).

 

And you just stated that you don't own or are not in the market to place a CPC, right? How is that any different? I suppose that we both care about the game and the people play it enough to have a conversation about the bigger picture?

[Clan Riffster]

I still think Camp #3 is just a subset of Camp #1.

I forgive your lack of understanding. Allow me to clarify for you. Those of us in Camp 3 support & embrace CPC's as a whole, seeing them as a benign alternative to hikes in the woods. We in Camp 3 recognize that CPC's have the potential to cast a bad light on this game that we all love to play, if they are hidden without explicit permission. The title of this thread is "Potential Problem Caches". Those of us in Camp 3 see this bad light as a Potential Problem, and have offered what we feel might reduce the problem.

 

This position, (or camp, if you prefer the term), is absolutely incompatible with the stated 1st camp's position of "Those that are against CPCs and don't want to find them (and wouldn't mind if they were removed".

 

Continuing to insist that Camp 3 is a subset of Camp 1 simply shows you are either unwilling or unable to recognize the difference.

[+Team GeoBlast]

... I guess what bugs me is that this is a perpetual treadmill of a discussion until somebody actually steps up and does this.

What bugs me is that you are so strident about the issue when you've stated that this isn't an issue at all in your neck of the woods. It's strange that you're demanding action on a hypothetical issue (unless you are just trying to do away with caches that you don't like).

 

And you just stated that you don't own or are not in the market to place a CPC, right? How is that any different? I suppose that we both care about the game and the people play it enough to have a conversation about the bigger picture?

 

Apparently we've found your personal boundary then. You can argue that you don't think the placing of CPCs without permission of the owner is much of a problem, that the number of caches in Walmart or BBS stores is greatly exaggerated, that GC.com is well aware of all the CPCs out there and has done their homework to cover themselves legally but you are not willing to make the next step for the reasons that you stated.

 

It is not debatable that the next step you don't want to take would involve -actually doing something- in the real world, instead of stating your case so eloquently in the Groundspeak forum. I hope you don't cry foul when someone else, that might not agree with your personal views, steps up and does it.