Stay on the Trail

[+FunnyNose]

There is a traditional cache placed in a park near me, the area is signed in a number of spots to "Stay on Trail." One of the waypoints for this cache is at least 30ft off the gravel trail. The other waypoint is at least 80ft off the gravel trail. Cache owner says they have permission from the grounds keeper for these caches as long as you stay on the grassy areas.

 

My question is, should we be encouraging cachers to break park rules like this?

 

Additional information: This is a small (About 8 acres) fairly manicured park.

 

Edited January 14, 2008 by FunnyNose

[+Bunganator]

Some regional parks require written permission in order to place a cache and the cache must me within 100 feet or so of a trail. Even though signs say stay on the trail, this is a written exemption for cachers to exit the trail. The only bummer is that they can often be popular caches and geotrails form. The regional parks can monitor this and have the final say over caches (sometimes requiring their archeival after 1 year). I hope this thread doesnt turn into a heated "adaquate permission" thread, but in this instance, with an exemption from the park, I do not think it encourages cachers to break the rules. This however, may not be your situation, so it may be different.

[+Team Cotati]

There is a traditional cache placed in a park near me, the area is signed in a number of spots to "Stay on Trail." One of the waypoints for this cache is at least 30ft off the gravel trail. The other waypoint is at least 80ft off the gravel trail. Cache owner says they have permission from the grounds keeper for these caches as long as you stay on the grassy areas.

 

My question is, should we be encouraging cachers to break park rules like this?

 

Additional information: This is a small (About 8 acres) fairly manicured park.

 

 

Oh, haven't you heard? That's a park usage rule that doesn't apply to geocachers.

 

Anza-Borrego.

Edited January 14, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+briansnat]

If it's OK with the park management, who am I to say he can't do it.

[+MaplessInSeattle]

Personally, if I'm being required to break park rules in order to get a cache... I would like the assurance that it is in writing somewhere from the parks dept.

This would also help to prevent another Discovery Park fiasco as well.

Not to mention once people see geocachers breaking the rules, what does it do to our reputation.

People see us wandering off trail, where it is clearly posted not to, with a gps in hand.

Then they read an article in The Times about geocaching, and they go, oh yah, those are the guys that don't pay attention to parks signs and walk off trails destroying the grassy areas.

 

*puts asbestos suit on*

[+Shop99er]

If the park rules say "Stay on the Trail" than that is exactly what we should be doing.

 

Being geocachers doen't give us any special set of rules, nor does it give us permission to ignore the established rules.

[+joranda]

Well, if I'm reading the sign right. It is saying to walk the bikes and to keep them on the trail, not the hikers. They probably don't want the riders to make more riding trails.

[+TrailGators]

It would be nice if people would post that they got permission on the cache page along with the park's geocaching rules. Anyhow, I would email the cache owner and just ask him/her.

[+PhxChem]

what does it do to our reputation

 

I keep hearing about this "reputation" that the public has of geocachers. Where do I go to find out what our reputation is?

 

Do most people even know we're alive?

[+Team Cotati]

what does it do to our reputation

 

I keep hearing about this "reputation" that the public has of geocachers. Where do I go to find out what our reputation is?

 

Do most people even know we're alive?

 

Here's the deal. When I visit a public park and I observe some sort of damage, vandalisim, tagging, trashiness, trampled grounds and the like, AND I haven't personally observed the perpretators in action, there is no way that I'm going to know a single thing in detail about them.

 

This in no way lessens the impact nor image that they create. I have essentially ZERO interest in what the avocation might be of people who disrespect our parks. I DO however have a deep interest that it be stopped.

 

We all pay taxes to gubmint entities that are supposed to accomplish that mission on our behalf. To the extent that they are not performing their jobs to a satisfactory and reasonable level is something that all park system users ought to be bringing to the attention of park management.

 

I do that on a regular basis and have done so for a long long time prior to ever hearing the word geocache. I view it as a part of my civic duty not limited to my shortsighted self-interest. I encourage others to do the same to the maximum extent possible.

Edited January 14, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+briansnat]

what does it do to our reputation

 

I keep hearing about this "reputation" that the public has of geocachers. Where do I go to find out what our reputation is?

 

Do most people even know we're alive?

 

Ask park rangers and land managers. Most are aware that we exist. Depending on which one you talk to our rep ranges from "Those nice folk who help clean up parks" to "Those cretins who create new trails and bury things".

[+ReadyOrNot]

what does it do to our reputation

 

I keep hearing about this "reputation" that the public has of geocachers. Where do I go to find out what our reputation is?

 

Do most people even know we're alive?

 

It's been my experience that the general public has NO CLUE about geocaching. When most see you walking off into the woods holding "Something", they probably don't think too much about it... I think assuming people make some kind of connection is a bit far fetched.

[+Criminal]

Cache owner says they have permission from the grounds keeper for these caches as long as you stay on the grassy areas.

 

My question is, should we be encouraging cachers to break park rules like this?

Breaking rules? So if you go to the park to throw a frisbee or toss a baseball with your son, do you have to stay on the trails or can you do so on the grassy areas?

[+Team Cotati]

Cache owner says they have permission from the grounds keeper for these caches as long as you stay on the grassy areas.

 

My question is, should we be encouraging cachers to break park rules like this?

Breaking rules? So if you go to the park to throw a frisbee or toss a baseball with your son, do you have to stay on the trails or can you do so on the grassy areas?

 

I'd say that that all depends upon on what the rules for that particular park might be.

 

In this hypothetical 'park' of yours here, what would be the rules pertaining to the usage of their "grassy areas"? Staying on trails? You know, annoyances like that.

 

I feel fairly confident though, that even in a hypothetical park, that if you and your son are good enough at that frisbee flinging thing that you can toss it back and forth within the limits and bounds of a given trail that that would be just peachy fine. And of course taking care so as to not to block or intefere with the passage of other trail users.

 

Limits and bounds.

Edited January 14, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+StarBrand]

If they got the right permission and state that on the lisitng page - ok by me.

[+Renegade Knight]

There is a traditional cache placed in a park near me, the area is signed in a number of spots to "Stay on Trail." One of the waypoints for this cache is at least 30ft off the gravel trail. The other waypoint is at least 80ft off the gravel trail. Cache owner says they have permission from the grounds keeper for these caches as long as you stay on the grassy areas.

 

My question is, should we be encouraging cachers to break park rules like this?...

 

There are no rules being broken. Cachers have permission to find the cache via the grassy areas. The orginal stay on trail rule may not even be an actual park board certified rule and even if it is, another rule give the park the authority to define trail as grassy area leading to the cache.

Edited January 14, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+Team Cotati]

There is a traditional cache placed in a park near me, the area is signed in a number of spots to "Stay on Trail." One of the waypoints for this cache is at least 30ft off the gravel trail. The other waypoint is at least 80ft off the gravel trail. Cache owner says they have permission from the grounds keeper for these caches as long as you stay on the grassy areas.

 

My question is, should we be encouraging cachers to break park rules like this?...

 

There are no rules being broken. Cachers have permission to find the cache via the grassy areas. The orginal stay on trail rule may not even be an actual park board certified rule and even if it is, another rule give the park the authority to define trail as grassy area leading to the cache.

 

So I tink that I've got it though with a moving target you can never be quite certain of that. It now looks as though the 'park authority' has the 'authority' to grant the necessary usage and has in fact done so. This seems to put this whole silliness into the "self-answering" category.

 

That was a really nice exercise into nothingness. Why? I have no idea.

[+FunnyNose]

Breaking rules? So if you go to the park to throw a frisbee or toss a baseball with your son, do you have to stay on the trails or can you do so on the grassy areas?

 

Actually I just got off the phone with someone with King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Dept and asked them that very question.

 

And they said they want people to stay on trails so that small kids would not fall into any of the many pools they have there.

 

And any variances to the posted rules would have to go through the legal department.

Edited January 15, 2008 by FunnyNose

[+sbell111]

Breaking rules? So if you go to the park to throw a frisbee or toss a baseball with your son, do you have to stay on the trails or can you do so on the grassy areas?

Actually I just got off the phone with someone with King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Dept and asked them that very question.

 

And they said they want people to stay on trails so that small kids would not fall into any of the many pools they have there.

 

And any variances to the posted rules would have to go through the legal department.

All you've proven is that if two people ask two other people the same general question that you will get two different answers.

 

I'm pretty certain that if I call any land manager who has given approval that I can get them to tell me 'no'. Factor in different people being asked and I can almost guarantee different results.

[+Team Cotati]

Breaking rules? So if you go to the park to throw a frisbee or toss a baseball with your son, do you have to stay on the trails or can you do so on the grassy areas?

Actually I just got off the phone with someone with King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Dept and asked them that very question.

 

And they said they want people to stay on trails so that small kids would not fall into any of the many pools they have there.

 

And any variances to the posted rules would have to go through the legal department.

All you've proven is that if two people ask two other people the same general question that you will get two different answers.

 

I'm pretty certain that if I call any land manager who has given approval that I can get them to tell me 'no'. Factor in different people being asked and I can almost guarantee different results.

 

Is there some constructive or useful point in there?

Edited January 15, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+sbell111]

Breaking rules? So if you go to the park to throw a frisbee or toss a baseball with your son, do you have to stay on the trails or can you do so on the grassy areas?

Actually I just got off the phone with someone with King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Dept and asked them that very question.

 

And they said they want people to stay on trails so that small kids would not fall into any of the many pools they have there.

 

And any variances to the posted rules would have to go through the legal department.

All you've proven is that if two people ask two other people the same general question that you will get two different answers.

 

I'm pretty certain that if I call any land manager who has given approval that I can get them to tell me 'no'. Factor in different people being asked and I can almost guarantee different results.

Is there some constructive or useful point in there?

Even though I know that you are merely trolling, again, and that I think my point was somewhat clear, I'll try to make it even clearer.

 

Just because FunnyNose didn't get the same response as the cache owner did, doesn't meen that the cache owner did not receive permission to place the cache away from the path and that the original permission still stands. Further, if you approach a land manager trying to prove that permission cannot be obtained succeeding is easy.

 

My question is what was FunnyFace trying to prove by making the call?

Edited January 15, 2008 by sbell111

[+MaplessInSeattle]

My question is what was FunnyFace trying to prove by making the call?

Uhm, perhaps his original point.

Why is a geocache allowed that tells geocachers to violate park rules?

[+sbell111]

My question is what was FunnyFace trying to prove by making the call?

Uhm, perhaps his original point.

Why is a geocache allowed that tells geocachers to violate park rules?

The answer to that was found in the cache description. Permission to go off trail was given as long as cachers stick to the grassy areas. Any answer beyond that should be obtained from teh reviewers, not the land manager. Edited January 15, 2008 by sbell111

[+egami]

The answer to that was found in the cache description. Permission to go off trail was given as long as cachers stick to the grassy areas. Any answer beyond that should be obtained from teh reviewers, not the land manager.

 

And is that the authoritative source for determining permission? No.

[+sbell111]

My question is what was FunnyFace trying to prove by making the call?

Uhm, perhaps his original point.

Why is a geocache allowed that tells geocachers to violate park rules?

The answer to that was found in the cache description. Permission to go off trail was given as long as cachers stick to the grassy areas. Any answer beyond that should be obtained from the reviewers, not the land manager.

And is that the authoritative source for determining permission? No.

Reread the post that I was replying to.

 

'Why is a geocache allowed that tells geocachers to violate park rules?'

 

This was the question to which my post referred.

1. The cache description explained that permission was received for cachers to leave the trail as long as they stayed on the grassy areas.
   
2. The question as to whether this is OK to be listed should be answered by the reviewers or TPTB, not the land manager. The land manager does not list geocaches.
   
3. Making a call to the parks department out of the blue and talking to some random person accomplishes nothing.
   

Edited January 15, 2008 by sbell111

[+egami]

My question is what was FunnyFace trying to prove by making the call?

Uhm, perhaps his original point.

Why is a geocache allowed that tells geocachers to violate park rules?

The answer to that was found in the cache description. Permission to go off trail was given as long as cachers stick to the grassy areas. Any answer beyond that should be obtained from the reviewers, not the land manager.

And is that the authoritative source for determining permission? No.

Reread the post that I was replying to.

 

'Why is a geocache allowed that tells geocachers to violate park rules?'

 

This was the question to which my post referred.

1. The cache description explained that permission was received for cachers to leave the trail as long as they stayed on the grassy areas.
   
2. The question as to whether this is OK to be listed should be answered by the reviewers or TPTB, not the land manager. The land manager does not list geocaches.
   
3. Making a call to the parks department out of the blue and talking to some random person accomplishes nothing.
   

 

The answer to 'Why is a geocache allowed that tells geocachers to violate park rules?' included 'The answer to that was found in the cache description.'

 

Again, that is not an authoritative source. I was merely clarifying this aspect.

 

I never elaborated on the whose responsibility it was. Obviously, that wasn't a point of contention.

[+Renegade Knight]

The answer to that was found in the cache description. Permission to go off trail was given as long as cachers stick to the grassy areas. Any answer beyond that should be obtained from teh reviewers, not the land manager.

 

And is that the authoritative source for determining permission? No.

 

First, what would be Authoratiative?

Second, what if it's merely adequate?

[+egami]

First, what would be Authoratiative?

Second, what if it's merely adequate?

 

First, the cache page certainly wouldn't be authoritative. I'd say the park manager and the park rules are authoritative. For example, the sign...for example, maybe the person FunnyNose spoke with...then again, maybe not.

 

Second, what if...well, what if not?! The onus from the guidelines is for the owner to be able to provide that assurance.

[+Renegade Knight]

First, what would be Authoratiative?

Second, what if it's merely adequate?

 

First, the cache page certainly wouldn't be authoritative. I'd say the park manager and the park rules are authoritative. For example, the sign...for example, maybe the person FunnyNose spoke with...then again, maybe not.

 

Second, what if...well, what if not?! The onus from the guidelines is for the owner to be able to provide that assurance.

Now I know where you are coming from.

As a finder you will NEVER have an authoritative source. You may very well have a correct source though.

[+Team Cotati]

First, what would be Authoratiative?

Second, what if it's merely adequate?

 

First, the cache page certainly wouldn't be authoritative. I'd say the park manager and the park rules are authoritative. For example, the sign...for example, maybe the person FunnyNose spoke with...then again, maybe not.

 

Second, what if...well, what if not?! The onus from the guidelines is for the owner to be able to provide that assurance.

Now I know where you are coming from.

As a finder you will NEVER have an authoritative source. You may very well have a correct source though.

 

No responsible park manager is going to knowingly grant access to locations that are likely to be harmed by such access. In the unilkely event that through some error or simple oversight, such access is granted and it later becomes obvious that that was a mistake, such access is going to be removed, period.

 

Further, in instances where no specific access is given or in cases where the permission to use or access an area is not clear AND at some point in time, damage to the environment or threats to flora and fauna become apparent, access to these areas is going to be prohibited.

 

This is a prime duty and responsibility of lands and park managers across this country and comes as no surprise to anyone.

 

No amount of obfuscating, dodging, double talk, frisbee flinging or excuse making is going to change that fact.

 

Anza-Borrego.

Edited January 15, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+briansnat]

No responsible park manager is going to knowingly grant access to locations that are likely to be harmed by such access. In the unilkely event that through some error or simple oversight, such access is granted and it later becomes obvious that that was a mistake, such access is going to be removed, period.

 

Is it possible that the park management decided that a cache in this area wouldn't present a danger? Nah, what do they know about their own parks?

[+Harry Dolphin]

It should be noted that it was the 'groundskeeper' not park management that gave 'permission'. The phone call to park management indicates that they would not approve it. That's like asking the janitor. If the signs say "Keep on the trail", better permission should be received than 'the groundskeeper said it was okay'.

[+briansnat]

The phone call to park management indicates that they would not approve it.

 

Well that's a horse in a different garage. Cache should be archived.

[+TrailGators]

Further, in instances where no specific access is given or in cases where the permission to use or access an area is not clear AND at some point in time, damage to the environment or threats to flora and fauna become apparent, access to these areas is going to be prohibited.

 

This is a prime duty and responsibility of lands and park managers across this country and comes as no surprise to anyone.

 

No amount of obfuscating, dodging, double talk, frisbee flinging or excuse making is going to change that fact.

 

Anza-Borrego.

Anza-Borrego is a very poor example. We had permission. They changed their policy. Nobody ever proved any harm was ever done by a geocacher. It's amazing how quick to convict some people are when they don't have all the facts. Edited January 16, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Team Cotati]

Further, in instances where no specific access is given or in cases where the permission to use or access an area is not clear AND at some point in time, damage to the environment or threats to flora and fauna become apparent, access to these areas is going to be prohibited.

 

This is a prime duty and responsibility of lands and park managers across this country and comes as no surprise to anyone.

 

No amount of obfuscating, dodging, double talk, frisbee flinging or excuse making is going to change that fact.

 

Anza-Borrego.

Anza-Borrego is a very poor example. We had permission. They changed their policy. Nobody ever proved any harm was ever done by a geocacher. It's amazing how quick to convict some people are when they don't have all the facts.

 

Well that might be your version of the story but it for sure doesn't match the story from the managment on site. I have heard that what broke the camel's back was geocaches being improperly placed in or near endangered species watering holes, areas of fragile and protected plant life and places of historic preservation.

 

But I'll tell you what, you give me the name of the entity that granted your blanket permission or whatever type of permission that it was and I'll be more than happy to check that out and try and gain some useful insight as to why they so abruptly changed the rules of the game.

 

And exactly who is it that you think that those who are responsible for ensuring that the lands and facilities at Anza-Borrego are properly used and preserved, who is it that they are supposed to be "proving" this to?

Edited January 16, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+sbell111]

Further, in instances where no specific access is given or in cases where the permission to use or access an area is not clear AND at some point in time, damage to the environment or threats to flora and fauna become apparent, access to these areas is going to be prohibited.

 

This is a prime duty and responsibility of lands and park managers across this country and comes as no surprise to anyone.

 

No amount of obfuscating, dodging, double talk, frisbee flinging or excuse making is going to change that fact.

 

Anza-Borrego.

Anza-Borrego is a very poor example. We had permission. They changed their policy. Nobody ever proved any harm was ever done by a geocacher. It's amazing how quick to convict some people are when they don't have all the facts.

Well that might be your version of the story but it for sure doesn't match the story from the managment on site. I have heard that what broke the camel's back was geocaches being improperly placed in or near endangered species watering holes, areas of fragile and protected plant life and places of historic preservation.

 

But I'll tell you what, you give me the name of the entity that granted your blanket permission or whatever type of permission that it was and I'll be more than happy to check that out and try and gain some useful insight as to why they so abruptly changed the rules of the game.

 

And exactly who is it that you think that those who are responsible for ensuring that the lands and facilities at Anza-Borrego are properly used and preserved, who is it that they are supposed to be "proving" this to?

Why don't you stop trying to troll? It's getting very old. Edited January 16, 2008 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

It should be noted that it was the 'groundskeeper' not park management that gave 'permission'. The phone call to park management indicates that they would not approve it. That's like asking the janitor. If the signs say "Keep on the trail", better permission should be received than 'the groundskeeper said it was okay'.

The phone call to park management indicates that they would not approve it.

Well that's a horse in a different garage. Cache should be archived.

A couple quicj thoughts:

 

I have no reason to believe that the 'groundskeeper' who originally gave permission didn't have the authority to do so. Legally, one could easily argue that since he is an employee of the organization and he gave permission for the organization, then the permission is valid until it is revoked.

 

(This is the point at which the naked guy will argue that per FunnyNose's conversation, permission has been revoked.)

 

There are a few problems with that argument. First, FunnyNose apparently didn't ask specifically about this cache and it's previously recieved permission. He asked about throwing a frisbee or baseball with a child off the trail. Second, FunnyNose doesn't even know who he spoke to or in what capacity they gave their opinion. Third, to the comment that 'any variances to the posted rules would have to go through the legal department' (because the naked guy will jump on that next), that is clearly an internal requirement. If they gave permission without going through the legal department, the permission would still be binding and 'authoritative', whatever that is supposed to mean.

[+egami]

Now I know where you are coming from.

As a finder you will NEVER have an authoritative source. You may very well have a correct source though.

 

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

This isn't about the finder. This is about the owner. I, as a finder, can't make a necessary distinction as to my comfort level with a cache? I take the risks for my actions seeking a cache. That is where my responsibility lies.

Edited January 16, 2008 by egami

[+briansnat]

Well that might be your version of the story but it for sure doesn't match the story from the managment on site. I have heard that what broke the camel's back was geocaches being improperly placed in or near endangered species watering holes, areas of fragile and protected plant life and places of historic preservation.

 

You have examples?

[+Team Cotati]

Well that might be your version of the story but it for sure doesn't match the story from the managment on site. I have heard that what broke the camel's back was geocaches being improperly placed in or near endangered species watering holes, areas of fragile and protected plant life and places of historic preservation.

 

You have examples?

 

Not yet. But I do have information. The management of Anza-Borrego has your examples and that is really all that matters. I can however assure you that when and if I come into possession of your coveted "examples", I'll pass them along pronto.

 

How would you like that info delivered, in here or via your profile contact info?

Edited January 16, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+sbell111]

Now I know where you are coming from.

As a finder you will NEVER have an authoritative source. You may very well have a correct source though.

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

This isn't about the finder. This is about the owner. I, as a finder, can't make a necessary distinction as to my comfort level with a cache? I take the risks for my actions seeking a cache. That is where my responsibility lies.

Bringing the thread back to the cache in question, the owner had an 'authoritative' source (whatever that is). He even spelled out teh limits of what was permitted and who gave the permission.

 

As a finder, you can find this information acceptable and look for the cache, or you can find it lacking and decide not to look for the cache.

 

Unfortunately, many people in this thread are trying to go further. They risk damaging the game with their reckless actions.

Edited January 16, 2008 by sbell111

[+egami]

Bringing the issue back to the cache in question, the owner had an 'authoritative' source (whatever that is). He even spelled out teh limits of what was permitted and who gave the permission.

 

So the page says...if your knit-picking of the contact the OP is claiming is valid then it's equally valid toward the reference in the cache page.

 

As a finder, you can find this information acceptable and look for the cache, or you can find it lacking and decide not to look for the cache.

 

As I said before...

 

Unfortunately, many people in this thread are trying to go further. They risk damaging the game with their reckless actions.

 

Yes, by potentially assuming permission then damaging grounds where there is clearly a policy in place. The actions potentially not only damage the game, but also the environment.

Edited January 16, 2008 by egami

[+Team Cotati]

Well, if I'm reading the sign right. It is saying to walk the bikes and to keep them on the trail, not the hikers. They probably don't want the riders to make more riding trails.

 

No it doesn't. It means walk your bikes and stay on established trails.

 

However I am quite certain that responsible park users who are confused wrt the proper use of the park's trails will make the necessary inquiries before they inadvertantly conduct themselves in such a manner as to break the established rules in the park or contribute to harming the environment there.

[+sbell111]

Unfortunately, many people in this thread are trying to go further. They risk damaging the game with their reckless actions.

Yes, by potentially assuming permission then damaging grounds where there is clearly a policy in place. The actions potentially not only damage the game, but also the environment.

By continuing to force the issue with the land managers, you risk themn making the decision that geocaching is more trouble than it's worth and having no caches allowed.

 

That is why it is better to accept the word of the cache owner or ignore the cache, contrary to the position of a certain troll.

Edited January 16, 2008 by sbell111

[+egami]

Unfortunately, many people in this thread are trying to go further. They risk damaging the game with their reckless actions.

Yes, by potentially assuming permission then damaging grounds where there is clearly a policy in place. The actions potentially not only damage the game, but also the environment.

By continuing to force the issue with the land managers, you risk themn making the decision that geocaching is more trouble than it's worth and having no caches allowed.

 

That is why it is better to accept the word of the cache owner or ignore the cache, contrary to the position of a certain troll.

 

That doesn't necessarily resolve the issue. If 90% of the cachers still go to a cache like this and cause a problem that is in clear violation of park rules then the issue is going to get raised when they want to find out the reason behind people continually going off the trails.

 

I never offered up tattling to land managers as a solution.

 

I would, however, offer up that people report it to the reviewer so that hopefully between the reviewer and the cache owner they can work this out before it gets to that level.

 

It doesn't change the core issue, however. If they truly, honestly have adequate permission up front then this shouldn't be a problem. All this does is demonstrate how your destructive practice if going to someday cause problems versus actually encouraging cachers to be responsible and get proper permission.

[+sbell111]

Unfortunately, many people in this thread are trying to go further. They risk damaging the game with their reckless actions.

Yes, by potentially assuming permission then damaging grounds where there is clearly a policy in place. The actions potentially not only damage the game, but also the environment.

By continuing to force the issue with the land managers, you risk themn making the decision that geocaching is more trouble than it's worth and having no caches allowed.

 

That is why it is better to accept the word of the cache owner or ignore the cache, contrary to the position of a certain troll.

That doesn't necessarily resolve the issue. If 90% of the cachers still go to a cache like this and cause a problem that is in clear violation of park rules then the issue is going to get raised when they want to find out the reason behind people continually going off the trails.

 

I never offered up tattling to land managers as a solution.

 

I would, however, offer up that people report it to the reviewer so that hopefully between the reviewer and the cache owner they can work this out before it gets to that level.

 

It doesn't change the core issue, however. If they truly, honestly have adequate permission up front then this shouldn't be a problem. All this does is demonstrate how your destructive practice if going to someday cause problems versus actually encouraging cachers to be responsible and get proper permission.

If they do have permission and people follow the naked troll's lead and continually contact the land manager to verify, it certainly will cause a problem for that cache and future caches in the area controlled by that land manager. Edited January 16, 2008 by sbell111

[+Renegade Knight]

Now I know where you are coming from.

As a finder you will NEVER have an authoritative source. You may very well have a correct source though.

 

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

This isn't about the finder. This is about the owner. I, as a finder, can't make a necessary distinction as to my comfort level with a cache? I take the risks for my actions seeking a cache. That is where my responsibility lies.

What point were you orginally trying to make?

[+Renegade Knight]

It should be noted that it was the 'groundskeeper' not park management that gave 'permission'. The phone call to park management indicates that they would not approve it. That's like asking the janitor. If the signs say "Keep on the trail", better permission should be received than 'the groundskeeper said it was okay'.

The person responsible for maintaing the parks is a bit higher up the ladder than the lawn boy.

 

I've contacted parks that have given blanket permission with the right hand and found out that the left hand thinks I need a permit that falls under a park even and they would like to know when I'd send in my check to reserve the park.

 

The top of the food chain isn't always the right level for permission for such a simple thing as caching. The top of the food chain is probably wondering about the budget submitted by the maintaince manager for hiring lawn boys.

 

You either need to be willing to dig deep enough to find the full answer your self (who has time for that) or trust the cacher to have given it their best shot and don't sweat it.

 

Case in Point.

The District Manager knows about my caches in the rest areas here. The local maintance manager doesn't (that I know of) but had I asked him and he said yes the distict manager would have no problems. The district managers manager though...probably doens't know and doesn't care to know but if asked would give an answer as well.

 

Each has authority. There is a chain of command that can overide the lower levels authority, but the lower does have the authority. Right up until someone higher changes their mind for them.

[+Renegade Knight]

...That doesn't necessarily resolve the issue. .

 

There is no issue.

 

The cache owner did what they should. The land manager said "use the grassy areas".

 

Until something comes up, there is no problem to solve.

[+Team Cotati]

There is a traditional cache placed in a park near me, the area is signed in a number of spots to "Stay on Trail." One of the waypoints for this cache is at least 30ft off the gravel trail. The other waypoint is at least 80ft off the gravel trail. Cache owner says they have permission from the grounds keeper for these caches as long as you stay on the grassy areas.

 

My question is, should we be encouraging cachers to break park rules like this?

 

Additional information: This is a small (About 8 acres) fairly manicured park.

 

 

"Grounds Keeper". What is a grounds keeper? You could certainly infer from such a comment that the cache owner intentionally avoided seeking responsible authority and went to this "grounds keeper" who is no doubt some low level worker bee who's only 'authority' is to show up to work on time each day.

 

You know that, I know that and surely the cache owner knows that. If he doesn't then he probably ought not to be placing caches off his own porperty.

 

"Land Manager"? You're kidding, right? Lawn mower operator, possibly weed whacker qualified.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Team Cotati