Stay on the Trail

[+egami]

...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.

 

It wasn't the land manager. It was a grounds keeper.

[+egami]

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.

 

Now who is twisting words? I speak for myself and my opinion. I don't follow anyones "lead"...he and I have our area of disagreement on permission.

[+sbell111]

Some people would only be happy if each cache was put up for public referendum. After all, any other person giving permission would not be high enough.

[+sbell111]

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.

Now who is twisting words? I speak for myself and my opinion. I don't follow anyones "lead"...he and I have our area of disagreement on permission.

Then agree with my post and move along.

[+FunnyNose]

I guess I come from a different era...

 

If there is a sign that says stay on the trail I stay on the trail.

 

There is another nearby Park Cougar Mountain where there is a stay on trail policy..

 

Park users should always stay on the trail system for their safety. Like other portions of eastern King County where historical mining operations occurred, Cougar Mountain has had mineshaft and mine vent re-openings through the years. Steep inclines and poisonous gas from the mines could lead to serious injuries or death.

 

I do however touch walls that say "Wet Paint"

Edited January 16, 2008 by FunnyNose

[+egami]

What point were you orginally trying to make?

 

That there is no proof he has adequate permission.

[+sbell111]

What point were you orginally trying to make?

That there is no proof he has adequate permission.

Other than the word of each geocacher, there will never be proof that permission has been received. If you are not comfortable with that, perhaps you should find a different hobby.

[+sbell111]

I guess I come from a different era...

I guess that I come from a different era, also.

 

If a person gives his/her word, that word is respected.

[+FunnyNose]

What point were you orginally trying to make?

That there is no proof he has adequate permission.

Other than the word of each geocacher, there will never be proof that permission has been received. If you are not comfortable with that, perhaps you should find a different hobby.

 

I wouldn't have any problems what so ever with this cache except that both of the WPs are off the trail within eyesight of a sign that says "Stay on Trail"

[+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.

 

It wasn't the land manager. It was a grounds keeper.

Same Result. No issue unless something comes up. A thread in a forum isn't 'something'.

[+Renegade Knight]

What point were you orginally trying to make?

 

That there is no proof he has adequate permission.

There is no proof he doesn't. Again a non issue.

[+egami]

There is no proof he doesn't. Again a non issue.

 

The burden of proof is ultimately on the cache owner. When there are clear signs, literally, that he may not have it then there is enough cause for concern to question the word of the cache owner.

Edited January 16, 2008 by egami

[+Renegade Knight]

I guess I come from a different era...

 

If there is a sign that says stay on the trail I stay on the trail.

 

There is another nearby Park Cougar Mountain where there is a stay on trail policy..

 

Park users should always stay on the trail system for their safety. Like other portions of eastern King County where historical mining operations occurred, Cougar Mountain has had mineshaft and mine vent re-openings through the years. Steep inclines and poisonous gas from the mines could lead to serious injuries or death.

 

I do however touch walls that say "Wet Paint"

 

That's another park system. This one has grassy areas that don't seem to be areas of concern, so they allowed an exception to a general rule created to protect something else. The something else apparently being non grassy. If you could complete an old mine shaft survey and fill them in (likely a volunteer project where...you would be allowed to go off trail) odds are you may be able to get some use of the non trail parts of the other park.

 

You are of course free to stay on the trail.

[+Renegade Knight]

There is no proof he doesn't. Again a non issue.

 

The burden of proof is ultimately on the cache owner. When there are clear signs, literally, that he may not have it then there is enough cause for concern to question the word of the cache owner.

The burden of responsiblity is ultimatly on the cache owner. It ends there. Proof assumes the right to demand an answer. I suppose that's free speech for finders. However as an owner I'm not going to take time to answer every finder who is second guessing my cache for the multitude of reasons they can come up with.

 

Is it safe? No. You can kill yourself in ways I can't even imagine trying to find this cache.

Do you have adequate permission. "Yes I do. I don't know about you though, you may do something trying to find my cache that was unanticipated and for which you don't have adequate permission".

[+egami]

The burden of responsiblity is ultimatly on the cache owner. It ends there. Proof assumes the right to demand an answer. I suppose that's free speech for finders. However as an owner I'm not going to take time to answer every finder who is second guessing my cache for the multitude of reasons they can come up with.

 

Then don't, as an owner...I don't care what you do. This isn't about your personal cache.

[4wheelin_fool]

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.

 

 

The sign indicates that there are parts of the park that they would not like the general public to walk into.

 

They are not going to specifically mention which parts, and I would imagine that there are a more than a few areas which would be OK to go.

 

The groundskeeper would know better than mostly everyone which parts were OK, so I would not think anything about it. Thirty feet is not really that much anyway.

 

If the sign was like this, then things may be a little different:

 

Edited January 16, 2008 by 4wheelin_fool

[+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.

 

 

The sign indicates that there are parts of the park that they would not like the general public to walk into.

 

They are not going to specifically mention which parts, and I would imagine that there are a more than a few areas which would be OK to go.

 

The groundskeeper would know better than mostly everyone which parts were OK, so I would not think anything about it. Thirty feet is not really that much anyway.

 

Just who would you place in that "mostly everyone" category?

 

Missing part of sign: "If you want to go off trail and it isn't really TOO far off, then that is ok." Right.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+sbell111]

The burden of responsiblity is ultimatly on the cache owner. It ends there. Proof assumes the right to demand an answer. I suppose that's free speech for finders. However as an owner I'm not going to take time to answer every finder who is second guessing my cache for the multitude of reasons they can come up with.

Then don't, as an owner...I don't care what you do. This isn't about your personal cache.

Actually, it's not about your personal cache. The person who's personal cache it is has gotten permission and explained that permission on the cache page. If that explanation isn't good enough for you, do not search for his personal cache. Edited January 16, 2008 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

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.

 

The sign indicates that there are parts of the park that they would not like the general public to walk into.

 

They are not going to specifically mention which parts, and I would imagine that there are a more than a few areas which would be OK to go.

 

The groundskeeper would know better than mostly everyone which parts were OK, so I would not think anything about it. Thirty feet is not really that much anyway.

Just who would you place in that "mostly everyone" category?

Unless that park has a ranger or other onsite management, I suspect that the groundskeeper would no better than absolutely anyone.

 

Since he has kept those grounds, he knows whether the grassy areas are reasonably safe and subject to damage.

 

<Dang it! Why do I keep responding to trolls?>

Edited January 16, 2008 by sbell111

[+Renegade Knight]

The burden of responsiblity is ultimatly on the cache owner. It ends there. Proof assumes the right to demand an answer. I suppose that's free speech for finders. However as an owner I'm not going to take time to answer every finder who is second guessing my cache for the multitude of reasons they can come up with.

 

Then don't, as an owner...I don't care what you do. This isn't about your personal cache.

Then why are you asking about this particular cache? Why care what this person does?

[+egami]

Then why are you asking about this particular cache? Why care what this person does?

 

I didn't ask about this cache. And, I've explained that already.

[+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.

 

The sign indicates that there are parts of the park that they would not like the general public to walk into.

 

They are not going to specifically mention which parts, and I would imagine that there are a more than a few areas which would be OK to go.

 

The groundskeeper would know better than mostly everyone which parts were OK, so I would not think anything about it. Thirty feet is not really that much anyway.

Just who would you place in that "mostly everyone" category?

Unless that park has a ranger or other onsite management, I suspect that the groundskeeper would no better than absolutely anyone.

 

Since he has kept those grounds, he knows whether the grassy areas are reasonably safe and subject to damage.

 

<Dang it! Why do I keep responding to trolls?>

 

I am exceedingly happy to see that you at least acknowledge the potential existance of rangers and that it is also possibile that they might know as much about the operations and rules of their park as the guy who mows the grass.

 

And I quite agree that in your example, that the guy who mows the grass would be as good of a resource or probably better than the ice cream vendor. Assuming of course that there is another living breathing soul in this wonderful park.

[+sbell111]

[vagabond]

I put him on ignore a long time ago

[+Renegade Knight]

Then why are you asking about this particular cache? Why care what this person does?

 

I didn't ask about this cache. And, I've explained that already.

If not this cache, or another then what exactly are you talking about, because I can't figure it out?.

[+egami]

Then why are you asking about this particular cache? Why care what this person does?

 

I didn't ask about this cache. And, I've explained that already.

If not this cache, or another then what exactly are you talking about, because I can't figure it out?.

 

If you can't go back through and comprehend my replies on the topic then there isn't really any point in continuing this discussion. You are asserting I am asking things when I never had a question...and why I care, or don't care, is irrelevant.

[+Renegade Knight]

Then why are you asking about this particular cache? Why care what this person does?

 

I didn't ask about this cache. And, I've explained that already.

If not this cache, or another then what exactly are you talking about, because I can't figure it out?.

 

If you can't go back through and comprehend my replies on the topic then there isn't really any point in continuing this discussion. You are asserting I am asking things when I never had a question...and why I care, or don't care, is irrelevant.

I read every reply in this chain. So far as I can tell. You don't care about this cache. You don't care about any other cache. You don't care about owners, and you are responsible as a finder. That's what you have said in this chain.

 

Your other responce chains make about as much sence. They didn't help so I gave up trying to track your other conversations and stuck to this one. I suspect it's beyond salvage.

[+egami]

I read every reply in this chain. So far as I can tell. You don't care about this cache. You don't care about any other cache. You don't care about owners, and you are responsible as a finder. That's what you have said in this chain.

 

Your other responce chains make about as much sence. They didn't help so I gave up trying to track your other conversations and stuck to this one. I suspect it's beyond salvage.

 

Generally wrong assumptions, so I'll assume you're just trolling as other didn't seem to have any problems discerning what was going on in the conversation.

Edited January 17, 2008 by egami

[+luv-me-jeep]

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.

 

 

that's a good point! . I obtained permission from a park system and they said no more than 15 feet off the trail. of course I have to send in the permit with coordinates to be okayed. but you gotta figure if they say that, then they must make allowances for the other cachers. and yes these parks also have stay on the trail signs. Guess that's why ya gotta try to stay invisible to the muggles.. or go ..gee I lost my contact lense in here somewhere!..if muggled. ...

[+Renegade Knight]

I read every reply in this chain. So far as I can tell. You don't care about this cache. You don't care about any other cache. You don't care about owners, and you are responsible as a finder. That's what you have said in this chain.

 

Your other responce chains make about as much sence. They didn't help so I gave up trying to track your other conversations and stuck to this one. I suspect it's beyond salvage.

 

Generally wrong assumptions, so I'll assume you're just trolling as other didn't seem to have any problems discerning what was going on in the conversation.

You had a choice. Show enough interest in the conversation to get it back on track when it was clear that I didn't understand you. Or plan B. "your trolling" You went for B. I recon that wraps things up.

[+egami]

You had a choice. Show enough interest in the conversation to get it back on track when it was clear that I didn't understand you. Or plan B. "your trolling" You went for B. I recon that wraps things up.

 

Dude, you started questioning me nonsensically. I wasn't engaged in conversation with you...you butted into a conversation and expected me to answer these vague, loaded questions.

 

I answered them. You kept prodding...not interested, so move along. Unless you want to ask something actually relevant.

[+sbell111]

Dude, you started questioning me nonsensically. I wasn't engaged in conversation with you...you butted into a conversation and expected me to answer these vague, loaded questions.

There is no such thing as private conversation in these forums. When you post, you are engaging with anyone who is interested in reading the thread.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Pertineer ALL parks which have trails of any kind either post signs on the trails or state somewhere in their brochures and/or trail maps, "stay on marked trails."

 

Many of these parks also allow geocaches, fully knowing they will be placed off the trails and in many cases specifically approving them with written and paid-for permits.

 

The mere presence of a "stay on trail" sign does NOT in any way prove that a cache that is off the trail is placed without permission nor that going off trail to hunt the cache is illegal.

 

The problem is that you can also never prove that the cache WAS placed with permission based upon any statement found in the cache page or logs. It is kinda like the Monty Python skit about the man being interviewed on TV who has "three buns." "Let's 'ave a look, then?" "Anybody can SAY they have three buns."

 

Adequate permission is one issue, but the more important issue to the cache hunter is "do you TRUST the cache owner's "permission?" That can only be decided by the cache seeker. If you feel "antsy" about it on a particular cache, abort. But note to reviewer or SBA? Not really warranted unless (as once happened to me) a park ranger tells you it is illegal to go off trail and the cache is not allowed in the park. At that point, an SBA is warranted. The cache owner can clear up the issue or archive the cache.

 

OBTW if I was the cache owner and the park management told me the cache I placed off trail was illegal because "no one is allowed off trail," I certainly would not risk arrest to pick up my geotrash. Off trail is off trail.

 

My personal rule for "off trail" is that if there are signs every so many feet on the trail, especially those saying "violators will be prosecuted,", I figure they really mean it. Otherwise if the only sign to that effect is at the trail head or just a routine "boilerplate" statement on the trail map, i assume the geocache is allowed to be off trail.

 

Generally these "boilerplate" statements are just to discourage would be Daniel Boones from getting lost in the two-acre woods and having to call out the National Guard.

[+Renegade Knight]

You had a choice. Show enough interest in the conversation to get it back on track when it was clear that I didn't understand you. Or plan B. "your trolling" You went for B. I recon that wraps things up.

 

Dude, you started questioning me nonsensically. I wasn't engaged in conversation with you...you butted into a conversation and expected me to answer these vague, loaded questions.

 

I answered them. You kept prodding...not interested, so move along. Unless you want to ask something actually relevant.

It's a forum. Call me if you want a private conversation. All my questions are loaded. It's my style. If they are vague, that's got more to do with You speak egami and I speak RK. The two languages are so different we just have a hard time understanding each other at times.

[+egami]

It's a forum. Call me if you want a private conversation. All my questions are loaded. It's my style. If they are vague, that's got more to do with You speak egami and I speak RK. The two languages are so different we just have a hard time understanding each other at times.

 

That's fine...just don't be surprised when I no longer care to entertain vague, loaded questions. If you can't discuss the fundamentals of a topic head on...then I am probably not going to venture down that road.

 

I understand it's an open forum, wasn't insinuating you couldn't enter into it...conversely, I don't need to bend to your style if I don't choose to. You kept hounding me with Straw Men as though I needed to entertain your questions.

Edited January 18, 2008 by egami

[+Team Cotati]

Pertineer ALL parks which have trails of any kind either post signs on the trails or state somewhere in their brochures and/or trail maps, "stay on marked trails."

 

Many of these parks also allow geocaches, fully knowing they will be placed off the trails and in many cases specifically approving them with written and paid-for permits.

 

The mere presence of a "stay on trail" sign does NOT in any way prove that a cache that is off the trail is placed without permission nor that going off trail to hunt the cache is illegal.

 

The problem is that you can also never prove that the cache WAS placed with permission based upon any statement found in the cache page or logs. It is kinda like the Monty Python skit about the man being interviewed on TV who has "three buns." "Let's 'ave a look, then?" "Anybody can SAY they have three buns."

 

Adequate permission is one issue, but the more important issue to the cache hunter is "do you TRUST the cache owner's "permission?" That can only be decided by the cache seeker. If you feel "antsy" about it on a particular cache, abort. But note to reviewer or SBA? Not really warranted unless (as once happened to me) a park ranger tells you it is illegal to go off trail and the cache is not allowed in the park. At that point, an SBA is warranted. The cache owner can clear up the issue or archive the cache.

 

OBTW if I was the cache owner and the park management told me the cache I placed off trail was illegal because "no one is allowed off trail," I certainly would not risk arrest to pick up my geotrash. Off trail is off trail.

 

My personal rule for "off trail" is that if there are signs every so many feet on the trail, especially those saying "violators will be prosecuted,", I figure they really mean it. Otherwise if the only sign to that effect is at the trail head or just a routine "boilerplate" statement on the trail map, i assume the geocache is allowed to be off trail.

 

Generally these "boilerplate" statements are just to discourage would be Daniel Boones from getting lost in the two-acre woods and having to call out the National Guard.

 

"OBTW if I was the cache owner and the park management told me the cache I placed off trail was illegal" And exactly how and under what circumstances do you see the managers communicating this to you?

 

"Proof" The mere presence of a "stay on trail" sign does NOT in any way prove that a cache that is off the trail is placed without permission nor that going off trail to hunt the cache is illegal.

 

I keep seeing the word 'prove' in these forums. Who exactly do you believe is under this burden of 'proof'. What makes you think in such a way? Is someone supposed to be 'proving' something to you? Why would they do that?

 

Would you ask a traffic cop to 'prove' that he can write you a ticket for speeding just because there was a sign stating that the speed limit was xx mph? You think that he is going to get into some raodside debate with you?

 

This is asdounding stuff for sure. I'd pay to see you face to face with a park ranger and explaining to him that regardless of what park rules and signage might say, you will interpret them any way that suits your purpose.

Yeppers, I'd pay a fair amount to see that.....with a video camera handy.

 

Strange.

Edited January 18, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+Renegade Knight]

It's a forum. Call me if you want a private conversation. All my questions are loaded. It's my style. If they are vague, that's got more to do with You speak egami and I speak RK. The two languages are so different we just have a hard time understanding each other at times.

 

That's fine...just don't be surprised when I no longer care to entertain vague, loaded questions. If you can't discuss the fundamentals of a topic head on......

I have. You just can't see it, and Vice versa I'm sure.

[+egami]

Adequate permission is one issue, but the more important issue to the cache hunter is "do you TRUST the cache owner's "permission?" That can only be decided by the cache seeker. If you feel "antsy" about it on a particular cache, abort. But note to reviewer or SBA? Not really warranted unless (as once happened to me) a park ranger tells you it is illegal to go off trail and the cache is not allowed in the park. At that point, an SBA is warranted. The cache owner can clear up the issue or archive the cache.

 

A note to the reviewer is never out of line. Well, unless maybe it's a threatening or flamatory one, but you know what I mean...

Edited January 18, 2008 by egami

[+Renegade Knight]

Adequate permission is one issue, but the more important issue to the cache hunter is "do you TRUST the cache owner's "permission?" That can only be decided by the cache seeker. If you feel "antsy" about it on a particular cache, abort. But note to reviewer or SBA? Not really warranted unless (as once happened to me) a park ranger tells you it is illegal to go off trail and the cache is not allowed in the park. At that point, an SBA is warranted. The cache owner can clear up the issue or archive the cache.

 

A note to the reviewer is never out of line. Well, unless maybe it's a threatening or flamatory one, but you know what I mean...

The first person you contact is the cache owner. They are responsbile for the cache. As CC pointed out sometimes there isn't time and the right answer is to pull the cache and then contact the cache owner. However most of the time there is time and in no case is there ever a justified reason not to contact the cache owner and let them know.

[+egami]

The first person you contact is the cache owner. They are responsbile for the cache. As CC pointed out sometimes there isn't time and the right answer is to pull the cache and then contact the cache owner. However most of the time there is time and in no case is there ever a justified reason not to contact the cache owner and let them know.

 

That's great you feel that way...you haven't demonstrated how it's out of line.

 

Some people don't feel comfortable with confronting a cache owner and a note of concern to a reviewer is a good way for them to deal with the situation and retain animosity with the cache owner in a situation.

[+Confucius' Cat]

The first person you contact is the cache owner. They are responsbile for the cache. As CC pointed out sometimes there isn't time and the right answer is to pull the cache and then contact the cache owner. However most of the time there is time and in no case is there ever a justified reason not to contact the cache owner and let them know.

 

That's great you feel that way...you haven't demonstrated how it's out of line.

 

Some people don't feel comfortable with confronting a cache owner and a note of concern to a reviewer is a good way for them to deal with the situation and retain animosity with the cache owner in a situation.

The quote referred to was mine so i will respond to it.

 

I did not say a note to the reviewer was "out of line," I said it is "not warranted."

 

Dictionary Dictionario:

"Not warranted" - unnecessary, no need for, no point in...

 

"out of line" - wrong to do, overstepping one's bounds, outside of the pale of normalcy...

 

Certainly one can send a note to a reviewer about any cache issue at any time. Answering cachers' inquiries about cache issues is part of their job. I simply stated that it would not be necessary in the case cited because the simple "antsiness" of a cache seeker, in and of itself, does not IMO make a valid cache issue. Regardless of my opinion of the validity thereof, it would not be "out of line" to bring up such an issue to a reviewer. it would just be a waste of time if that is the only thing you've got to bring up about the cache.

 

Dear Reviewer,

I felt antsy about cache #gcabcde

Sincerely,

Cacher

 

Dear Cacher,

Thank you for your kind inquiry. Many people feel antsy about caches at times. When you feel antsy, abort the hunt and try another cache or try again when you feel better about it.

Cache on!

reviewer

[+egami]

The quote referred to was mine so i will respond to it.

 

I did not say a note to the reviewer was "out of line," I said it is "not warranted."

 

Dictionary Dictionario:

"Not warranted" - unnecessary, no need for, no point in...

 

"out of line" - wrong to do, overstepping one's bounds, outside of the pale of normalcy...

 

Certainly one can send a note to a reviewer about any cache issue at any time. Answering cachers' inquiries about cache issues is part of their job. I simply stated that it would not be necessary in the case cited because the simple "antsiness" of a cache seeker, in and of itself, does not IMO make a valid cache issue. Regardless of my opinion of the validity thereof, it would not be "out of line" to bring up such an issue to a reviewer. it would just be a waste of time if that is the only thing you've got to bring up about the cache.

 

Dear Reviewer,

I felt antsy about cache #gcabcde

Sincerely,

Cacher

 

Dear Cacher,

Thank you for your kind inquiry. Many people feel antsy about caches at times. When you feel antsy, abort the hunt and try another cache or try again when you feel better about it.

Cache on!

reviewer

 

Did I say you said that? No, that was my opinion. Simple concept, really.

 

As fas as being "warranted", that's purely your opinion...if the seeker at the time feels it is "warranted" then there is nothing wrong with shooting a message to the reviewer for reasons I stated previously. And contention to that is purely your opinion on the protocol.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Pertineer ALL parks which have trails of any kind either post signs on the trails or state somewhere in their brochures and/or trail maps, "stay on marked trails."

 

Many of these parks also allow geocaches, fully knowing they will be placed off the trails and in many cases specifically approving them with written and paid-for permits.

 

The mere presence of a "stay on trail" sign does NOT in any way prove that a cache that is off the trail is placed without permission nor that going off trail to hunt the cache is illegal.

 

The problem is that you can also never prove that the cache WAS placed with permission based upon any statement found in the cache page or logs. It is kinda like the Monty Python skit about the man being interviewed on TV who has "three buns." "Let's 'ave a look, then?" "Anybody can SAY they have three buns."

 

Adequate permission is one issue, but the more important issue to the cache hunter is "do you TRUST the cache owner's "permission?" That can only be decided by the cache seeker. If you feel "antsy" about it on a particular cache, abort. But note to reviewer or SBA? Not really warranted unless (as once happened to me) a park ranger tells you it is illegal to go off trail and the cache is not allowed in the park. At that point, an SBA is warranted. The cache owner can clear up the issue or archive the cache.

 

OBTW if I was the cache owner and the park management told me the cache I placed off trail was illegal because "no one is allowed off trail," I certainly would not risk arrest to pick up my geotrash. Off trail is off trail.

 

My personal rule for "off trail" is that if there are signs every so many feet on the trail, especially those saying "violators will be prosecuted,", I figure they really mean it. Otherwise if the only sign to that effect is at the trail head or just a routine "boilerplate" statement on the trail map, i assume the geocache is allowed to be off trail.

 

Generally these "boilerplate" statements are just to discourage would be Daniel Boones from getting lost in the two-acre woods and having to call out the National Guard.

 

"OBTW if I was the cache owner and the park management told me the cache I placed off trail was illegal" And exactly how and under what circumstances do you see the managers communicating this to you?

 

email through the site? note on the cache page? direct communication through the information I provided on the permit they granted? Shouting from a mountain top? (what a ridiculous question)

 

"Proof" The mere presence of a "stay on trail" sign does NOT in any way prove that a cache that is off the trail is placed without permission nor that going off trail to hunt the cache is illegal.

read the sentence just before your extracted sentence and you will have the best answer i can give. I bolded it for you

 

I keep seeing the word 'prove' in these forums. Who exactly do you believe is under this burden of 'proof'. What makes you think in such a way? Is someone supposed to be 'proving' something to you? Why would they do that?

This is about the only part of your post I think I clearly understand. My point is pretty much exactly what you are getting at. There is no such thing as "proof." The thread is about the validity of a cache in a park where signs are posted to "stay on trail." I posted to indicate, out of personal knowledge and experience, that there are MANY MANY occasions when caches are placed on park land where at some point signage is posted and park visitors are otherwise advised to "stay on trails," and that oftentimes these caches are placed with FULL AND WRITTEN PERMISSION, in many cases pursuant to park policies requiring PERMITS where a FEE is collected.

 

I thought my point was very clear that EXCEPTIONS ARE MADE TO GENERAL PARK POLICIES for the placement of geocaches, but there is no way to "PROVE" that such is or is not the case based upon any information that is or indeed even COULD BE on a cache page under the present policies of GC.Com.

 

Thus the short answer to your question is "no one." No one needs to, nor indeed could they "prove" anything related to cache permission and possible exceptions to posted land-owner policies.

 

My point was and remains: The mere presence of a "stay on trail' sign does not necessarily indicate that going off trail to find a cache is illegal. PERTINEER ALL PARKS HAVE SUCH SIGNAGE- even those who allow geocaches.

 

If a ranger asks why you are off trail, and "I'm hunting the geocache" is not sufficient for him/her. Then you simply say, "I'm sorry (sir/ma'am), i assumed the cache was placed with the park management's permission." Been there, done that, posted the SBA, resulted in three caches archived and one ticked off cache owner who should have followed the rules to begin with. Had the cache owner actually followed park procedures when placing the cache, it would have been OK.

 

Would you ask a traffic cop to 'prove' that he can write you a ticket for speeding just because there was a sign stating that the speed limit was xx mph? You think that he is going to get into some raodside debate with you?

ridiculous straw man- does not warrant response

 

This is asdounding stuff for sure. I'd pay to see you face to face with a park ranger and explaining to him that regardless of what park rules and signage might say, you will interpret them any way that suits your purpose.

Yeppers, I'd pay a fair amount to see that.....with a video camera handy.

So would I. Especially since nothing I posted could even be remotely interpreted to indicate I would ever do such a thing

 

Strange.Yeppers

I will confess, I did have a hard time understanding your post. To me it is largely incoherent. Hope i did not post inappropriately.

[+Confucius' Cat]

The quote referred to was mine so i will respond to it.

 

I did not say a note to the reviewer was "out of line," I said it is "not warranted."

 

Dictionary Dictionario:

"Not warranted" - unnecessary, no need for, no point in...

 

"out of line" - wrong to do, overstepping one's bounds, outside of the pale of normalcy...

 

Certainly one can send a note to a reviewer about any cache issue at any time. Answering cachers' inquiries about cache issues is part of their job. I simply stated that it would not be necessary in the case cited because the simple "antsiness" of a cache seeker, in and of itself, does not IMO make a valid cache issue. Regardless of my opinion of the validity thereof, it would not be "out of line" to bring up such an issue to a reviewer. it would just be a waste of time if that is the only thing you've got to bring up about the cache.

 

Dear Reviewer,

I felt antsy about cache #gcabcde

Sincerely,

Cacher

 

Dear Cacher,

Thank you for your kind inquiry. Many people feel antsy about caches at times. When you feel antsy, abort the hunt and try another cache or try again when you feel better about it.

Cache on!

reviewer

 

Did I say you said that? No, that was my opinion. Simple concept, really.

 

As fas as being "warranted", that's purely your opinion...if the seeker at the time feels it is "warranted" then there is nothing wrong with shooting a message to the reviewer for reasons I stated previously. And contention to that is purely your opinion on the protocol.

Thems a lot of words to say we pretty much wholly agree.

[+egami]

Thems a lot of words to say we pretty much wholly agree.

 

Do I get more style points for using less than you then?

[+Confucius' Cat]

Thems a lot of words to say we pretty much wholly agree.

 

Do I get more style points for using less than you then?

We need an official count. Know anybody in the Florida board of elections?

[+Confucius' Cat]

The top of the food chain isn't always the right level for permission for such a simple thing as caching.

<snippance>

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.

 

Some people would only be happy if each cache was put up for public referendum. After all, any other person giving permission would not be high enough.

It is often the lowest available level that SHOULD be the one approving caches, especially when that approval involves "relaxing" of a park rule. There are several reasons for this:

 

Lower level people are a lot more likely to be familiar with details of the land and its use and sensitivity. "When you place your cache don't put it in the American Chestnut tree off trail 6."

 

lower level people are more familiar names to the actual enforcement people than the "higher ups" and "name dropping' is likely to be more effective. "Henry Kissassinger approved this cache"... "kiss who?"

 

Lower level people are more likely to communicate with (or to actually BE) the front-line people and thus the people who are most likely to report or question seekers will be aware of the permission. "I was just checking to see if you are OK. I know about the cache because I'm the one that approved it, have a fun day and enjoy your park."

 

The problem, if indeed there is one at all, with the cache in the OP question could be nothing more than the "front-line" people not knowing about the cache because it was approved by someone too high up the chain of command and the permission never "trickled down" (ferinstance) to the park store manager who constantly calls the ranger about people being seen off trail.

[+Team Cotati]

The top of the food chain isn't always the right level for permission for such a simple thing as caching.

<snippance>

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.

 

Some people would only be happy if each cache was put up for public referendum. After all, any other person giving permission would not be high enough.

It is often the lowest available level that SHOULD be the one approving caches, especially when that approval involves "relaxing" of a park rule. There are several reasons for this:

 

Lower level people are a lot more likely to be familiar with details of the land and its use and sensitivity. "When you place your cache don't put it in the American Chestnut tree off trail 6."

 

lower level people are more familiar names to the actual enforcement people than the "higher ups" and "name dropping' is likely to be more effective. "Henry Kissassinger approved this cache"... "kiss who?"

 

Lower level people are more likely to communicate with (or to actually BE) the front-line people and thus the people who are most likely to report or question seekers will be aware of the permission. "I was just checking to see if you are OK. I know about the cache because I'm the one that approved it, have a fun day and enjoy your park."

 

The problem, if indeed there is one at all, with the cache in the OP question could be nothing more than the "front-line" people not knowing about the cache because it was approved by someone too high up the chain of command and the permission never "trickled down" (ferinstance) to the park store manager who constantly calls the ranger about people being seen off trail.

 

"the park store manager who constantly calls the ranger about people being seen off trail."

 

Why would the park store manager be doing this?

[+Renegade Knight]

The first person you contact is the cache owner. They are responsbile for the cache. As CC pointed out sometimes there isn't time and the right answer is to pull the cache and then contact the cache owner. However most of the time there is time and in no case is there ever a justified reason not to contact the cache owner and let them know.

 

That's great you feel that way...you haven't demonstrated how it's out of line.

 

Some people don't feel comfortable with confronting a cache owner and a note of concern to a reviewer is a good way for them to deal with the situation and retain animosity with the cache owner in a situation.

The cache owner is responsible. If you contact the reviewer they will in turn contact the cache owner. Why? Because the cache owner is responsible. All you do is waste the volunteers time with petty things.

[+Renegade Knight]

... then there is nothing wrong with shooting a message to the reviewer for reasons I stated previously. And contention to that is purely your opinion on the protocol.

 

I'm sorry but you have not demonstrated that wasting the reviewers time with trivial concerns is warrented.