The Real Test, There is No Test

[+egami]

It intrigues me that this litmus test has been defined to justify placing caches in Wal-Mart parking lots, for one example, without receiving explicit permission. They aren't fundamentally equal comparisons for numerous reasons.

 

1. You don't leave a frisbee secretively hidden behind in a game of frisbee.

2. You don't advertise its location and invite others to use a GPS to come find a hidden frisbee.

3. Playing frisbee may not raise speculation at 2:00 PM in a WM parking lot, but it might at 2:00 AM.

4. Playing frisbee doesn't raise the kind of questions that someone snooping around looking for a cache container might.

5. Playing a little frisbee is extremely temporal in comparison to leaving a cache that may exist and draw traffic for literally a period of years.

6. The percent of people who have heard of, and understand, frisbee is significantly larger than those that have heard of, and understand, geocaching.

 

And that may not even be the full extent of the differences. Besides, it's interesting to me that they won't take the same perception toward say a police station, fire station or community building. Multiple supporters of this litmus for placing a cache have said this themselves. I would bet in all three of those locations if I took my kids for a 20-minute game of frisbee on their respective front lawns that I wouldn't be thought of twice or approached in any way about my activity. Heck, even out by the dumpsters we'd raise no cause for alarm in most cases.

 

This logic plainly fails at multiple levels and I've only scratched the surface...the fact is, they are fearful, as they themselves have stated at time before, of being told "no". Instead of just doing the honorable thing and being forthright and upfront with land managers or owners of these types of locations...they choose the route of the much alive "dirty little secret" and assume "adequate" permission that they can't "assure".

 

Does the frisbee test work? Yes. Does it "assure" "adequate" permission? No.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Does the frisbee test work? Yes. Does it "assure" "adequate" permission? No.

 

Great summary, I could not have said it better myself.

 

The Frisbee test is a great rule of thumb especially because it's much more widely known than geocaching. No rule of thumb is bullet proof. The Frisbee test is a guide to help those who are unsure. It's simple, it works well and nothing better has come along to replace it.

[+egami]

...Does the frisbee test work? Yes. Does it "assure" "adequate" permission? No.

 

Great summary, I could not have said it better myself.

 

The Frisbee test is a great rule of thumb especially because it's much more widely known than geocaching. No rule of thumb is bullet proof. The Frisbee test is a guide to help those who are unsure. It's simple, it works well and nothing better has come along to replace it.

 

The frisbee test works, but it fails for the reasons demonstrated.

 

Adequate permission is basically viewed two ways here:

 

1. I have the needed permission to not cause problems and be respectable to land owners and managers.

 

2. I just have to make a good enough excuse for people to do "other" activities to assume permission without actually approaching anyone for it.

 

The first approach is the responsible approach that isn't detrimental to geocaching. The second, well that's what happened at many places where caching has been nixed.

 

Yourself, sbell111 and others are constantly promoting a method that will lead to more ABDSP-like issues than it will prevent.

Edited February 2, 2008 by egami

[Trinity's Crew]

Are you arguing FOR explicit permission for every geocache out there? That would probably be the death of geocaching.

[+egami]

Are you arguing FOR explicit permission for every geocache out there? That would probably be the death of geocaching.

 

If I were arguing for that I would have explicitly stated that. No, that would be absurd, my statement is what it is...a statement against those on this boards misrepresenting this fallacy as being a reasonable litmus for placing a cache as often as they suggest it.

 

I am advocating that people have integrity and be respectful to land owners and managers versus trying to avoid it at all costs as they will almost always recommend the low road (road of low standards) in various discussions here.

 

It shouldn't be unclear which is the more respectful, responsible approach. And in most cases, if permission is denied, it's not the end of the world....there are plenty of places in the world. It's not worth having a park the size of Anza-Borrego shutdown because someone gets upset about cache saturation in a park they manage.

 

At the end of the day...adequate permission is defined by the land owners and managers. Not the geocaching community and their opinions about throwing frisbees or other liberties they exercise in a given area because quite frankly...society in general doesn't view geocaching equal to most of those activities.

Edited February 2, 2008 by egami

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

In other words you have no point.

Noted. Thread will now be ignored.

[+MountainRacer]

No rule of thumb is bullet proof. The Frisbee test is a guide to help those who are unsure. It's simple, it works well and nothing better has come along to replace it.

 

Well worth repeating and emphasizing.

[+egami]

No rule of thumb is bullet proof. The Frisbee test is a guide to help those who are unsure. It's simple, it works well and nothing better has come along to replace it.

 

Well worth repeating and emphasizing.

 

Yet, it is constantly used here by that individual and others in situations that are clearly inaccurate applications of the rule and use to persuade cachers here to avoid the approach that is clearly the more respectful, responsible approach.

 

The point never suggested it was bullet-proof, therefore that's not a valid retort to the actual point. If the point of the response wasn't to retort the point...well, thanks for the redundancy of one of my sub-points.

Edited February 2, 2008 by egami

[+Confucius' Cat]

Are you arguing FOR explicit permission for every geocache out there? That would probably be the death of geocaching.

Perhaps and perhaps and perhaps so be it.

*donning Nomex® suit*

 

I've been at this for several years now and have read the forum accounts of the comparatively FEW caches, percentage wise, but the many, numbers wise, reported incidents which may or may not have been preventable with "explicit" permission.

 

Most of these incidents have had little impact on the sport and are basically shrugged off as inevitable failures in a huge and growing, yet developing as we go system. Yet the continuance of such incidents does certainly have the potential to change the nature of the game.

 

This game will always be a game of secrecy, simply because the more open it is to the outside world, the less likely caches will remain in place to be hunted. Therefore it will never get the widespread recognition of games such as frisbee and if it does it will cease to exist not because of recklessness in permission seeking, but because of muggling.

 

Since the game will (hopefully) never get to the point where virtually all people, seeing someone inspecting every square inch of a parking lot or flower bed, will simply walk away thinking "another one of them silly geocachers- nothing happening here," With or without "explicit" permission, there will still be "suspicious person/box" reports.

 

The problems with "explicit permission" as a hard-fast rule are many and have been cussed and dis-cussed ad nauseoum on the forums. Indeed these problems could mean the end of the game as we know it.

 

But if it truly IS necessary to require a higher standard of permission, we must have the GUTS to stand up and make the change. And if it substantially changes or even destroys the game, so be it.

 

We cannot reasonably justify any kind of "frisbee rule" on private property. Private property, even if it is given for specific forms of public use (such as parking one's car whilst shopping), is not in any way by default open to geocaching. Explicit permission should be the rule.

 

The problem is to define what extent of permission and the verification thereof is appropriate.

 

I think we could use higher standards, but the devil is in the details.

[+egami]

I think we could use higher standards, but the devil is in the details.

 

And interpretation of details.

 

Part of the underlying problem is peoples general mindset of reading things from an egocentric perspective and trying to make things fit their personal view.

[Mushtang]

It intrigues me that this litmus test has been defined to justify placing caches in Wal-Mart parking lots, for one example, without receiving explicit permission. They aren't fundamentally equal comparisons for numerous reasons.

Well DUH! Nobody that suggests the Frisbee Test works for determining adequate permission EVER said playing Frisbee and geocaching were fundamentally equal activities.

 

1. You don't leave a frisbee secretively hidden behind in a game of frisbee.

Correct. In both instances you have the playing piece in the location for the duration of the game, and then you take it with you.

2. You don't advertise its location and invite others to use a GPS to come find a hidden frisbee.

So? You don't throw your GPS back and forth with a friend when you geocache either. Being able to play two games in the same place doesn't mean you have to play them the same way.

3. Playing frisbee may not raise speculation at 2:00 PM in a WM parking lot, but it might at 2:00 AM.

So maybe the Frisbee Test sort of indicates that you shouldn't geocache at 2am in a WM parking lot either.

4. Playing frisbee doesn't raise the kind of questions that someone snooping around looking for a cache container might.

And finding a geocache in a parking lot doesn't take as much time as a game of Frisbee does. So what? See my reply to number 2.

5. Playing a little frisbee is extremely temporal in comparison to leaving a cache that may exist and draw traffic for literally a period of years.

Again, this is irrelevant to establishing if it's okay to play Frisbee or not. I would feel okay playing Frisbee in a WM parking lot, but not because I'm going to be there a lot longer than I would if I were finding a geocache.

6. The percent of people who have heard of, and understand, frisbee is significantly larger than those that have heard of, and understand, geocaching.

So we should only hide caches in areas where people know about geocaching? I guess I didn't realize that the percent of people in county parks that know about geocaching is as high as those that know about Frisbee.

[Mushtang]

And that may not even be the full extent of the differences. Besides, it's interesting to me that they won't take the same perception toward say a police station, fire station or community building.

The Frisbee Test works here too. I wouldn't play Frisbee at a police or fire station, and maybe not at a community building if it were busy enough.

 

Multiple supporters of this litmus for placing a cache have said this themselves. I would bet in all three of those locations if I took my kids for a 20-minute game of frisbee on their respective front lawns that I wouldn't be thought of twice or approached in any way about my activity. Heck, even out by the dumpsters we'd raise no cause for alarm in most cases.

I seriously doubt you could show up in front of a police or fire station and start playing Frisbee and not have someone come out and suggest you move. Especially at a fire station where they might need to race out and don't want to worry about running down someone playing Frisbee.

 

This logic plainly fails at multiple levels and I've only scratched the surface...the fact is, they are fearful, as they themselves have stated at time before, of being told "no". Instead of just doing the honorable thing and being forthright and upfront with land managers or owners of these types of locations...they choose the route of the much alive "dirty little secret" and assume "adequate" permission that they can't "assure".

I agree, your logic fails at multiple levels.

 

Does the frisbee test work? Yes.

I agree. It works GREAT.

 

Does it "assure" "adequate" permission? No.

But you just said that it works.

[+egami]

Does it "assure" "adequate" permission? No.

But you just said that it works.

 

It does work for a "general rule of thumb". It doesn't work as a test, or even worse THE test, for adequate permission.

 

As far as playing in front of said locations...I've done both of them with my kids. My parents live on the same block as the local fire department and police station. My kids play out front all the time there without being asked to move.

 

And, it IS possible to play in front of, and on, fire station property without impeding their exit...but, your point is clearly not addressing the actual point. It's doing what you guys do best which is make every excuse not to take the option of integrity.

Edited February 2, 2008 by egami

[+Renegade Knight]

...The point never suggested it was bullet-proof, therefore that's not a valid retort to the actual point. If the point of the response wasn't to retort the point...well, thanks for the redundancy of one of my sub-points.

 

The topic was the Frisbee test. We agreed it wasn't bullet proof and what the limitations were. Was there something else about the test?

[+egami]

We agreed it wasn't bullet proof and what the limitations were.

 

Oh, good, then you agree with the post.

[Mushtang]

As far as playing in front of said locations...I've done both of them with my kids. My parents live on the same block as the local fire department and police station. My kids play out front all the time there without being asked to move.

Well, there you go. So it looks like the test works again. I wouldn't feel okay playing there, so I wouldn't. You apparently would, so you do. BTW, did you get express permission to play there?

 

And, it IS possible to play in front of, and on, fire station property without impeding their exit...but, your point is clearly not addressing the actual point. It's doing what you guys do best which is make every excuse not to take the option of integrity.

My point about their exit is exactly addressing the actual point. It's one of the main reasons I'd feel that I shouldn't play there. When I decide if I can play Frisbee somewhere there are many reasons why I wouldn't want to play, other than if it were public property or not.

 

Apparently no answer other than, "the Frisbee Test is wrong", will be acceptable to you here. You've put forth a statement in a forum for debate, but when someone disagrees with it you ironically say that the person is not taking the option of integrity.

[Mushtang]

We agreed it wasn't bullet proof and what the limitations were.

Oh, good, then you agree with the post.

I must have missed that point in all the post-spew in your OP too. If the point you were trying to make is that the Frisbee Test isn't perfect, then I also agree.

 

I doubt anyone in the forums that thinks the Frisbee Test works also believes it to be perfect in every situation.

[+egami]

I must have missed that point in all the post-spew in your OP too. If the point you were trying to make is that the Frisbee Test isn't perfect, then I also agree.

 

I doubt anyone in the forums that thinks the Frisbee Test works also believes it to be perfect in every situation.

 

None of those comments pertain to any point I've made.

Edited February 2, 2008 by egami

[+Renegade Knight]

I must have missed that point in all the post-spew in your OP too. If the point you were trying to make is that the Frisbee Test isn't perfect, then I also agree.

 

I doubt anyone in the forums that thinks the Frisbee Test works also believes it to be perfect in every situation.

 

None of those comments pertain to any point I've made.

These points?

1. You don't leave a frisbee secretively hidden behind in a game of frisbee.

No, You merely lose them every now and then in weeds, shrubs, roofs, and frisbee eating trees.

2. You don't advertise its location and invite others to use a GPS to come find a hidden frisbee.

Nope, you get your buddies to help you climb the tree or you come back and find it later. If it's on the roof you ask, unless of course you can't find who to ask. Then you just get your frisbee or give it up for lost.

3. Playing frisbee may not raise speculation at 2:00 PM in a WM parking lot, but it might at 2:00 AM.

Walking home at 2am can raise speculation. It's the kind of thing you expect at 2am.

4. Playing frisbee doesn't raise the kind of questions that someone snooping around looking for a cache container might.

Looking for your lost one might. That's about it.

5. Playing a little frisbee is extremely temporal in comparison to leaving a cache that may exist and draw traffic for literally a period of years.

Frisbee had been played a lot longer. Different people Same place. Rather like caching when you think about it.

6. The percent of people who have heard of, and understand, frisbee is significantly larger than those that have heard of, and understand, geocaching.

True.

 

If those were the points I'm not sure I see a problem. We still agree on the test.

[+egami]

If those were the points I'm not sure I see a problem. We still agree on the test.

 

Those were merely points as to why the frisbee test doesn't directly parallel placing a cache. If you thought that was the only point to the main post...I can't help you with that.

[+KBI]

If those were the points I'm not sure I see a problem. We still agree on the test.

Those were merely points as to why the frisbee test doesn't directly parallel placing a cache. If you thought that was the only point to the main post...I can't help you with that.

Then what exactly was the intent of your original post?

 

You summarized your original post by saying:

 

Does the frisbee test work? Yes. Does it "assure" "adequate" permission? No.

I agree with those two statements. Near as I can tell so does everyone else.

 

Yet you keep trying to pick a fight.

[+PhxChem]

The Real Test, There is No Test

 

Great, it's a guideline. We all agree (although it's hard to start a fight that way.....).

[+Rockin Roddy]

QUOTE(egami @ Feb 1 2008, 09:12 PM)

It intrigues me that this litmus test has been defined to justify placing caches in Wal-Mart parking lots, for one example, without receiving explicit permission. They aren't fundamentally equal comparisons for numerous reasons.

 

Well DUH! Nobody that suggests the Frisbee Test works for determining adequate permission EVER said playing Frisbee and geocaching were fundamentally equal activities.

 

Really? You didn't point out several times that these are both benign activities and went on to compare them as equally harmless??

Edited February 2, 2008 by Rockin Roddy

[Mushtang]

QUOTE(egami @ Feb 1 2008, 09:12 PM)

It intrigues me that this litmus test has been defined to justify placing caches in Wal-Mart parking lots, for one example, without receiving explicit permission. They aren't fundamentally equal comparisons for numerous reasons.

 

Well DUH! Nobody that suggests the Frisbee Test works for determining adequate permission EVER said playing Frisbee and geocaching were fundamentally equal activities.

 

Really? You didn't point out several times that these are both benign activities and went on to compare them as equally harmless??

I never said they were equal activities.

 

I never said that the Frisbee Test is bullet proof, infallible, 100% accurate, etc.

 

I did say that they were both benign activities.

 

I did say that they were equally harmless.

 

That doesn't mean that they were equal in every way. What is your point?

[+team lagonda]

i think we should all lay down our frissbees and gps,rs and pick up baseball bats and start beating oneanother with them..

Edited February 2, 2008 by team lagonda

[+sbell111]

Are you arguing FOR explicit permission for every geocache out there? That would probably be the death of geocaching.

If I were arguing for that I would have explicitly stated that. No, that would be absurd, my statement is what it is...a statement against those on this boards misrepresenting this fallacy as being a reasonable litmus for placing a cache as often as they suggest it. ...

OK, you are against the frisbee test and against all caches requiring express permission.

 

What are you for?

 

Why don't you propose a test that you believe is better?

[+sbell111]

... Besides, it's interesting to me that they won't take the same perception toward say a police station, fire station or community building. Multiple supporters of this litmus for placing a cache have said this themselves. I would bet in all three of those locations if I took my kids for a 20-minute game of frisbee on their respective front lawns that I wouldn't be thought of twice or approached in any way about my activity. Heck, even out by the dumpsters we'd raise no cause for alarm in most cases. ...

You are forgetting why those people who support the frisbee rule wouldn't apply it to police stations or fire stations. The guidelines generally wouldn't allow caches at these locations. The only way to have caches at these specific locations approved would be by obtaining explicit written permission from the head honcho. When placing a cache, one must consider all of the guidelines.

 

I actually think that the frisbee test might work for a cache near a community building, whatever that is.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

It's an analogy, a useful comparison, a cognitive process, a rule of thumb, a way of looking at things.... It's not a litmus test. It never was. The comparison is based on two principles: both are recreational activities, and both are equally harmless. Wherever one is freely open to the public, the other probably is, too. This is no substitute for doing a reality check; it's just a working plan.

 

Yes, it's useful. Yes there are exceptions.

[+Glenn]

Are you arguing FOR explicit permission for every geocache out there? That would probably be the death of geocaching.

If I were arguing for that I would have explicitly stated that. No, that would be absurd, my statement is what it is...a statement against those on this boards misrepresenting this fallacy as being a reasonable litmus for placing a cache as often as they suggest it. ...

OK, you are against the frisbee test and against all caches requiring express permission.

 

What are you for?

 

Why don't you propose a test that you believe is better?

 

How about the ask permission test. If you has the land owner/manager for permission to place a cache and they say yes then you can place a cache there. If the answer is no then you can't place a cache there. It's simple, elegant, and leaves only a very small room for error.

[Mushtang]

Are you arguing FOR explicit permission for every geocache out there? That would probably be the death of geocaching.

If I were arguing for that I would have explicitly stated that. No, that would be absurd, my statement is what it is...a statement against those on this boards misrepresenting this fallacy as being a reasonable litmus for placing a cache as often as they suggest it. ...

OK, you are against the frisbee test and against all caches requiring express permission.

 

What are you for?

 

Why don't you propose a test that you believe is better?

 

How about the ask permission test. If you has the land owner/manager for permission to place a cache and they say yes then you can place a cache there. If the answer is no then you can't place a cache there. It's simple, elegant, and leaves only a very small room for error.

Jeez, this is getting old.

 

Glenn, do you feel that you have to get express permission for 100% of the caches you place?

[+ReadyOrNot]

How about the ask permission test. If you has the land owner/manager for permission to place a cache and they say yes then you can place a cache there. If the answer is no then you can't place a cache there. It's simple, elegant, and leaves only a very small room for error.

 

Have you ever dealt with a government beurocrat? Asking for explicit permission will put the beurocrat in the position of 1) Say no and be done with it, or 2) Spend hours and hours attempting to get permission and bringing it up in committee meetings, etc.... It's easier to say no...

 

Do I need to sing "This land is your land, it's not the governments land" song?

[+sbell111]

Are you arguing FOR explicit permission for every geocache out there? That would probably be the death of geocaching.

If I were arguing for that I would have explicitly stated that. No, that would be absurd, my statement is what it is...a statement against those on this boards misrepresenting this fallacy as being a reasonable litmus for placing a cache as often as they suggest it. ...

OK, you are against the frisbee test and against all caches requiring express permission.

 

What are you for?

 

Why don't you propose a test that you believe is better?

How about the ask permission test. If you has the land owner/manager for permission to place a cache and they say yes then you can place a cache there. If the answer is no then you can't place a cache there. It's simple, elegant, and leaves only a very small room for error.

I get that you believe that you should get explicit permission for all cache hides.

 

However, Egami kinda stated that he didn't believe that explicit permission was required for all cache hides. He also made it clear that he did not agree with the frisbee test.

 

I would like to know what test he uses.

Edited February 2, 2008 by sbell111

[+Glenn]

Are you arguing FOR explicit permission for every geocache out there? That would probably be the death of geocaching.

If I were arguing for that I would have explicitly stated that. No, that would be absurd, my statement is what it is...a statement against those on this boards misrepresenting this fallacy as being a reasonable litmus for placing a cache as often as they suggest it. ...

OK, you are against the frisbee test and against all caches requiring express permission.

 

What are you for?

 

Why don't you propose a test that you believe is better?

How about the ask permission test. If you has the land owner/manager for permission to place a cache and they say yes then you can place a cache there. If the answer is no then you can't place a cache there. It's simple, elegant, and leaves only a very small room for error.

I get that you believe that you should get explicit permission for all cache hides.

 

However, Egami kinda stated that he didn't believe that explicit permission was required for all cache hides. He also made it clear that he did not agree with the frisbee test.

 

I would like to know what test he uses.

 

I believed that you asked "Why don't you propose a test that you believe is better?". I'm sorry I didn't realize that you only wanted Egami to answer that question.

[+sbell111]

Are you arguing FOR explicit permission for every geocache out there? That would probably be the death of geocaching.

If I were arguing for that I would have explicitly stated that. No, that would be absurd, my statement is what it is...a statement against those on this boards misrepresenting this fallacy as being a reasonable litmus for placing a cache as often as they suggest it. ...

OK, you are against the frisbee test and against all caches requiring express permission.

 

What are you for?

 

Why don't you propose a test that you believe is better?

How about the ask permission test. If you has the land owner/manager for permission to place a cache and they say yes then you can place a cache there. If the answer is no then you can't place a cache there. It's simple, elegant, and leaves only a very small room for error.

I get that you believe that you should get explicit permission for all cache hides.

 

However, Egami kinda stated that he didn't believe that explicit permission was required for all cache hides. He also made it clear that he did not agree with the frisbee test.

 

I would like to know what test he uses.

I believed that you asked "Why don't you propose a test that you believe is better?". I'm sorry I didn't realize that you only wanted Egami to answer that question.

Egami was the OP. My question was posed to him or someone who shares his position. You do not share his stated position.

[magellan315]

Yourself, sbell111 and others are constantly promoting a method that will lead to more ABDSP-like issues than it will prevent.

 

More situations like ABDSP??? I am still waiting for an explanation, something more than Numerous/hundreds of caches that have been placed in sensitive areas. Exactly how many caches in a numerous? How many of the 358 caches that were in the ABDSP, were the hundreds located in sensitive areas. The ABDSP made a statement that implies there was major damage due to Geocaching with nothing to prove it. Just because a Park Superintendent makes claims of damage doesn't mean what he says should be taken at face value, otherwise it wouldn't be logical.

 

In case you forgot there was a Geocaching policy created by the rangers at the ABDSP for 4 years and they benefited from a CITO every 6 months. So unless you have some inside information you would like to reveal about the actual problems surrounding the ABDSP its flawed logic on your part. All you are is a Geocacher in Iowa making illogical statements about a park in California you now nothing about.

Edited February 3, 2008 by magellan315

[+Rockin Roddy]

Yourself, sbell111 and others are constantly promoting a method that will lead to more ABDSP-like issues than it will prevent.

 

More situations like ABDSP??? I am still waiting for an explanation, something more than Numerous/hundreds of caches that have been placed in sensitive areas. Exactly how many caches in a numerous? How many of the 358 caches that were in the ABDSP, were the hundreds located in sensitive areas. The ABDSP made a statement that implies there was major damage due to Geocaching with nothing to prove it. Just because a Park Superintendent makes claims of damage doesn't mean what he says should be taken at face value, otherwise it wouldn't be logical.

 

In case you forgot their was a Geocaching policy created by the rangers at the ABDSP for 4 years created by the rangers at the ABDSP and they benefited from a CITO every 6 months. So unless you have some inside information you would like to reveal about the actual problems surrounding the ABDSP its flawed logic on your part. All you are is a Geocacher in Iowa making illogical statements about a park in California you now nothing about.

Wow...slow down and read what is written!

 

Egami is merely stating that the way some feel they have rights to use lands as they feel w/o regard to owners, there's bound to be more banning of caches like what happened at ABDSP. I doubt egami was actually saying this is exactly what happened at ABDSP, but saying the type of actions which occurred there could be repeated elsewhere because of the lack of permission.

 

Sure, there was a policy with the management there, but some cachers reportedly crossed the lines of the policy and have ruined it for all. Instead of listening to what happened and discussing their options calmly, some would rather blame the management, call names, act indignant and make like the management is lying. Even if the management IS lying, that ought to help get caching back!!

[magellan315]

Sure, there was a policy with the management there, but some cachers reportedly crossed the lines of the policy and have ruined it for all. Instead of listening to what happened and discussing their options calmly, some would rather blame the management, call names, act indignant and make like the management is lying. Even if the management IS lying, that ought to help get caching back!!

 

In this thread Egami went from discussing a theory to using a specific example of how this can become a problem. However no one has verified that there is a problem or how pervasive it may really be.

 

So far the ABDSP has made a vauge statement about major damage due to Geocaching. Which Geocachers crossed the line, can you give me an example? It might have happened, but there has been no verifiable evidence of this damage. No one is blaming management, they are asking for proof. Egami claims to be logical, so accepting a single statement by a park superintendent is highly illogical.

 

About two years ago a state legislator in South Carolina attempted to have a state wide ban of Geocaching. Her proof of damage and disrespect by Geocachers included photographs of Geocachers laying next to headstones, pictures reportedly taken in a cemetary and log that appeared as if a Geocacher had urinated on a gravestone. At first viewing it was very disturbing evidence against Geocachers and after it was investigated none of it was what it appeared to be.

 

Since that time I will not take claims made by anyone about damage caused by Geocaching until it has been investigated by someone other than the person making the claim. That is a logical choice.

Edited February 3, 2008 by magellan315

[+Team Cotati]

Yourself, sbell111 and others are constantly promoting a method that will lead to more ABDSP-like issues than it will prevent.

 

More situations like ABDSP??? I am still waiting for an explanation, something more than Numerous/hundreds of caches that have been placed in sensitive areas. Exactly how many caches in a numerous? How many of the 358 caches that were in the ABDSP, were the hundreds located in sensitive areas. The ABDSP made a statement that implies there was major damage due to Geocaching with nothing to prove it. Just because a Park Superintendent makes claims of damage doesn't mean what he says should be taken at face value, otherwise it wouldn't be logical.

 

In case you forgot there was a Geocaching policy created by the rangers at the ABDSP for 4 years and they benefited from a CITO every 6 months. So unless you have some inside information you would like to reveal about the actual problems surrounding the ABDSP its flawed logic on your part. All you are is a Geocacher in Iowa making illogical statements about a park in California you now nothing about.

 

So now we finally know the answer. egami, it's all your fault. So there, you bad boy.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Sure, there was a policy with the management there, but some cachers reportedly crossed the lines of the policy and have ruined it for all. Instead of listening to what happened and discussing their options calmly, some would rather blame the management, call names, act indignant and make like the management is lying. Even if the management IS lying, that ought to help get caching back!!

 

In this thread Egami went from discussing a theory to using a specific example of how this can become a problem. However no one has verified that there is a problem or how pervasive it may really be.

 

So far the ABDSP has made a vauge statement about major damage due to Geocaching. Which Geocachers crossed the line, can you give me an example? It might have happened, but there has been no verifiable evidence of this damage. No one is blaming management, they are asking for proof. Egami claims to be logical, so accepting a single statement by a park superintendent is highly illogical.

 

About two years ago a state legislator in South Carolina attempted to have a state wide ban of Geocaching. Her proof of damage and disrespect by Geocachers included logs and photographs of Geocachers laying next to headstones, pictures reportedly taken in a cemetary and log that appeared as if a Geocacher had urinated on a gravestone. At first viewing it was very disturbing evidence against Geocachers and after it was investigated none of it was what it appeared to be.

 

Since that time I will not take claims made by anyone about damage caused by Geocaching until it has been investigated by someone other than the person making the claim. That is a logical choice.

If that's how you see it...but some calling them names, saying they are lying and acting as I saw in the other thread seems to say otherwise.

 

Look, I agree. Get the facts and then go from there...but to start right out with the blame game, saying this is all made up etc really makes it tough to "go from there" in MHO. You want the answers, you should go to the source, not start a smear campaign in the forums where management might (and are from what I've read) read these comments.

 

Sounds like someone is working on this, so maybe if others cooled off and let the process run it's course....there's always time to blame others if things go badly.

 

Now, back to the topic. Asking permission would certainly be a help rather than the problem some want to make it out to be. Some say that you ruin it if you go and ask and then get the management to have to look into it (which some feel leads to a "no" and makes any existing caches get removed...the ones which never asked permission in the firast place). My thought, do your homework and be prepared for a long process. Have a presentation prepared which would point out the benefits caching holds for land owners, one which makes them WANT caches on their lands!!

Edited February 3, 2008 by Rockin Roddy

[+Too Tall John]

1. You don't leave a frisbee secretively hidden behind in a game of frisbee.

Correct. In both instances you have the playing piece in the location for the duration of the game, and then you take it with you.

The point is, and is made later as well, that the geocache is left for a much longer time. Assuming that the cache lasts the minimum time to meet "cache permanence" guidelines, that's 90 days minimum that the cache owner plans on it being there. Let's assume a game of Frisbee might last 2 hours. The cache, at minimum should be there 1000 times more. If it lasts just a year, almost 4400 times more.

2. You don't advertise its location and invite others to use a GPS to come find a hidden frisbee.

So? You don't throw your GPS back and forth with a friend when you geocache either. Being able to play two games in the same place doesn't mean you have to play them the same way.

Your response makes little logical sense. The question is, how do you reconcile the fact that you are inviting the entire geocaching community to come to the parking lot and find the cache, while with a typical Frisbee game, you aren't? The fact that we are talking about two games in the same place is the point exactly.

3. Playing frisbee may not raise speculation at 2:00 PM in a WM parking lot, but it might at 2:00 AM.

So maybe the Frisbee Test sort of indicates that you shouldn't geocache at 2am in a WM parking lot either.

4. Playing frisbee doesn't raise the kind of questions that someone snooping around looking for a cache container might.

And finding a geocache in a parking lot doesn't take as much time as a game of Frisbee does. So what? See my reply to number 2.

Can't argue with #3, I don't think there should be a geocache on private property (parking lot) where permission hasn't been received, but that's a whole other discussion...

 

#4. The fact that finding a geocache will take less time and draw more scrutiny only adds to the point that the Frisbee rule doesn't always work.

5. Playing a little frisbee is extremely temporal in comparison to leaving a cache that may exist and draw traffic for literally a period of years.

Again, this is irrelevant to establishing if it's okay to play Frisbee or not. I would feel okay playing Frisbee in a WM parking lot, but not because I'm going to be there a lot longer than I would if I were finding a geocache.

6. The percent of people who have heard of, and understand, frisbee is significantly larger than those that have heard of, and understand, geocaching.

So we should only hide caches in areas where people know about geocaching? I guess I didn't realize that the percent of people in county parks that know about geocaching is as high as those that know about Frisbee.

#5:You speak to playing Frisbee. We're talking about geocaching here.

#6:

[+Too Tall John]

It's an analogy, a useful comparison, a cognitive process, a rule of thumb, a way of looking at things.... It's not a litmus test. It never was...

Exactly! The point egami was trying to make is that time after time, the Frisbee test has been brought into discussions without taking these differences into account, and these posts are helping shed some light on those differences.

[+HopsMaltYeast]

I think it is almost a 100% certainty that a random stranger approaching any Wal-Mart store manger with a request for permission to play frisbee in the parking lot would be told "No."

 

Anyone playing frisbee in the high car and shopper traffic area near the front door would be told to leave if they stayed more than a few minutes.

 

Someone playing frisbee way out in a quiet corner of the parking lot would probably not draw attention or concern.

 

I would much prefer someone to be GeoCaching on my property than playing frisbee.

 

When one of your hypothetical frisbee players knocks my hypothetical Granny off of her walker in the parking lot someone is going to get sued.

 

A rule of thumb is just that - a guideline, a starting point in the thinking process. You still have to make a decision while considering the repercussions of your actions.

[+HopsMaltYeast]

Placing a magnetic key box on a guard rail on a far corner of a big box discount store without explicit permission hurts the universe or the integrity of the sport, how?

 

As Voltaire said, “Common sense is not common.”

And as Will Rogers said, “It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so”.

 

Someone on another thread similar to this one seemed to be either trolling to get someone to say “ignore the rules” or they were completely incapable of independent thought and reasoning. I honestly can’t figure out how some people get from the front door to the mailbox and back unsupervised.

 

What I have learned here that ain’t so:

 

The NPS policy bans GeoCaching. (Wrong, NPS policy neither explicitly permits nor explicitly prohibits GeoCaching.) Each Park supervisor must decide the issue while following NPS rules.

 

The NPS rules prohibit abandoning property on their lands, littering and destroying or damaging environmental/cultural/archeological sensitive sites. The NPS considers property abandoned if it is left for 24 hours without a permit.

 

So, you can leave a physical GeoCache if you obtain a permit to leave it for more than 24 hours.

 

So you can use virtual caches without obtaining explicit permission if they do not constitute a hazard to the environmental/cultural/archeological sensitivity of the sites.

 

~~~~~

 

I have to obtain explicit permission for any cache on any public land. Wrong.

 

The park in my neighborhood has multipurpose recreation opportunities.

 

There are baseball fields, gardens, a library, meadows, swings/slidingboards/merry-go-rounds/tetter-totters, nature areas and a fitness circuit.

 

Folks go to the park to use or enjoy those features. Sometimes they also engage in Easter egg hunts, picnics, bird watching, jogging, golf balls chipping, kite flying, napping, stargazing, nature painting, book reading, photography and myriad other recreational and legal activities – including, “Gasp”, Frisbee.

 

None of these activities require explicit permission and neither does GeoCaching. GeoCaching is not inherently more damaging than any of those activities.

 

However, you cannot drive golf balls in the gardens, meadow or on the baseball field during a baseball game.

 

You cannot picnic on the outfield of the baseball field during a game.

 

You cannot fly a kite or play volleyball inside the library.

 

Common sense says you should not place an Ammo Can GeoCache under the steps of the library or next to the swing set in the playground area.

 

Common sense says you can place a GeoCache in a hedge in the nature area or just off the jogging trail without explicit permission.

 

Why do so many folks require a constrictive, binding, every-contingency possible policy?

 

Get a brain. Or stay in you parent’s basement and never have to think or make a decision.

 

Even if you get explicit permission, if you place a cache such that it results in damage to sensitive environmental, cultural or archaeological sites, then you have done wrong.

 

It ain’t rocket science.

[Trinity's Crew]

Okay Egami, you're NOT advocating explicit permission for every hide and you understand that the frisbee test works up to a point. I'm not sure what you are trying to convey.

 

As others have said requesting explicit permission in local parks or other public lands where recreational activities are a generally accepted practice are likely to get geocaching regulated or banned. As a taxpayer I have a problem with bureaucrats saying "NO!" simply because it's the easiest answer in an unfamiliar situation.

 

Like a lot of other cachers, I see geocaching as mostly harmless. The geocaching community needs to police the situation in those rare instances where caches ARE causing harm.

[jholly]

In the state of Washington you can play frisbee in the state parks without a permit. You can place a cache WITH a permit. You can NOT place a cache without a permit. A cache placed in the state parks of Washington must display approved boilerplate on the cache page. So where does this leave us in the frisbee/cache debate? Oh, yes, the permit can be filled out online and takes about a week to get approved. Note, I said state park, not NPS.

 

Personally for county and town parks I would prefer the managers know I'm placing a cache. I would even be happy to share the location with them. I would prefer they KNOW it is there so some maintenance dude doesn't wreck their jockey shorts and the bomb squad goes to DEFCON 1. This happened in the San Francisco bay area regional parks. Caching was immediately banned. After much effort and agreement to some ground rules geocaching was again allowed. I will ask land managers of the parks around me for permission. If I get a no then I'll go elsewhere, if I get a yes, fine. If I get no response then I will assume a yes, but at least I asked. I have placed a cache on a reservation, and, yes, I had explicit permission.

 

Back to the normal program,

 

Jim

[+PhxChem]

Exactly! The point egami was trying to make is that time after time, the Frisbee test has been brought into discussions without taking these differences into account, and these posts are helping shed some light on those differences.

 

And here I thought someone was just picking a fight over their favorite geocaching pet peeve.

 

I'm not sure I've seen anyone on the boards use the "Frisbee Test" as an absolute right to place a cache.

 

these posts are helping shed some light on those differences.

 

HHHHHHHMMMMMMMMM....In most cases, I think these differences are self evident. You'll notice that this thread does not include a lot of cachers. I think the OP's tactics to try to educate and shine light on the "situation" have been unimpressive. Just an observation.

Edited February 3, 2008 by PhxChem

[+sbell111]

In the state of Washington you can play frisbee in the state parks without a permit. You can place a cache WITH a permit. You can NOT place a cache without a permit. A cache placed in the state parks of Washington must display approved boilerplate on the cache page. So where does this leave us in the frisbee/cache debate? ...

First of all, this fact does not affect the frisbee test. No one is suggesting that any cache be placed in violation of any park rules.

 

Regarding the permit requirement, I suspect that this was put in place because some geocacher decided to 'work with the state to develop a policy for geocaching'. The problem with this is that, when asked to develop a policy, a bureaucrat will always make it too cumbersome. Therefore, we often end up with required permits, fees, and time limits for completely benign activities.

 

Frisbee players aren't required to jump through these hoops because no frisbee player ever asks for a frisbee policy.

Edited February 4, 2008 by sbell111

[+Rockin Roddy]

Exactly! The point egami was trying to make is that time after time, the Frisbee test has been brought into discussions without taking these differences into account, and these posts are helping shed some light on those differences.

 

And here I thought someone was just picking a fight over their favorite geocaching pet peeve.

 

I'm not sure I've seen anyone on the boards use the "Frisbee Test" as an absolute right to place a cache.

 

these posts are helping shed some light on those differences.

 

HHHHHHHMMMMMMMMM....In most cases, I think these differences are self evident. You'll notice that this thread does not include a lot of cachers. I think the OP's tactics to try to educate and shine light on the "situation" have been unimpressive. Just an observation.

 

Where have you been? I've seen many tout this "test" as the way to decide whether or not they feel they have "adequate" permission. Now you say no one uses this test? OK...you throw in one word "absolute"....strange, most have also said this "test" isn't bullet-proof.

 

And you are right about the number of cachers in this debate...same old group arguing the same old point over and over. Most of the rest of the cachers have grown tired of the exact same debate over and over....

[+sbell111]

... And you are right about the number of cachers in this debate...same old group arguing the same old point over and over. Most of the rest of the cachers have grown tired of the exact same debate over and over....

and yet, they can't help but jump in any time the topic is brought up. Some of them even steer other topics to the issue.

 

Hmmm.