bomb squad called, no boom!

[+KeeperOfTheMist]

ok half way off topic (not by much though) i see alot of talk about the damage it would do if packed with explosive but what about other biological compounds like gases and bacterial/viral pathogens much more dangerous then a little c4 and damage from the initial burst has no need to be more then a little charring.

 

either way i wouldn't worry to much about it since it has happened before and certainly will happen again (society is just paranoid in general).

 

and btw i know 1 LPC that got permission the restaraunt owners even keep the shades closed on that side of the restaraunt just so cachers have an added measure of stealth. never sure about most other LPCs though and normally if its an LPC i think probably no permission givien so added stealth yet not enough to be suspicious (more then normal for me at least)

[+bittsen]

OT

 

The day that Groundspeak cracks down on permission issues is the day that they will lose the market share of Geocaching.

Lack of "rules" is what keeps this activity going.

 

Part of the allure of geocaching is that it has some sort of benign "sneakiness" factor to it.

[Mr.Yuck]

Too bad... just a few more hours and it would have been exactly a year since this thread got bumped!

 

Yep, I, TWU, managed to kill that thread with a final post no one wanted to respond to, and someone had to go bump it.

 

Now I'm not being a smart aleck, because I do it all the time myself; you can quote and discuss now over 1 year old stuff, but this is what the thread bumper said yesterday:

 

You know, this kind of stupid stuff makes me think. I have come up with an idea. The problem arises when law enforcement has not idea what a geocache is and does not know the website exists.

 

Suppose geocaching.com makes a program for geocachers in their area to go to every ones local police station and let them know geocaching exists, and show them the web site, and it can be kept track of on geocaching.com what stations have been notified.

 

This way if they get a call about a suspicious container maybe they will check geocaching.com for the area and see if the suspicious container in question is listed on the site before the call in the bomb squad.

 

Now I have something to say about the size of the container and explosives. I don't even think a film canister full of a very high explosive like centex would even take out the lamp post. The mythbusters tackled the james bond myth about exploding pens. even in a gigantic ridiculous sized pen couldn't obliterate a foam manikin. The normal sized pen full of centex did almost nothing.

 

If some one could get their hands on c4 or centex, I am sure they would use a better container then a film canister. So logically it would most likely be black powder in the canister, as well a film canister would not create a very good explosion.

 

We had an event in Piqua, Ohio and sent invitations to nearly every police establishment within 50 miles. We had a geocacher who was also a police officer who was going to be the speaker. Take a guess as to how many showed up?

 

If you guessed 1.. You are wrong!! Not a single one showed up

 

I don't know if these means the police officer who was a geocacher who was supposed to speak blew you off too? Well, I've never gone for any of this "educate the police about Geocaching" stuff. The best it's ever going to get us is someone questioned for odd behavior in front of the general public being "let off" quicker by an officer who has heard of Geocaching. It's even happened to me.

 

As far as caches getting blown up, educating the Police will do nothing, in my opinion. If they're going to blow the sucker up, they're going to blow the sucker up. I do applaud the effort that was made at that event though, definitely the first time I ever heard of an offer to local law enforcement like that.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

OT

 

The day that Groundspeak cracks down on permission issues is the day that they will lose the market share of Geocaching.

Lack of "rules" is what keeps this activity going.

 

Part of the allure of geocaching is that it has some sort of benign "sneakiness" factor to it.

I think that is a total misrepresentation!

 

Groundspeak lists caches based on the cache owner's statement that they have adequate permission.

 

When a permission issue becomes known to a Reviewer he or she will work with the cache owner to get the issue resolved and, if not resolved, will archive the cache.

 

The two checkboxes at the bottom of the cache listing submission page are an affirmation by the cache owner that the cache has adequate permission, conforms to the guidelines, and that the cache owner has read and will abide by the site's terms of use.

 

I don't know how much more diligent you could expect them to be, and there is no place for sneakiness in that agreement.

 

The element of sneakiness in hiding from each other and from muggles is certainly part of the game... sneakiness in hiding guideline violations, most especially sneakiness in hiding permission issues from the Reviewing team, is not.

Edited January 1, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[Clan Riffster]

I don't know how much more diligent you could expect them to be

Ed, incorporating a couple check boxes on an online form is not diligence, it's basic CYA-101.

 

Diligence would take a few steps:

1 ) Groundspeak acknowledges that private property owner rights are important.

2 ) Groundspeak altering their guidelines a wee bit to reflect the change, requiring explicit permission for private property hides.

3 ) Groundspeak tells their reviewers to act swiftly to resolve any new private property issues that arise, archiving first, asking questions later.

 

As it stands right now, Groundspeak shows very little concern for private property owners rights.

Consider two similar pieces of property:

The Chuluota Wilderness Area

and

The Seminole Towne center Mall.

 

Both are on roughly the same size patch of dirt.

 

I could hide a dozen film cans at the mall, and so long as I clicked on a little box or two, my caches would quite likely be published without raising an eyebrow, even though all 12 of them would be hidden on property that doesn't belong to me, using the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more" principle of adequate permission via public access rights, even though the guide entitled Hiding Your First Geocache clearly states "If you place a cache on private land, you must ask permission before hiding your cache."

 

But if I try to hide a single film can in the Chuluota Wilderness Area, which is public land, paid for with my tax dollars, my reviewer is going to specifically ask if I have explicit permission, as they know CWA has a geocache permit system.

 

This is not a gripe. I completely understand the second part, as our's is a game utterly dependant upon the good will of land managers. By doing it this way, Groundspeak can show that they will take an active roll in keeping unwanted caches off of public lands, and that they are willing to work hand in hand with the managers to ensure hassle free caching on those properties.

 

What I don't get is why that same level of courtesy is not extended to private property owners, especially in light of the strong stance Groundspeak takes in their "How To" section.

 

Maybe bittsen nailed it?

 

With the huge volume of caches being placed on private property sans explicit permission, perhaps TPTB recognize that trying to enforce a guideline in that area would send a big chunk of their paying customers elsewhere? In my short time playing this game, every single time I've asked a cache owner who they asked to get permission for their parking lot hides, all I've gotten in response is the deer in the headlights look, followed by mutterings of Frisbees and adequate permission.

 

Note: That's not to say that there are no LPCs with explicit permission. I'm sure there are some out there. It's just that, in 5 years of asking the same question, I've never received a positive answer.

 

Changing the guidelines to match the tone of the How To guide would be a good first step.

[4wheelin_fool]

Ok here is the deal. Just like any LPC I grabbed the cache, signed it, and replaced it. After replacing the cache I spent maybe 5 minutes checking other caches in the area that I wanted to do. Seeing that the other nearby caches said from Dawn to Dusk I chose to head home.

 

For anyone to even suggest that I saw the police entering the area and driving away on purpose is ridiculous. If I had known I had caused some concern I would have immediately spoken to the police. I never saw the police, and since I was in no rush to get away after placing the suspicious package Tim Horton's had time to write my license plate down.

 

I was interviewed by the Urbana Detective and was called on Monday being told there would be no charges filed against me...

 

I was guilty of just being NON-stealthy and catching the attention of someone there--nothng else-- and I sure did not INTENTLY drive away from a potential crime scene.

 

That is all. No more responses from me!!!!!

 

You would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those meddling kids !

 

 

The moral of the story is that parking lot micros are inherently dangerous as suspicious activity and that while seeking them you run the risk of being arrested! Perhaps we need a handcuff icon for urban hides.

[+Team Cotati]

From the article:

 

The man drove off when officers arrived. Police found 35-mm film canisters with a metal plate and electrical tape in the post, Lingrell said, and considered it suspicious-looking.

 

Drove off when the police arrived? Unidentified canister (canisters, the article uses the plural) where it doesn't belong? Metal plate? Electrical tape? No (or inadequate) permission?

 

How many more things do you need to make something scream 'suspicious!'?

 

I love micros, don't get me wrong, but if you hide and hunt LPCs without regard to adequate permission you have to expect this kind of incident.

 

Maybe the finder never saw the cops coming, but if he did then sticking around to explain what he was up to would have resolved the whole thing.

 

I haven't seen anywhere that cachers actually had to pay for this kind of nonsense, but maybe if they do then cachers will start

A) Taking permission seriously

and

2) Hiding caches where geocachers aren't so noticed by muggles!

 

Having "permission" is unlikely to have any effect upon the curiosity and/or the actions of law enforcement or other security type personnel. There are simply some locations that ought not be used as geocache hiding spots.

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

This is the reason I make sure I have my military ID when I go after micros in muggle territory.

[+bittsen]

OT

 

The day that Groundspeak cracks down on permission issues is the day that they will lose the market share of Geocaching.

Lack of "rules" is what keeps this activity going.

 

Part of the allure of geocaching is that it has some sort of benign "sneakiness" factor to it.

I think that is a total misrepresentation!

 

Groundspeak lists caches based on the cache owner's statement that they have adequate permission.

 

When a permission issue becomes known to a Reviewer he or she will work with the cache owner to get the issue resolved and, if not resolved, will archive the cache.

 

The two checkboxes at the bottom of the cache listing submission page are an affirmation by the cache owner that the cache has adequate permission, conforms to the guidelines, and that the cache owner has read and will abide by the site's terms of use.

 

I don't know how much more diligent you could expect them to be, and there is no place for sneakiness in that agreement.

 

The element of sneakiness in hiding from each other and from muggles is certainly part of the game... sneakiness in hiding guideline violations, most especially sneakiness in hiding permission issues from the Reviewing team, is not.

 

If you want to write things into what I have written then why not just make stuff up that I never even said?

 

My point is that Groundspeak relies on the COs to assure them of adequate permission but they don't check every cache. The day that GS does mandate proof (not simply checking a box) of adequate permission, someone will come along and offer a listing service (and remember, all Geocaching.com is is a listing service) where you don't need to provide proof for every cache hide. That WILL be the day that GS loses the market share.

 

As said above, it's CYA 101 to have the checkbox and Business 101 to not take it any further until needed.

 

I won't get into a debate of what ways my words can be twisted. Been there, done that, have the T-shirt.