Playground Attribute - Yeah or Nay?

[+niraD]

Most attributes are for the general area not the cache type - Is there parking, are there bathrooms. Most of the non-forum reading cache owners are going to say 'Yeah, there's playground equipment!' Are you going to be able to have them use it for proximity? Tons of caches are in parks, tons of parks have playground equipment. How close do the cache and equipment have to be to be able to use the new attribute?

I've got the same question. Clearly the "playground" attribute would be appropriate if I were to hide a cache on the playground equipment, or somewhere else within the playground area of the park. But what if the cache is located 50' from the playground area? 100' from the playground area? 200' from the playground area? 400' from the playground area? At what point is it no longer appropriate to use the "playground" attribute?

[+Joshmac98]

Perhaps there should be two attributes:

at a playground or near a playground. (Near being a maximum of 200 or 300 feet)

Edited July 28, 2009 by Joshmac98

[GOF and Bacall]

One attribute would be sufficient. "Less than 528 feet from playground equipment." Anything on the equipment is less than 528 feet from it.

[+welch]

I have often searched for "kid friendly" caches and then read the description looking to see if it has a playground. I have a 2 -yr old son who loves playgrounds and this way we both can have fun. I've noticed that just because it says kid friendly doesn't mean it has a playground. When reading the forums, I saw the other side of this...

 

There are some people who hate caches on or near playgrounds. In the interest of all, I think it would be great to have an attribute devoted specifically to this for lovers and haters of playgrounds alike. I realize there are other ways to search for playgrounds (satelitte views, etc), but this would make it much easier.

 

I wrote "the powers that be" here on geocaching.com, and they told me to post a thread and see what the consensus is, and they would keep an eye on it.

 

So, yeah or nay?

 

Only easier if the hider adds that attribute

 

But hey its like so many attributes, I either don't know when they should apply or just never bother to use them so why not. Yeah

[+midnightfaerie]

Which exactly were you thinking for the text with the attribute?

 

Playground nearby? or Cache on Playgrond equipment?

 

I don't like putting caches on the eqipment for all the reasons already stated...i was looking for an attribte that would say something like "playground nearby".

[SgtKlaos]

There seems to be a sound number of reasons to warrant the option of having an "On or near playground" attribute. And yes, the attributes could use some guidelines to somewhat standardize expectations and understanding. Make the attributes more useful.

[+sbell111]

I support a 'playground nearby' attribute.

 

I vote a resounding yea - in New York City, it's illegal to be in a playground without a child so that would save people grief as I'm sure NYC isn't the only place to have that law. ...

I did a search of New York City Code and, while I was able to find many laws that mentioned playgrounds, I could not find any that forbid an adult from being in or near a playground without a child. Would you mind providing a link?

[+steve p]

I did a search of New York City Code and, while I was able to find many laws that mentioned playgrounds, I could not find any that forbid an adult from being in or near a playground without a child. Would you mind providing a link?

I found an article from 2005 about a woman in a NYC park receiving a ticket from police because she wasn't with kids. The penalty apparently could be 90 days in jail or a $1,000 fine.

 

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=...&id=3483055

Edited July 30, 2009 by steve p

[+dakboy]

I did a search of New York City Code and, while I was able to find many laws that mentioned playgrounds, I could not find any that forbid an adult from being in or near a playground without a child. Would you mind providing a link?

I found an article from 2005 about a woman in a NYC park receiving a ticket from police because she wasn't with kids. The penalty apparently could be 90 days in jail or a $1,000 fine.

 

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=...&id=3483055

http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_about/rules...ns/rr_1-04.html

 

Items L & M could be very loosely interpreted in the way described here. Especially this one:

# engages in a course of conduct or commits acts that unreasonably alarm or seriously annoy another person;

The problem there is the words "unreasonably" & "seriously" as both are purely subjective measures.

 

I'm already paranoid about my son throwing a fit in the mall when my wife isn't around - someday, someone's going to accuse me of trying to abduct him because he's upset that I wouldn't let him play in the fountains or something like that.

 

Now that I'm being told that I have no business being within sight of a playground without child in tow, I'm just going to hide in my house for a few years.

[+baloo&bd]

I did a search of New York City Code and, while I was able to find many laws that mentioned playgrounds, I could not find any that forbid an adult from being in or near a playground without a child. Would you mind providing a link?

I found an article from 2005 about a woman in a NYC park receiving a ticket from police because she wasn't with kids. The penalty apparently could be 90 days in jail or a $1,000 fine.

 

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=...&id=3483055

 

Ahh...another media created urban legend is born.

 

Next the headline will be "Parent fined $1000 in NJ park fo not playing with kids".

[+dakboy]

I did a search of New York City Code and, while I was able to find many laws that mentioned playgrounds, I could not find any that forbid an adult from being in or near a playground without a child. Would you mind providing a link?

I found an article from 2005 about a woman in a NYC park receiving a ticket from police because she wasn't with kids. The penalty apparently could be 90 days in jail or a $1,000 fine.

 

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=...&id=3483055

 

Ahh...another media created urban legend is born.

How do you figure? It really happened. It was even discussed here a couple months ago. And covered by other news outlets as well.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...p;#entry3940388

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2...ults___sit.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2...y__park_ba.html

[+baloo&bd]

I did a search of New York City Code and, while I was able to find many laws that mentioned playgrounds, I could not find any that forbid an adult from being in or near a playground without a child. Would you mind providing a link?

I found an article from 2005 about a woman in a NYC park receiving a ticket from police because she wasn't with kids. The penalty apparently could be 90 days in jail or a $1,000 fine.

 

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=...&id=3483055

 

Ahh...another media created urban legend is born.

How do you figure? It really happened. It was even discussed here a couple months ago. And covered by other news outlets as well.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...p;#entry3940388

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2...ults___sit.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2...y__park_ba.html

 

Your kidding right? The news media picks it up so it can't be a urban legend? There is a basis in reason for the old adage "don't believe everything you read", especially one 4 year old article that is referenced over and over.

 

The only references to this law is the ONE story. I understand over the last 8 years we have surrendered many of our rights due to inane reasoning, but something like this would still generate a huge outcry from the public and groups like the ACLU. At most, this appeared as a "rule" on a sign somewhere.

 

Reference somewhere the ordinance, #, origination, etc. If something seems too good, or too bizarre, to be true, more often than not it is.

 

Makes for good forum fodder I guess.

[+dakboy]

The only references to this law is the ONE story. I understand over the last 8 years we have surrendered many of our rights due to inane reasoning, but something like this would still generate a huge outcry from the public and groups like the ACLU. At most, this appeared as a "rule" on a sign somewhere.

 

Reference somewhere the ordinance, #, origination, etc. If something seems too good, or too bizarre, to be true, more often than not it is.

I did, in post #59 above. I'll quote myself:

 

http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_about/rules...ns/rr_1-04.html

 

Items L & M could be very loosely interpreted in the way described here. Especially this one:

# engages in a course of conduct or commits acts that unreasonably alarm or seriously annoy another person;

The problem there is the words "unreasonably" & "seriously" as both are purely subjective measures.

[+baloo&bd]

The only references to this law is the ONE story. I understand over the last 8 years we have surrendered many of our rights due to inane reasoning, but something like this would still generate a huge outcry from the public and groups like the ACLU. At most, this appeared as a "rule" on a sign somewhere.

 

Reference somewhere the ordinance, #, origination, etc. If something seems too good, or too bizarre, to be true, more often than not it is.

I did, in post #59 above. I'll quote myself:

 

http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_about/rules...ns/rr_1-04.html

 

Items L & M could be very loosely interpreted in the way described here. Especially this one:

# engages in a course of conduct or commits acts that unreasonably alarm or seriously annoy another person;

The problem there is the words "unreasonably" & "seriously" as both are purely subjective measures.

 

And again, this is how urban legends are born.

 

First, you are assuming what you are citing was used against the person in the story, yet an officer wrote a ticket meaning there was a specific city ordinance violation.

 

Second, these are "Rules & Regulations", most with result in being ejected or banned from use. Obviously if existing ordinance is involved, it could involve police action. In what you posted, many of those are specifically called out citing the specific ordinance. Ordinances spell out, at the very least, the fines and other consequences. Were what you are citing used, she would have been asked to leave, i.e. "move along".

 

The story itself has inconsistency from author to author. One has ans many as six cops, "hands on guns", indicating they viewed a potential threat, responding. Another has two cops, the one writing the ticket telling her it is no big deal and "will probably get thrown out of court". Both have the officers arriving in minutes, unlikely in any metro area even for some serious offenses.

 

Then, one of the article you referenced talks about the numerous letters and emails from people who are outraged, yet no one can find any follow-up story to it.

 

Finally, other than this one story from 2005, not one other instance has ever been reported. Rest assured, she was the least offense person to enter a park alone in NYC.

 

So, even though the overwhelming arguments making an ordinance of this type unlikely (the overwhelming majority of sex offenses against juveniles are committed by someone known by the victim), I am sure there are instances of it being attempted and defeated, you ar emore likely to find reliable rfeferences to that than this specific issue.

 

Continue discussing or not, however don't expect those of us who have been around the block a few times to take something this absurd at face value.

[+midnightfaerie]

um, can we please discontinue this conversation, and leave this thread for the yeah or ney's for the playground attribute as was my original intent? It's started to get a little off topic. Feel free to continue the discussion offline or in different topic forum. Thanks!

[+Three Monkies Ranch]

Thanks midnightfaerie, the topic of this thread is weather or not we, as part of the geocaching community, want an attribute for a playground nearby! Debate New York law all you want (if it is a law it is discriminatory and you should contact your state rep. to have it repealed), but I live in the Chacago area and this does not apply.

 

All I wanted was to make it more family friendly, which, in my opinion, is what geocaching is all about.

 

The suggestions about proximity to a playground are well founded, but I think that if the park that holds the cache has a playground, it would qualify for the attribute.

 

As for the "where does it end with attributes" crowd (do we have one for pine cone caches, too?), lighten up. We look for tuperware in the woods! Those of us who use them appreciate them and those who don't can ignore them.

 

We seek because it's fun. Encourage others to do the same by making it fun for all.

[GOF and Bacall]

The problem with just saying that the cache is in the same park as some playground equipment is that there are parks that are hundred of acres that have playground equipment in them. Lots of room for lonely caches and playgrounds and never a need to see one from the other. An attribute for within X feet/meters of playground equipment will cover everyone's needs.

[+Jackalgirl]

Yea. Good idea!

[+Harry Dolphin]

I support a 'playground nearby' attribute.

 

I vote a resounding yea - in New York City, it's illegal to be in a playground without a child so that would save people grief as I'm sure NYC isn't the only place to have that law. ...

I did a search of New York City Code and, while I was able to find many laws that mentioned playgrounds, I could not find any that forbid an adult from being in or near a playground without a child. Would you mind providing a link?

 

Here's what the sign says:

 

 

I don't know how it is codified in law, if it is. But, them's the rules listed.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Harry Dolphin

[+WRASTRO]

Just plain scary. Simply because I am an adult I am not allowed to be in a public park. I have a vision of a 90 year old walking in the park and being ticketed/arrested. Clearly there is more to the story, but on the surface this is just crazy. And for crying out loud, do not, under any circumstances, take your shoes off!

[+Three Monkies Ranch]

Just plain scary. Simply because I am an adult I am not allowed to be in a public park. I have a vision of a 90 year old walking in the park and being ticketed/arrested. Clearly there is more to the story, but on the surface this is just crazy. And for crying out loud, do not, under any circumstances, take your shoes off!

 

Wow! I don' know what I would do if we had those laws here. Barefoot rummaging is a major time killer for my kids and me!