Should reviewers be more persistant

[+42at42]

I don't know why the permission requirement does not apply to parking lots.

 

I know this won't stop the bomb scare but it will help with the after effects. This should protect the hider and the searcher as well as GC.com from possible legal actions. If it is a shopping mall parking lot, it is privately owned property. Some parking lots are signed showing it is for use only for customers of the business only or risk being towed.

That would be like someone assuming they could place a cache in my work parking lot. I work at a trucking company. We do have visitors, so there is parking for non-employees. Does this mean you wouldn't need permission from the owner to place a cache on the lot.

The same should go for parking lots. In a Walmart parking lot, you have so many people coming and going. Many don't even notice people looking for a cache. Others notice but don't want to get involved. Then you have the people with 9-1-1 on speed dial. The bomb squad is called before you get back in your vehicle.

At least with permission when the cop comes knocking at the hider's door, he can produce the permission letter. It might help, but doing nothing won't.

[+FreeBird65]

Shouldn't be put on the reviewer as the listing owner should take serious the check box for "Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache."

 

Then, a waiver of personal responsibility acceptance is then agreed to by the CO. In your example of the bomb squad possibly wanting to bill someone for their trouble would be presented to the CO if it is determined they did not have permission from the Walmart company.

 

Of course, 95% of all caches would then be archived.

 

I have found it very hard to track down property owners to seek adequate permission. I found it very comical when I asked a local member who to talk with about placing on local government land where they have placed many, many caches - the person had no clue. This gives me a pretty good idea that adequate permission has not been gained for those caches.

[knowschad]

The guidelines say "adequate permission". I'm not going to take a side on this either way, but many people that hide LPCs feel that their permission is adequate. There is nothing in the guidelines that state that explicit permission is required.

[+thedeadpirate]

I would love to see a ratio of the number of LPC caches that wind up being blown up by EOD compared with a ratio of the number of items blown up by EOD that turn out to be caches.

 

Then I could give the OP a better response to his question.

[Mushtang]

This gives me a pretty good idea that adequate permission has not been gained for those caches.

I agree with the dog above. Adequate permission has indeed been obtained for those caches. Explicit permission may not have been.

 

I'd feel free to play Frisbee in the local government land you're talking about, as well as in a Walmart parking lot, without getting explicit permission. I also feel okay playing other games there too, such as geocaching, without explicit permission, because I feel that adequate permission has been given already.

[+StarBrand]

If they CO checked the boxes at the bottom of the submission form - then the reviewer has to assume that adequate permission WAS obtained.

 

I know several of the reviewers have told me that a lot of such cache submissions include reviewer notes indicating directly that permission had been granted. I don't think the reviewers have the time or inclination to followup directly and verify the permission.

[+keehotee]

This gives me a pretty good idea that adequate permission has not been gained for those caches.

I agree with the dog above. Adequate permission has indeed been obtained for those caches. Explicit permission may not have been.

 

I'd feel free to play Frisbee in the local government land you're talking about, as well as in a Walmart parking lot, without getting explicit permission. I also feel okay playing other games there too, such as geocaching, without explicit permission, because I feel that adequate permission has been given already.

 

I'd be happy with that too - but if my frisbee hit someone on the head, and they fell over, broke their jaw, and their insurer decided to sue me for costs how far would my "adequate" permission get me in court?

 

It's your call as a hider. If you feel your cache has got adequate permission, go ahead and submit it for publishing. If you have any doubts, they're up to you to reconcile.....

[+NYPaddleCacher]

This gives me a pretty good idea that adequate permission has not been gained for those caches.

I agree with the dog above. Adequate permission has indeed been obtained for those caches. Explicit permission may not have been.

 

I'd feel free to play Frisbee in the local government land you're talking about, as well as in a Walmart parking lot, without getting explicit permission. I also feel okay playing other games there too, such as geocaching, without explicit permission, because I feel that adequate permission has been given already.

 

I suggested a similar practice (reviewers giving a little more scrutiny on caches that appear to in a parking lot) in another thread and someone accurately responded that getting permission doesn't solve the problem.

 

Yes, one can get explicit permission from a business manager for placing a cache in a parking lot, but what are the odds that every current *and* future employee there (consider what the average number of employees over a year at a Walmart might be) will be informed that a geocache is located in the parking lot and there might be people looking for it. Even *if* all the employees are informed, customers (unless they're geocachers themselves) of the businesses using the parking lot wouldn't know that someone retrieving and placing something under a light pole is actually doing something innocuous. It's only a matter time before some resident from a neighborhood watch community will extend their watch to the parking lot and make a call to 911.

[Mushtang]

This gives me a pretty good idea that adequate permission has not been gained for those caches.

I agree with the dog above. Adequate permission has indeed been obtained for those caches. Explicit permission may not have been.

 

I'd feel free to play Frisbee in the local government land you're talking about, as well as in a Walmart parking lot, without getting explicit permission. I also feel okay playing other games there too, such as geocaching, without explicit permission, because I feel that adequate permission has been given already.

I'd be happy with that too - but if my frisbee hit someone on the head, and they fell over, broke their jaw, and their insurer decided to sue me for costs how far would my "adequate" permission get me in court?

I'm not sure how your question addresses the issue. What if your car lost a hubcap, it rolled over, hit someone causing them to fall over and break a jaw? Would having adequate permission to be in a parking lot keep the insurer from getting you in court there?

 

Even having explicit written permission to play Frisbee wouldn't give you immunity from prosecution if you hurt someone.

 

It's your call as a hider. If you feel your cache has got adequate permission, go ahead and submit it for publishing. If you have any doubts, they're up to you to reconcile.....

That's exactly what people are doing that the OP is asking about. They feel they've got adequate permission so they submit the cache. So it sounds like you're in agreement with those that feel adequate permission exists and explicit permission isn't necessary in parks and parking lots.

[Mr.Yuck]

Here we go again. The no permission whatsoever is adequate permission crowd is in the house. I'll just sit this one out, thanks.

[Mushtang]

Here we go again. The no permission whatsoever is adequate permission crowd is in the house. I'll just sit this one out, thanks.

Thanks to the "I don't understand what adequate means" crowd for chiming in to tell us you're not going to chime in.

[+Scubasonic]

I don't know why the permission requirement does not apply to parking lots.

 

I know this won't stop the bomb scare but it will help with the after effects. This should protect the hider and the searcher as well as GC.com from possible legal actions. If it is a shopping mall parking lot, it is privately owned property. Some parking lots are signed showing it is for use only for customers of the business only or risk being towed.

That would be like someone assuming they could place a cache in my work parking lot. I work at a trucking company. We do have visitors, so there is parking for non-employees. Does this mean you wouldn't need permission from the owner to place a cache on the lot.

The same should go for parking lots. In a Walmart parking lot, you have so many people coming and going. Many don't even notice people looking for a cache. Others notice but don't want to get involved. Then you have the people with 9-1-1 on speed dial. The bomb squad is called before you get back in your vehicle.

At least with permission when the cop comes knocking at the hider's door, he can produce the permission letter. It might help, but doing nothing won't.

 

Just what we need more restrictions in this hobby. Now cemeteries are out, now bridges over silly creeks what's next. Maybe you should contact the White House and see if they want to take over Geocaching....they seem to be taking over everything else they know nothing about.

 

SS

[+Team Cotati]

The guidelines say "adequate permission". I'm not going to take a side on this either way, but many people that hide LPCs feel that their permission is adequate. There is nothing in the guidelines that state that explicit permission is required.

 

What's the difference between the two?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The problem lies with our inability to define 'adequate' because it will literally be different with every single hide.

 

That's not a call the Reviewer can make except when they are aware of permission or Guideline issues in that spot.

 

Reviewers have to leave the definition of adequate up to the CO to decide for that particular location.

 

If geocaching has permission issues it isn't the Reviewers fault, it is the COs.

 

Reviewers are not our babysitters. We have to take responsibility for our hides.

Edited April 22, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+sbell111]

I don't know why the permission requirement does not apply to parking lots.

 

I know this won't stop the bomb scare but it will help with the after effects. This should protect the hider and the searcher as well as GC.com from possible legal actions. If it is a shopping mall parking lot, it is privately owned property. Some parking lots are signed showing it is for use only for customers of the business only or risk being towed.

That would be like someone assuming they could place a cache in my work parking lot. I work at a trucking company. We do have visitors, so there is parking for non-employees. Does this mean you wouldn't need permission from the owner to place a cache on the lot.

The same should go for parking lots. In a Walmart parking lot, you have so many people coming and going. Many don't even notice people looking for a cache. Others notice but don't want to get involved. Then you have the people with 9-1-1 on speed dial. The bomb squad is called before you get back in your vehicle.

At least with permission when the cop comes knocking at the hider's door, he can produce the permission letter. It might help, but doing nothing won't.

 

Just what we need more restrictions in this hobby. Now cemeteries are out, now bridges over silly creeks what's next. Maybe you should contact the White House and see if they want to take over Geocaching....they seem to be taking over everything else they know nothing about.

 

SS

Let's keep politics in off-topic where it belongs. In fact, if you start the relevant thread, I will be happy to mention how happy I am that GM has paid back all the bailout money with interest.

[+larryc43230]

Just what we need more restrictions in this hobby. Now cemeteries are out, now bridges over silly creeks what's next. Maybe you should contact the White House and see if they want to take over Geocaching....they seem to be taking over everything else they know nothing about.

 

SS

Do you think, just for once, in this little corner of the universe, we could leave out the political commentary? One of the reasons I enjoy geocaching is because I can (usually) get away from these tirades.

 

--Larry

[+Jeep4two]

I'd feel free to play Frisbee in the local government land you're talking about, as well as in a Walmart parking lot, without getting explicit permission.

 

Careful a Frisbee that errantly goes sliding under someone's car could be viewed as a potential IED and trigger public panic in a China-Mart parking lot.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Jeep4two

[+StarBrand]

....Let's keep politics in off-topic where it belongs. In fact, if you start the relevant thread, I will be happy to mention how happy I am that GM has paid back all the bailout money with interest.

Methinks you should take your own advice.......

[knowschad]

The guidelines say "adequate permission". I'm not going to take a side on this either way, but many people that hide LPCs feel that their permission is adequate. There is nothing in the guidelines that state that explicit permission is required.

 

What's the difference between the two?

[+thedeadpirate]

I agree with the dog above. Adequate permission has indeed been obtained for those caches. Explicit permission may not have been.

 

I'd feel free to play Frisbee in the local government land you're talking about, as well as in a Walmart parking lot, without getting explicit permission. I also feel okay playing other games there too, such as geocaching, without explicit permission, because I feel that adequate permission has been given already.

I'd be happy with that too - but if my frisbee hit someone on the head, and they fell over, broke their jaw, and their insurer decided to sue me for costs how far would my "adequate" permission get me in court?

 

It's your call as a hider. If you feel your cache has got adequate permission, go ahead and submit it for publishing. If you have any doubts, they're up to you to reconcile.....

What if the game of frisbee occurred in your front yard? What does adequate permission have to do with liability?

[+42at42]

 

Even having explicit written permission to play Frisbee wouldn't give you immunity from prosecution if you hurt someone.

 

 

Along this line of reasoning, then clicking the "I agree" button would not give immunity to GC.com .

[+thedeadpirate]

Even having explicit written permission to play Frisbee wouldn't give you immunity from prosecution if you hurt someone.

Along this line of reasoning, then clicking the "I agree" button would not give immunity to GC.com .

 

Huh? GC.com is just a listing site. It's kind of like me posting on Facebook that I'm going to be playing frisbee in my front yard. Everyone come on over for a fun evening.

 

How does that make Facebook liable if I hit someone in the head, they fall down and break their jaw?

[+LightHouseSeekers]

Even having explicit written permission to play Frisbee wouldn't give you immunity from prosecution if you hurt someone.

Along this line of reasoning, then clicking the "I agree" button would not give immunity to GC.com .

 

Huh? GC.com is just a listing site. It's kind of like me posting on Facebook that I'm going to be playing frisbee in my front yard. Everyone come on over for a fun evening.

 

Cool, the gang will be over tonight to plant some caches in your yard

[+edscott]

How about if we check this box when we submit a cache.. √ I am confident that this cache will have no permission issues and take full responsibility for any permission related problems that arise during the lifetime of the cache.

 

Says a lot more that yes I read all that stuff....

[+thedeadpirate]

Even having explicit written permission to play Frisbee wouldn't give you immunity from prosecution if you hurt someone.

Along this line of reasoning, then clicking the "I agree" button would not give immunity to GC.com .

Huh? GC.com is just a listing site. It's kind of like me posting on Facebook that I'm going to be playing frisbee in my front yard. Everyone come on over for a fun evening.

Cool, the gang will be over tonight to plant some caches in your yard

I thought we were talking about explicit permission. But I'm cool with the caches. I'm afraid the size of my yard will only allow for one cache though. But the first one to get theirs hidden is welcome to plant one.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

[+baloo&bd]

How about if we check this box when we submit a cache.. √ I am confident that this cache will have no permission issues and take full responsibility for any permission related problems that arise during the lifetime of the cache.

 

Says a lot more that yes I read all that stuff....

 

Or make it even more simple and put two check boxes;

 

- Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache.

 

- Yes. I have read and agree to the terms of use agreement.

 

Oh...wait....never mind.

Edited April 22, 2010 by baloo&bd

[+thedeadpirate]

How about if we check this box when we submit a cache.. √ I am confident that this cache will have no permission issues and take full responsibility for any permission related problems that arise during the lifetime of the cache.

 

Says a lot more that yes I read all that stuff....

 

Or make it even more simple and put two check boxes;

 

- Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache.

 

- Yes. I have read and agree to the terms of use agreement.

 

Oh...wait....never mind.

 

Or, do away with volunteer reviewers and hiders. Hire an army of professional hiders who will then hide caches according to a strict internal policy while we get to use the service for the low, low price of $50 a month.

[knowschad]

I agree with the dog above. Adequate permission has indeed been obtained for those caches. Explicit permission may not have been.

 

I'd feel free to play Frisbee in the local government land you're talking about, as well as in a Walmart parking lot, without getting explicit permission. I also feel okay playing other games there too, such as geocaching, without explicit permission, because I feel that adequate permission has been given already.

I'd be happy with that too - but if my frisbee hit someone on the head, and they fell over, broke their jaw, and their insurer decided to sue me for costs how far would my "adequate" permission get me in court?

 

It's your call as a hider. If you feel your cache has got adequate permission, go ahead and submit it for publishing. If you have any doubts, they're up to you to reconcile.....

What if the game of frisbee occurred in your front yard? What does adequate permission have to do with liability?

If your yard was not posted, probably nothing, the first time. You could probably call the police and get them involved, but all they are gonna do, the first time at least, is to tell them that they have to leave. If your yard is clearly posted against trespassing, you would have a bit more of a claim, but still... most people would be more critical of you not allowing people to have a little fun in your front yard then they would of the frisbee players.

[+edscott]

How about if we check this box when we submit a cache.. √ I am confident that this cache will have no permission issues and take full responsibility for any permission related problems that arise during the lifetime of the cache.

 

Says a lot more that yes I read all that stuff....

 

Or make it even more simple and put two check boxes;

 

- Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache.

 

- Yes. I have read and agree to the terms of use agreement.

 

Oh...wait....never mind.

 

Sure but people just click through these things on their way to "submit". At least put it right in front of them so there's no question that they are ignoring their responsibility.

[+thedeadpirate]

I agree with the dog above. Adequate permission has indeed been obtained for those caches. Explicit permission may not have been.

 

I'd feel free to play Frisbee in the local government land you're talking about, as well as in a Walmart parking lot, without getting explicit permission. I also feel okay playing other games there too, such as geocaching, without explicit permission, because I feel that adequate permission has been given already.

I'd be happy with that too - but if my frisbee hit someone on the head, and they fell over, broke their jaw, and their insurer decided to sue me for costs how far would my "adequate" permission get me in court?

 

It's your call as a hider. If you feel your cache has got adequate permission, go ahead and submit it for publishing. If you have any doubts, they're up to you to reconcile.....

What if the game of frisbee occurred in your front yard? What does adequate permission have to do with liability?

If your yard was not posted, probably nothing, the first time. You could probably call the police and get them involved, but all they are gonna do, the first time at least, is to tell them that they have to leave. If your yard is clearly posted against trespassing, you would have a bit more of a claim, but still... most people would be more critical of you not allowing people to have a little fun in your front yard then they would of the frisbee players.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of regardless of whether I had adequate permission or express permission, if I injure someone then I am liable for my actions.

[Keystone]

I have no problem applying the Pennsylvania State Parks' geocaching policy to caches hidden in Pennsylvania State Parks.

 

I have no problem telling cache hiders that Cracker Barrel adopted a policy at the corporate level to restrict new geocaches at their properties.

 

If Wal-Mart adopted a geocaching policy I would have no problem following that, too. But they haven't, and plenty of hiders confirm to me during the review process that they obtained permission. Since some do, it's reasonable for me to assume that other hiders mean what they say when they certify that adequate permission has been obtained.

 

My seminal essay on permission is hereby incorporated into this post by reference as if fully set forth herein.

[+bittsen]

Reviewers are not babysitters.

If an adult can't determine whether or not they have "adequate permission" to place a cache then they shouldn't be caching.

Geocaching SHOULD be self policing but so many people like to bend the rules that it's becoming a joke to even have rules sometimes.

[4wheelin_fool]

Here we go again. The no permission whatsoever is adequate permission crowd is in the house. I'll just sit this one out, thanks.

Thanks to the "I don't understand what adequate means" crowd for chiming in to tell us you're not going to chime in.

 

Just because you feel comfortable playing frisbee in a walmart parking lot and you know that the manager doesn't mind, doesn't mean that you have adequate permission. It's still private property. What if it was a small store? Or a doctors office? If they see you playing frisbee they may not mind until they notice that people were showing up on a daily basis to play. If someone notified someone ahead of time about it, it doesn't seem bad. But if the players say that permission was assumed (which is the correct word) then it is a bit different. If the owner finds out about geocaching through someone asking about it beforehand his attitude about the game will be a bit different than if the bomb squad tells him about it..

Edited April 23, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[+cw1710]

Quasi public property - "the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.”

 

A shopping strip, or a mall, have events and stuff other than just shopping, so you would go there for events held on the grounds and not necessarily be expected to buy stuff.

 

Not that I'm a huge fan of LPC's (I dont ignore them though), this somewhat covers some of the situations as far as adequate permission, at least until you are told no.

 

In my area we have an LPC, that permission from the business owner was granted, and her husband didn't know and called the police, who in turn called the bomb squad. (only ours didnt go overboard like the ones in the stories) The owners husband now knows its there. So even with permission, it doesnt prevent the suspicious package calls.

Edited April 23, 2010 by cw1710

[Clan Riffster]

If they CO checked the boxes at the bottom of the submission form - then the reviewer has to assume that adequate permission WAS obtained.

I'm not sure I agree with that. There seems to be a bit of a disconnect in how Groundspeak views the world around it.

For instance, the guidelines only require "adequate" permission, while the tips to hiding your first cache use much stronger language: "If you place a cache on private land, you must ask permission before hiding your cache." Here in Central Florida, there are several agencies which manage land paid for by my tax dollars, who insist I get explicit permission to place a geocache. The reviewers know this, and will not assume I have adequate permission simply because I checked a box. If Groundspeak can do this for public lands, why can't they do the same thing for private lands? Do they not care about private property owner rights?

[Mushtang]

Here we go again. The no permission whatsoever is adequate permission crowd is in the house. I'll just sit this one out, thanks.

Thanks to the "I don't understand what adequate means" crowd for chiming in to tell us you're not going to chime in.

Just because you feel comfortable playing frisbee in a walmart parking lot and you know that the manager doesn't mind, doesn't mean that you have adequate permission. It's still private property.

If I know the manager doesn't mind, that actually does mean that I have adequate permission.

 

What if it was a small store? Or a doctors office?

I wouldn't assume I have adequate permission to play games like Frisbee or geocaching in smaller lots.

 

If they see you playing frisbee they may not mind until they notice that people were showing up on a daily basis to play. If someone notified someone ahead of time about it, it doesn't seem bad. But if the players say that permission was assumed (which is the correct word) then it is a bit different. If the owner finds out about geocaching through someone asking about it beforehand his attitude about the game will be a bit different than if the bomb squad tells him about it..

I totally agree that if you and I go play Frisbee in the corner of a mostly empty Walmart parking lot once or twice a week that eventually someone might ask us to stop, but then again they might not. I'd guess probably not, and would feel okay playing and waiting to see if we were told to stop. But IF they did tell us to stop, I'd certainly stop playing Frisbee there (or any other game I was playing, such as geocaching).

 

The same thing goes for parks. I'm not going to ask permission to play Frisbee in a county park, but if someone from the county park office walks up and tells me not to play Frisbee I'm not going to object or argue with them, I'll just stop playing and do something else. BUT... if another Frisbee player, who thinks that I should have asked permission to play tells me to stop playing because they asked before playing in some other park, or because they would feel more comfortable if I asked, I'll thank them for their concern and keep playing.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

 

<snip>

 

Sure but people just click through these things on their way to "submit". At least put it right in front of them so there's no question that they are ignoring their responsibility.

 

Why not just go the whole hog and have an EULA agreement?

 

PLEASE READ this end-user license agreement ("EULA") carefully. By placing a cache, you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA. If you do not agree, do not place and, if applicable, return to the Groundspeak.com for a full refund.

 

1. GENERAL. This EULA is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or an entity), Groundspeak and the Geocaching community. This EULA governs your geocaching experience, which includes all periods of time you are out geocaching or using Groundspeak forums (. This EULA also governs the any travel bugs, geocoins, log posts, logs signed, forum posts, pocket queries loaded, trash you CITO, approach to geocache, puzzles solved in whole or in part, PAF lists, DNFs, multi's attempted, caches you didn't log, caches you thought about and the amount of fun you have).

 

2. THE CACHE. All complaints and technical support requests should be addressed to your reviewer, who may or may not, depending on the amount of controversy you can whip up in the GS forums, offer you simple advice. Reviewers are third-party components, and not subject to complaints under this EULA. Reviewers are not liable for the quality, competence, character, number, gender, species, ethnicity, religious affiliation, number of golf balls, or the relationship between them, if any, and does not supply technical support for the contents of your geocache. Any geocache may be archived or temporarily disabled at any time without notice and without recourse.

 

3 PERMISSIONS. To reduce liability and overall GS forum angst, Geocaches require certain permissions to be listed. The license rights granted under this EULA are limited to parking lots, lawns, public highways, train stations, parks, space stations, earth and planets within the solar system. You may need to obtain explicit permission to place a geocache on these sites. Groundspeak will not collect any personally identifiable information from your DNA during the approval process without your consent.

 

4. CACHE MAINTENANCE. Cache Owners are expected to provide and maintain an appropriate level of cache maintenance. Appropriate level of maintenance is defined by the geocaching community as specified in the GS forums. You must ensure that your personal maintenance plan for your caches pleases everyone. If your caches fall below acceptible standards as defined by ALL geocachers, ESPECIALLY ones who post in GS forums, geocachers may request that your cache be archived, or at least start a thread raising the ugly topic of cache rating systems. Needs Maintenance logs do not alter your ability to access your cache, if it is still out there.

 

5. CACHE MAGGOTERY. You may not partake in the activity of Cache Maggotory. To do so is a capital hanging offence.

 

6. YOU ALSO AGREE:

 

a. Not to remove or obscure any valid online logs or DNFs whether or not it was rude or short;

 

b. To indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Groundspeak, it's volunteer reviewers or forum moderators from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorneys' fees, that arise or result from the use or proliferation of geocaches;

 

c. That Groundspeak reserves all rights not expressly granted to any intellectual property posted on the cache page - except when a cache is in violation of their terms - then it's all yours.

 

7. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. Groundspeak reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA. Geocaching is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Groundspeak or Its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights of geocaching and in any derivative works produced by you during the course of geocaching. Geocaching is licensed, not sold.

 

8. CACHE PAGES. You may download copies via pocket queries.Except as expressly provided in this EULA or by local law, you may not otherwise use the API, including the use of logging from the field.

 

9. LIMITATIONS ON CACHE TYPES. You may not PAF, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by the cache owner notwithstanding this limitation. In some jurisdictions, cheating at puzzles or multi's is expressly prohibited.

 

10. ARMCHAIR LOGS. You may not make armchair logs. You may not post "Greetings from Germany".

 

11. TERMINATION. Without prejudice to any other rights, Groundspeak may terminate this EULA without notice if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. Groundspeak also retains the right to reinstate your geocaches, either in whole or in part, after termination.

 

12. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Groundspeak and Its suppliers provide geocaching as is and with all faults, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, whether express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose.

 

13. EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. In no event shall Groundspeak or its volunteer reviewers, or its forum moderators be liable for any special, incidental, punitive, indirect, or consequential damages whatsoever arising out of or in any way related to the way you 'cache including logging finds, not logging finds, not logging DNFs, moving travel bugs and coins, PAF and forum geocide.

 

14. APPLICABLE LAW. this EULA is governed by International law. Depending where you are Born, some national and/or natural laws may also apply.

 

15. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; SEVERABILITY. This EULA (including any addendum or amendment to this EULA which is included) is the entire agreement between you and Groundspeak.

 

Edited April 23, 2010 by _TeamFitz_

[Puppy Socks]

LOL

[knowschad]

Quasi public property - "the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."

Very interesting! I was not aware of that term before! Here's some more about it: http://law.onecle.com/constitution/amendme...lic-places.html

 

However, I'm not sure that it would apply to geocaching. From what little I've read so far, it appears to me to be relevant to freedom of expression, but I'm not sure that can be extended to our little activity.

[+geodarts]

However, I'm not sure that it would apply to geocaching. From what little I've read so far, it appears to me to be relevant to freedom of expression, but I'm not sure that can be extended to our little activity.

 

We used to use the quasi-public nature of certain places for political/labor activity. The law varies by state to state -- our state Supreme Court (Robins v Pruneyard) was careful to define the source of the rights in terms of our state constitution rather than federal protections. And the nature of the property is decided on a case by case basis. A mall with its own sidewalk and courtyard that the public uses to congregate is different than a stand-alone business, like a market. In any case, the property owner can enforce reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

 

But I agree that first amendment rights may not extend to leaving a container in the lamp skirt of a parking lot.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Erickson

[knowschad]

However, I'm not sure that it would apply to geocaching. From what little I've read so far, it appears to me to be relevant to freedom of expression, but I'm not sure that can be extended to our little activity.

 

We used to use the quasi-public nature of certain places for political/labor activity. The law varies by state to state -- our state Supreme Court (Robins v Pruneyard) was careful to define the source of the rights in terms of our state constitution rather than federal protections. And the nature of the property is decided on a case by case basis. A mall with its own sidewalk and courtyard that the public uses to congregate is different than a stand-alone business, like a market. In any case, the property owner can enforce reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

 

But I agree that first amendment rights may not extend to leaving a container in the lamp skirt of a parking lot.

Oh, I don't know... I know of a few cache hiders to whom hiding LPCs seems to be a religion.

[+tozainamboku]

However, I'm not sure that it would apply to geocaching. From what little I've read so far, it appears to me to be relevant to freedom of expression, but I'm not sure that can be extended to our little activity.

 

We used to use the quasi-public nature of certain places for political/labor activity. The law varies by state to state -- our state Supreme Court (Robins v Pruneyard) was careful to define the source of the rights in terms of our state constitution rather than federal protections. And the nature of the property is decided on a case by case basis. A mall with its own sidewalk and courtyard that the public uses to congregate is different than a stand-alone business, like a market. In any case, the property owner can enforce reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

 

But I agree that first amendment rights may not extend to leaving a container in the lamp skirt of a parking lot.

Oh, I don't know... I know of a few cache hiders to whom hiding LPCs seems to be a religion.

If the cache was hidden to promote a religion or any other agenda, wouldn't it then be in violation of the no solicitation guideline? I'd be careful about using the quasi-public location as a reason for not needing to get permission (at least in states where this applies to freedom of expression) as it would be a red flag that the cache promotes an agenda.

[+Vater_Araignee]

However, I'm not sure that it would apply to geocaching. From what little I've read so far, it appears to me to be relevant to freedom of expression, but I'm not sure that can be extended to our little activity.

 

We used to use the quasi-public nature of certain places for political/labor activity. The law varies by state to state -- our state Supreme Court (Robins v Pruneyard) was careful to define the source of the rights in terms of our state constitution rather than federal protections. And the nature of the property is decided on a case by case basis. A mall with its own sidewalk and courtyard that the public uses to congregate is different than a stand-alone business, like a market. In any case, the property owner can enforce reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

 

But I agree that first amendment rights may not extend to leaving a container in the lamp skirt of a parking lot.

Oh, I don't know... I know of a few cache hiders to whom hiding LPCs seems to be a religion.

If the cache was hidden to promote a religion or any other agenda, wouldn't it then be in violation of the no solicitation guideline? I'd be careful about using the quasi-public location as a reason for not needing to get permission (at least in states where this applies to freedom of expression) as it would be a red flag that the cache promotes an agenda.

Isn't the cache and or items within allowed to, just not the listing or links within?

A NcGO beach tube used as a micro would technically be promoting NcGO, an Altoids tin, Altoids.

Coupons and tracts would be technically promoting whatever they are related to.

Just put one of these emblems on and in cache, and claim protection.