I heard it through the grapevine.

1.7k · October 30, 2010

That the new virtual caches will have a requirement that you must demonstrate why a geocache would not be allowed here. For example, you can't make one as a HUGE rock in the middle of a park like this one. The Rock This is because there is plenty of places nearby. Although a cache such as this Where it is hidden in a place that is not practical, (High muggles, no place to put one close enough to get people to visit (No magnetic areas), and they would not allow anyone to hide one on there property. Other good examples would be in NPS parks, or parks that require fee's.

Edited October 30, 2010 by Coldgears

2.3k · October 30, 2010

I wonder how they would define nearby.

14k · October 30, 2010

I wonder how they would define nearby.

Seems like the current proximity guideline would work.

I wonder if the vacation cache guideline would still apply to new virtual caches. There are places where I, personally, could not place a traditional cache simply because I don't live close enough to maintain a traditional. If not for the vacation guideline I could have "placed" a virtual in the Birds Nest Olympic stadium in Beijing yesterday.

14k · October 30, 2010

I wonder how they would define nearby.

Seems like the current proximity guideline would work.

I wonder if the vacation cache guideline would still apply to new virtual caches. There are places where I, personally, could not place a traditional cache simply because I don't live close enough to maintain a traditional. If not for the vacation guideline I could have "placed" a virtual in the Birds Nest Olympic stadium in Beijing yesterday.

38.2k · October 31, 2010

That the new virtual caches will have a requirement that you must demonstrate why a geocache would not be allowed here. For example, you can't make one as a HUGE rock in the middle of a park like this one. The Rock This is because there is plenty of places nearby. Although a cache such as this Where it is hidden in a place that is not practical, (High muggles, no place to put one close enough to get people to visit (No magnetic areas), and they would not allow anyone to hide one on there property. Other good examples would be in NPS parks, or parks that require fee's.

Sounds like part of "wow factor" guideline.

19k · October 31, 2010

Me, I'm just wondering what "grapevine" this might be, and what sort of wine it might or might not produce.

8k · October 31, 2010

That the new virtual caches will have a requirement that you must demonstrate why a geocache would not be allowed here. For example, you can't make one as a HUGE rock in the middle of a park like this one. The Rock This is because there is plenty of places nearby. Although a cache such as this Where it is hidden in a place that is not practical, (High muggles, no place to put one close enough to get people to visit (No magnetic areas), and they would not allow anyone to hide one on there property. Other good examples would be in NPS parks, or parks that require fee's.

Sounds like part of "wow factor" guideline.

Actually it's not the wow factor. Virtual caches were always meant to be in places where a geocache could not be placed. The issue of defining where you cannot place a physical cache is like the "wow factor" however. Do you have to ask to place a physical cache and get turned down in order to place a virtual? What happens when someone says "I couldn't determine who to ask so I'm hiding a virtual instead", or "I had a physical cache here but it kept getting muggled", or there was no place to hide the cache (such as a lamp post skirt), etc. It becomes very difficult to define what is a place that you can't hide a physical cache that people will agree to and that the reviewers can check easily.

I'd like to see something similar to EarthCaches for virtuals. You need to show you asked someone permission to hide a physical cache and only when you are turned down and then get permission to hide a virtual instead could you place a virtual cache. EarthCachers complain about needing to show they got permission to hide an EarthCache and have even gotten Jeremy to weigh in that he thinks permission isn't necessary if the location is accessible to the public and you aren't hiding anything. But I like the idea of getting permission for virtual caches as a way to keep them to places where you really can't hide a physical cache and not just places where you were too lazy to get permission to hide a physical cache.

7.3k · October 31, 2010

hmm, drinkin' wine spo-dee-o-dee, drinkin' wine.....

I figure Groundspeak has given the ins and outs of this issue much thought. There's little about it that they don't understand..... that said, I'll join in the feckless speculation.

I'd vastly prefer to see no permission on virts myself. If cachers have to ask permission, this promptly alerts public land managers to the virtual option, and in no time flat, many of them would ONLY allow virts. There are already land managers doing this, ie, they permit Earthcaches and virts.

The last thing I'd want to see is some cacher, who really doesn't want to place a physical cache, making some charade of "asking" so they can say, "I was told no". Asking whom, how?

Other good examples would be in NPS parks, or parks that require fee's.

Neither of these is a good example of a place where a person ought to place a virtual cache. NPS are now opened to boxes, though it certainly requires real effort to get permission.

If a park with entry fee is publicly owned, there's no reason why that would have any impact on cache placement - boxed v boxless - and if it is for profit, you can't place a cache of any type there for publication on Geocaching.com.

38.2k · October 31, 2010

That the new virtual caches will have a requirement that you must demonstrate why a geocache would not be allowed here. For example, you can't make one as a HUGE rock in the middle of a park like this one. The Rock This is because there is plenty of places nearby. Although a cache such as this Where it is hidden in a place that is not practical, (High muggles, no place to put one close enough to get people to visit (No magnetic areas), and they would not allow anyone to hide one on there property. Other good examples would be in NPS parks, or parks that require fee's.

Sounds like part of "wow factor" guideline.

Actually it's not the wow factor. Virtual caches were always meant to be in places where a geocache could not be placed. The issue of defining where you cannot place a physical cache is like the "wow factor" however. Do you have to ask to place a physical cache and get turned down in order to place a virtual? What happens when someone says "I couldn't determine who to ask so I'm hiding a virtual instead", or "I had a physical cache here but it kept getting muggled", or there was no place to hide the cache (such as a lamp post skirt), etc. It becomes very difficult to define what is a place that you can't hide a physical cache that people will agree to and that the reviewers can check easily.

I'd like to see something similar to EarthCaches for virtuals. You need to show you asked someone permission to hide a physical cache and only when you are turned down and then get permission to hide a virtual instead could you place a virtual cache. EarthCachers complain about needing to show they got permission to hide an EarthCache and have even gotten Jeremy to weigh in that he thinks permission isn't necessary if the location is accessible to the public and you aren't hiding anything. But I like the idea of getting permission for virtual caches as a way to keep them to places where you really can't hide a physical cache and not just places where you were too lazy to get permission to hide a physical cache.

No, it is not the wow factor, but it was part of the wow factor guideline. You had to demonstrate that you could not place a real cache there AND the location had to make you say "WOW!" It's why so few virts were published when the wow factor was in effect.

I'm with IK on the permission thing. As more and more land managers discover that there is a virtual option, more and more will allow only virtuals. It happened before and now that geocaching is exploding in popularity it is certain to happen again, and probably in more places.

I'm also against permission for virts because I dislike the idea of having to ask government entities for permission to do something that is totally legal and probably protected by the 1st amendment.

3k · October 31, 2010

I'm also against permission for virts because I dislike the idea of having to ask government entities for permission to do something that is totally legal and probably protected by the 1st amendment.

Unfortunately the 1st Amendment doesn't reach this far across the pond

6.7k · October 31, 2010

I'm also against permission for virts because I dislike the idea of having to ask government entities for permission to do something that is totally legal and probably protected by the 1st amendment.

Unfortunately the 1st Amendment doesn't reach this far across the pond

Or cover where you can hide geocaches!

3.2k · October 31, 2010

That the new virtual caches will have a requirement that you must demonstrate why a geocache would not be allowed here. For example, you can't make one as a HUGE rock in the middle of a park like this one. The Rock This is because there is plenty of places nearby. Although a cache such as this Where it is hidden in a place that is not practical, (High muggles, no place to put one close enough to get people to visit (No magnetic areas), and they would not allow anyone to hide one on there property. Other good examples would be in NPS parks, or parks that require fee's.

Probably be better to post this in the feedback area rather than try to start a "grapevine".

4.2k · October 31, 2010

As more and more land managers discover that there is a virtual option, more and more will allow only virtuals. It happened before and now that geocaching is exploding in popularity it is certain to happen again, and probably in more places.

I never have understood the logic in this argument. Most land managers that I have dealt with ban traditional caches because they associate caching with certain problems. The NPS in my area removed physical caches after new virtuals were banned so I don't think that the presence or absence of alternative ways to play location-based games was a factor in their decision. Some land managers have to be persuaded to allow even virtual options - it took over a year before Yosemite approved earthcaches on a trial basis - so it is not like they were using virtuals as an easy alternatives. Our state parks take a middle ground and approve traditionals in most areas undet strict guidelines but designate certain sensitive areas as allowing only virtuals. So I think virtuals give us an opportunity to play our game rather than give park officials a reason to ban traditionals.

If a manager wants to ban traditionals they will do so regardless of other types of location based activity. If they point to virtual alternatives - whether it be earthcaching, Waymarking, alterative listing services, gowalla, or other location games - it is because they do not associate these activities with the problems they identify with containers.

In my area, the NPS superintendent (who controls 80,000 acres) has said categorically that traditional caching will "never" be permitted. So if the "grapevine" is correct I would welcome the opportunity to bring our game into these areas in ways other than earthcaching. And I would hope that this would hope that this would be a first step in persuading the managers that other form of caching can similarly be accommodated - just as some managers have approved traditionals after earthcachers established a relationship with them.

Edited October 31, 2010 by mulvaney

22.2k · October 31, 2010

I never have understood the logic in this argument.

You're assuming that the decisions of government bureaucracies can be analyzed logically? I've given up on that exercise.

Not all land managers think the same, or reach the same conclusions. In two adjacent counties, one land manager has a rule that caches must be far away from any developed areas or trails, and the other land manager says that caches must be within ten feet of a marked trail.

I can point you to a great example where a land manager used to permit traditional caches, became aware of earthcaches, and then banned further traditional caches -- earthcaches only. I worry that a virtual option will promote more of this kind of thinking.

6.7k · October 31, 2010

...

I can point you to a great example where a land manager used to permit traditional caches, became aware of earthcaches, and then banned further traditional caches -- earthcaches only. I worry that a virtual option will promote more of this kind of thinking.

When virts were allowed did this happen frequently enough to be significant?

I don't know how many virts were listed but if this only happened a few times then I can't see it foreboding the future of 'the new virtual', whatever that will be.

4.2k · October 31, 2010

I never have understood the logic in this argument.

You're assuming that the decisions of government bureaucracies can be analyzed logically? I've given up on that exercise.

Actually I was not assuming anything of the sort. If government acted logically it would not have taken over a year to get earthcaching approved in Yosemite on a trial basis - although they did end up embracing the program. I was pointing to how the state and federal managers in my area have addressed caching, and made decisions without regard to whether there were virtual alternatives. These land managers have banned traditionals (or limited tbem to certain areas) because they do not like traditionals and not because people can waymark, gowalla, earthcache, or list virtuals on other services.

But after years of community organizing and woeking as a government employee I think there are a lot of competing interests, decisions are often made on less than complete knowledge ("geocaching is litter or causes environmental damage"), and that changes in policy are made through education, relationships, and a lot of work.

Edited October 31, 2010 by mulvaney

4.8k · October 31, 2010

...although they did end up embracing the program.

That's a bit of a stretch. My understanding is that there is another batch of EC's awaiting Administrative approval. "Embracing" is a bit overstating the situation I'm afraid.

7.3k · October 31, 2010

When virts were allowed did this happen frequently enough to be significant?

I don't think this is the right question, Ed - because "when virts were allowed" was a while back, when few enough caches were being placed, and few land managers were aware of them or had geocaching policy. People weren't asking permission to place virts, and land managers didn't know about them. Still don't know in many cases (I"m think the NPS virts here in Florida).

Earthcaches were a game changer, with their requirement for explicit permission and name and contact

information of the person granting permission and their increasing numbers.

They shifted the landscape re boxed v boxless caches. I know of State parks in Florida that used to allow boxed caches that now allow only Earth or "picture" caches. All DNR lands in Ohio have gone this route.

Virtuals, posted on Geocaching.com and also requiring permission, would further that shift, almost certainly.

I don't discount mulvaney's examples, but I think that the number of doors that the return of virtuals would open, is minuscule to the number that they would close, particularly with a permission requirement.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Isonzo Karst

14k · October 31, 2010

...

I can point you to a great example where a land manager used to permit traditional caches, became aware of earthcaches, and then banned further traditional caches -- earthcaches only. I worry that a virtual option will promote more of this kind of thinking.

When virts were allowed did this happen frequently enough to be significant?

I don't know how many virts were listed but if this only happened a few times then I can't see it foreboding the future of 'the new virtual', whatever that will be.

There's an obvious solution to this. Limit the number of virts by only allowing platinum members to own them.

10.1k · October 31, 2010

Ah. I had always thought that Virtual Caches were there to show me something special! The 'Wow' factor. The statue by the side of the road. The sneaker in the woods. The beauty shop named after a Psalm (or maybe it was the fact that the street numbers from one side of the road to the other were off by 100?) (Okay. I actually have found some great Virtual Caches...) If you hide a regular cache nearby, many people are going to miss the Object of Wow! You have to point out the Object of Wow to make sure that people see it. (I see how this works. I have some caches with spectacular views. "Found it in the fog" means that the finder got a find, but missed the porpoise of the cache. Oh, well. Her/his loss.)

Sorry that I seem to have completely missed the porpoise of Virtual Caches. I thought they were there to show me something, and make sure that I saw it. How silly of me!

The problems that I saw were: Complete lack of any wow factor (sneaker in the woods). Missing/deceased cache owners. And cache owners who continued to permit finds though the cache site was temporarily unavailable. Some groundhog in DC, for example. Or the facade of a major museum which was covered for repair work for eight months. Both were logged many times, though unavailable.

Bring me here. Make me see what you want me to see. Big difference from 'hide a cache nearby', and hope that I'll see it.

1.2k · October 31, 2010

Caching hiding technology has evolved since virtuals were banned. I hid my virtual (GC2258) in 2001. Its out on the old RT 66 bridge across the Mississippi River. I could not find a way to hide Tupperware out there so I selected the virtual option. If they allow them again, I hope there will be a way to keep them separate from the historic virtuals.

I'm also against permission for virts because I dislike the idea of having to ask government entities for permission to do something that is totally legal and probably protected by the 1st amendment.

Unfortunately the 1st Amendment doesn't reach this far across the pond

Or cover where you can hide geocaches!

Well, I would agree now a 1st amendment argument is much harder than in the early days of caching when it was much more about expressive conduct than numbers. In the early days of caching we would actually sit down and write in the log book about our experience finding the cache and read what others said in thier logs. When the NPS was having their blanket bans and the Forest Service was saying it was not allowed in Wilderness, one of my arguments was the 1st Amendment. While I have always strongly supported restrictions to protective sensitive resources, I was also against blanket bans. While there are many places in National Parks where a caches should be banned, when they have roads, lodges, etc in the National Parks, it seems absurd to claim there is no place suitable in a National Park suitable for a cache. While TFTC is not "expressive conduct," I augured the kinds of things we used to write in logbooks was "expressive conduct. This is the Supreme Court decision I would cite:

“The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . .” * * * It is also true that “public places” historically associated with the free exercise of expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, are considered, without more, to be “public forums.” See Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983); Carey v. Brown, supra, at 460; Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 515 (1976); Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 574 (1941); Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939). In such places, the government’s ability to permissibly restrict expressive conduct is very limited: the government may enforce reasonable time, place, and manner regulations as long as the restrictions “are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” Perry Education Assn., supra, at 45. See, e. g., Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 647 , 654 (1981); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 115 (1972); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965) (Cox II). Additional restrictions such as an absolute prohibition on a particular type of expression will be upheld only if narrowly drawn to accomplish a compelling governmental interest. See, e. g., Perry Education Assn., supra, at 46; Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981).” United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 176-7 (1983).

This was not my only arguement, but I think in the early days of caching this was a reasonable argument.

Edited October 31, 2010 by myotis

1.7k · November 1, 2010

I have a virtual in the Olympic National Park. I would like to adopt it out as I am 85 and having Open Heart Surgery to replace my aortic valve in a couple of weeks. Right now you are not allowed to adopt it out. If i go, it goes. It is at Hurricane Ridge and a beautiful place. I do hope they will allow it to continue. There is no one in my family that could keep it going. thanks

6.5k · November 1, 2010

I find it fascinating that a relative newer cacher with a 2.3 post:find ratio has insight into a grapevine discussion that none of the old timers who have replied to this thread seem to be unaware of.

Or perhaps they are merely invoking platinum membership policy on not discussing insider info in the general forum? :antenna:

November 1, 2010

I have a virtual in the Olympic National Park. I would like to adopt it out as I am 85 and having Open Heart Surgery to replace my aortic valve in a couple of weeks. Right now you are not allowed to adopt it out. If i go, it goes. It is at Hurricane Ridge and a beautiful place. I do hope they will allow it to continue. There is no one in my family that could keep it going. thanks

You could let a cacher know your log in info with instructions to take over the account and maintain it.

9.2k · November 1, 2010

I find it fascinating that a relative newer cacher with a 2.3 post:find ratio has insight into a grapevine discussion that none of the old timers who have replied to this thread seem to be unaware of.

Or perhaps they are merely invoking platinum membership policy on not discussing insider info in the general forum?

Not every vine bears fruit.

Moreover, adding a virtual vine to a vineyard full of traditional caches isn't necessarily a good idea.

"Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled." -- Deuteronomy 22:9 (NIV)

There you have it, folks. Moses hates virtuals. I'm not going to mess with that.

3.7k · November 1, 2010

NPS are now opened to boxes, though it certainly requires real effort to get permission.

Yep! And to prove it: The first two physical caches were recently permitted in North Cascades National Park Service Complex: Cascade Pass Trailhead and Gorge Dam Overlook. I believe this is the first western (northwestern?) national park to allow any physical caches.

November 1, 2010

Well, I would agree now a 1st amendment argument is much harder than in the early days of caching when it was much more about expressive conduct than numbers. In the early days of caching we would actually sit down and write in the log book about our experience finding the cache and read what others said in thier logs. When the NPS was having their blanket bans and the Forest Service was saying it was not allowed in Wilderness, one of my arguments was the 1st Amendment. While I have always strongly supported restrictions to protective sensitive resources, I was also against blanket bans. While there are many places in National Parks where a caches should be banned, when they have roads, lodges, etc in the National Parks, it seems absurd to claim there is no place suitable in a National Park suitable for a cache. While TFTC is not "expressive conduct," I augured the kinds of things we used to write in logbooks was "expressive conduct. This is the Supreme Court decision I would cite:

“The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . .” * * * It is also true that “public places” historically associated with the free exercise of expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, are considered, without more, to be “public forums.” See Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983); Carey v. Brown, supra, at 460; Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 515 (1976); Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 574 (1941); Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939). In such places, the government’s ability to permissibly restrict expressive conduct is very limited: the government may enforce reasonable time, place, and manner regulations as long as the restrictions “are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” Perry Education Assn., supra, at 45. See, e. g., Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 647 , 654 (1981); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 115 (1972); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965) (Cox II). Additional restrictions such as an absolute prohibition on a particular type of expression will be upheld only if narrowly drawn to accomplish a compelling governmental interest. See, e. g., Perry Education Assn., supra, at 46; Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981).” United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 176-7 (1983).

This was not my only arguement, but I think in the early days of caching this was a reasonable argument.

It's still a perfectly reasonable argument for hiding a box in the woods. Of course, that's not what we're talking about -- the question at hand it whether or not a private listing service should choose to list it, something that is Groundspeak's first amendment right to allow or disallow.

38.2k · November 1, 2010

Caching hiding technology has evolved since virtuals were banned. I hid my virtual (GC2258) in 2001. Its out on the old RT 66 bridge across the Mississippi River. I could not find a way to hide Tupperware out there so I selected the virtual option. If they allow them again, I hope there will be a way to keep them separate from the historic virtuals.

I'm also against permission for virts because I dislike the idea of having to ask government entities for permission to do something that is totally legal and probably protected by the 1st amendment.

Unfortunately the 1st Amendment doesn't reach this far across the pond

Or cover where you can hide geocaches!

Well, I would agree now a 1st amendment argument is much harder than in the early days of caching when it was much more about expressive conduct than numbers. In the early days of caching we would actually sit down and write in the log book about our experience finding the cache and read what others said in thier logs. When the NPS was having their blanket bans and the Forest Service was saying it was not allowed in Wilderness, one of my arguments was the 1st Amendment. While I have always strongly supported restrictions to protective sensitive resources, I was also against blanket bans. While there are many places in National Parks where a caches should be banned, when they have roads, lodges, etc in the National Parks, it seems absurd to claim there is no place suitable in a National Park suitable for a cache. While TFTC is not "expressive conduct," I augured the kinds of things we used to write in logbooks was "expressive conduct. This is the Supreme Court decision I would cite:

“The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . .” * * * It is also true that “public places” historically associated with the free exercise of expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, are considered, without more, to be “public forums.” See Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983); Carey v. Brown, supra, at 460; Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 515 (1976); Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 574 (1941); Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939). In such places, the government’s ability to permissibly restrict expressive conduct is very limited: the government may enforce reasonable time, place, and manner regulations as long as the restrictions “are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” Perry Education Assn., supra, at 45. See, e. g., Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 647 , 654 (1981); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 115 (1972); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965) (Cox II). Additional restrictions such as an absolute prohibition on a particular type of expression will be upheld only if narrowly drawn to accomplish a compelling governmental interest. See, e. g., Perry Education Assn., supra, at 46; Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981).” United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 176-7 (1983).

This was not my only arguement, but I think in the early days of caching this was a reasonable argument.

In no way did my 1st amendment comment refer to physical caches. I can't see any speech issues with that.

Virtuals on the other hand are different. The ability to post coordinates, whether in a book, magazine or online and saying in effect "This is a cool place that I think you should visit", should fall under 1st amendment protection.

1.8k · November 1, 2010

Virtuals on the other hand are different. The ability to post coordinates, whether in a book, magazine or online and saying in effect "This is a cool place that I think you should visit", should fall under 1st amendment protection.

It's pretty hard for me to disagree with this.

2.5k · November 1, 2010

I have a virtual in the Olympic National Park. I would like to adopt it out as I am 85 and having Open Heart Surgery to replace my aortic valve in a couple of weeks. Right now you are not allowed to adopt it out. If i go, it goes. It is at Hurricane Ridge and a beautiful place. I do hope they will allow it to continue. There is no one in my family that could keep it going. thanks

Having read your posts in the forums before, a greater loss to the caching community than the loss of a virtual would be the loss of you. My thoughts and prayers go out to you for good health & your doctors for skill.

2.1k · November 1, 2010

Virtuals on the other hand are different. The ability to post coordinates, whether in a book, magazine or online and saying in effect "This is a cool place that I think you should visit", should fall under 1st amendment protection.

It's pretty hard for me to disagree with this.

As Ben Franklin may or may not have said, "Freedom of the Press is for him that owns one." You can post coordinates in your blog, on your web page, in your facebook page, etc. and say "Here's a cool place that I think you should visit." You could even post coordinates in this forum and say "Here's a cool place that I think you should visit."

You can't create a Virtual Cache using those coordinates and post it on the servers of geocaching.com.

That fact is not a violation of your 1st Amendment Rights. It is an affirmation of Groundspeak's 1st Amendment rights. They own the server, the 1st Amendment protects their right to use it as they see fit.

1.8k · November 1, 2010

Virtuals on the other hand are different. The ability to post coordinates, whether in a book, magazine or online and saying in effect "This is a cool place that I think you should visit", should fall under 1st amendment protection.

It's pretty hard for me to disagree with this.

As Ben Franklin may or may not have said, "Freedom of the Press is for him that owns one." You can post coordinates in your blog, on your web page, in your facebook page, etc. and say "Here's a cool place that I think you should visit." You could even post coordinates in this forum and say "Here's a cool place that I think you should visit."

You can't create a Virtual Cache using those coordinates and post it on the servers of geocaching.com.

That fact is not a violation of your 1st Amendment Rights. It is an affirmation of Groundspeak's 1st Amendment rights. They own the server, the 1st Amendment protects their right to use it as they see fit.

I may have misunderstood briansnat's point, but I took it to mean not that we should be able to do whatever we want on Groundspeak's computers. But rather that it would be hard for the government to suggest that anyone cannot publicize and encourage people to visit an interesting place.

Reading briansnat's posts in their entirety, I don't get the impression that he is arguing that his 1A rights are being infringed by Groundspeak.

8k · November 1, 2010

Virtuals on the other hand are different. The ability to post coordinates, whether in a book, magazine or online and saying in effect "This is a cool place that I think you should visit", should fall under 1st amendment protection.

It's pretty hard for me to disagree with this.

As Ben Franklin may or may not have said, "Freedom of the Press is for him that owns one." You can post coordinates in your blog, on your web page, in your facebook page, etc. and say "Here's a cool place that I think you should visit." You could even post coordinates in this forum and say "Here's a cool place that I think you should visit."

You can't create a Virtual Cache using those coordinates and post it on the servers of geocaching.com.

That fact is not a violation of your 1st Amendment Rights. It is an affirmation of Groundspeak's 1st Amendment rights. They own the server, the 1st Amendment protects their right to use it as they see fit.

Of course Groundspeak provides the Waymarking.com website so if you want to publish the coordinates of a cool place that you think others would find interesting, all you need to do is to find a Waymarking category for it and submit the waymark.

However the issue isn't whether you can make a public announcement about a cool place on Groundspeak's severs, but whether a land manager has any rights to restrict this information. I would suspect that putting the coordinates of certain military facilities online might earn you a visit from the FBI or Homeland Security. And should you be able to give coordinates for an archelogical site that may attract amateurs digging up and stealing artfacts, or caves with bat population threatened with white nose syndrome? There are areas on both private and public land where there is a public interest in keeping the locations secret or in restricting the number of visitors to the site (by making it hard to find the exact location). The first amendment right to free speech is not absolute, just as one cannot cite First Amendment protections for "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater", there are other cases where your speech may be limited if it causes a clear and present danger to the public interests. I'm waiting to see if selling or renting violent video games to a teen is a clear and present danger.

Edited November 1, 2010 by tozainamboku

3.8k · November 1, 2010

Virtuals on the other hand are different. The ability to post coordinates, whether in a book, magazine or online and saying in effect "This is a cool place that I think you should visit", should fall under 1st amendment protection.

It's pretty hard for me to disagree with this.

As Ben Franklin may or may not have said, "Freedom of the Press is for him that owns one." You can post coordinates in your blog, on your web page, in your facebook page, etc. and say "Here's a cool place that I think you should visit." You could even post coordinates in this forum and say "Here's a cool place that I think you should visit."

You can't create a Virtual Cache using those coordinates and post it on the servers of geocaching.com.

That fact is not a violation of your 1st Amendment Rights. It is an affirmation of Groundspeak's 1st Amendment rights. They own the server, the 1st Amendment protects their right to use it as they see fit.

THANK YOU. I always get a kick out of those that haven't the faintest idea what Freedon of Speech in our beloved Constitution means.

1.7k · November 1, 2010

The purpose of a Virtual Cache was to allow someone to have some fun. Attempting to inject a WOW factor into was someone else trying to define fun for another. In anticipation of the return, I have stockpiled a number of locations for virtuals that I hope to list, so someone can have fun.

I like the idea of selecting my own kind of fun. A box in the woods today, maybe a guardrail micro tomorrow, maybe a virtual or a puzzle. Different strokes.

I have to say that while in Florida last week I did a number of virtuals and they were all fun , including the silly and the serious. I would much rather put a 5 difficulty puzzle on my ignore list than a silly virtual, but someone else can validly say otherwise.

The push pull of what should be universally fun is an exercise in futility . Live and let live.

November 1, 2010

Virtuals on the other hand are different. The ability to post coordinates, whether in a book, magazine or online and saying in effect "This is a cool place that I think you should visit", should fall under 1st amendment protection.

It's pretty hard for me to disagree with this.

As Ben Franklin may or may not have said, "Freedom of the Press is for him that owns one." You can post coordinates in your blog, on your web page, in your facebook page, etc. and say "Here's a cool place that I think you should visit." You could even post coordinates in this forum and say "Here's a cool place that I think you should visit."

You can't create a Virtual Cache using those coordinates and post it on the servers of geocaching.com.

That fact is not a violation of your 1st Amendment Rights. It is an affirmation of Groundspeak's 1st Amendment rights. They own the server, the 1st Amendment protects their right to use it as they see fit.

THANK YOU. I always get a kick out of those that haven't the faintest idea what Freedon of Speech in our beloved Constitution means.

Sure. Except you need a clue about who does, and who doesn't, understand the principles of Freedom of Speech. Briansnat does have the idea what freedom of speech means re park managers being handed power of refusing "permission to speak" about the park. Earthcaching is the perfect example; they cooperate with park managers out of concern for the environment -- but they could not legally be barred from posting coordinates as would be their First Amendment right to do so. Geocaching should not follow Earthcaching's example of "permission" to post coordinates to a public place - when, legally, park managers have nothing to do with "permission" to speak. If Groundspeak goes along with that, it's a cowardly surrender of (their own) first amendment rights -- which trickles down to us only to the extent that it deprives us of a central place to post (our own) coordinates. You're allowed, of course, by your free speech rights to make an approving comment to GeoGeeBee. Good, you're a great cheerleader.

2.5k · November 2, 2010

THANK YOU. I always get a kick out of those that haven't the faintest idea what Freedon of Speech in our beloved Constitution means.

I heard it through the grapevine.

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation