Parking lots == private property?

[+Tsnake]

You could also play Frisbee on the property of a public school...

Not in Florida. Being on school property without explicit permission is an arrestable offense here.

 

Come now, that is not quite a fair comparison. Sure, the law exists, but isn't it there, similar to a no trespassing sign, so that you can after miscreants immediately? I mean I can imagine using the law against a group of teens passing around a bottle on the field behind the school, but not against a group a kids playing soccer (or Frisbee) on the same field.

 

Maybe reviewers should be required to get names and numbers like you need for an earthcache.

Off topic: I always thought that was the strangest part of the earthcache guidelines. Since there are no containers involved, and most are placed on public access properties, are the owners having to prove, explicitly, that other people can stand at a given spot of public land? I would think that, since they are on areas that the public is allowed to be, getting explicit permission is a bit redundant. It's not a guideline I feel strongly about, but it did strike me as rather quirky.

I've got to agree with you on this one. Many of the Earthcache pages I've looked at are for places that people are probably gonna visit anyway. If your at an Earthcache location, there is no way to distinguish who in the crowd is a cacher and who is a tourist.

 

I think the earthcache guideline is a bit nuts. I found a cache recently that was placed in a nature preserve. I asked the CO who they got permission from so I could look into doing an earthcache there, but they informed me that they thought public land was open to placing caches. Therefore, they can place a cache there and have no problems, but if I try to put an earthcache there, I would be denied.

[Clan Riffster]

Sure, the law exists, but isn't it there, similar to a no trespassing sign, so that you can go after miscreants immediately?

Sort of. The law, as it's written, is pretty black & white. Not much wiggle room at all.

 

The text of the law:

 

810.097

Trespass upon grounds or facilities of a school; penalties; arrest.

—

(1) Any person who:

 

( a ) Does not have legitimate business on the campus or any other authorization, license, or invitation to enter or remain upon school property; or

( b ) Is a student currently under suspension or expulsion;

 

and who enters or remains upon the campus or any other facility owned by any such school commits a trespass upon the grounds of a school facility and is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

 

Thankfully we still have discretion. I personally would not arrest a kid for tossing a Frisbee on school property, but I would make them leave. If that same kid was up to mischief, I would probably arrest him, depending on the circumstances. I know the upper echelon staff of the schools in my patrol area, and they have made it quite clear that they do not want unauthorized persons on their property. Mostly for liability reasons. If an administrator of the school was available for input, (unusual, as I work nights), I would get their opinion. If they suggested I not arrest the kid that was up to no good, I would not. If they suggested I do arrest the kid tossing the Frisbee, I would.

 

From a legal perspective, playing Frisbee on school property is an action subject to sanctions.

To put it plainly, you can't do it legally, which was the point I was trying to convey.

If you choose to do it, you probably will get away with a warning, but that doesn't mean it's lawful.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Clan Riffster

[knowschad]

I'm sure it would happen if the unfortunate incident of a geocacher being killed by a paranoid land owner or police office ever occurs.

How do you spell, 'hyperbole'?

[knowschad]

Maybe reviewers should be required to get names and numbers like you need for an earthcache.

... and call & verify each one before publishing the cache?

[+geodarts]

I think the earthcache guideline is a bit nuts. I found a cache recently that was placed in a nature preserve. I asked the CO who they got permission from so I could look into doing an earthcache there, but they informed me that they thought public land was open to placing caches. Therefore, they can place a cache there and have no problems, but if I try to put an earthcache there, I would be denied.

 

Actually, there are many nature preserves where a traditional cache would be a problem even if the land is "public." And you could place an earthcache there if you contacted the preserve managers and made sure that the location was appropriate -- or if the preserve had a general policy permitting caching.

 

Not every earthcache needs permission -- it depends on where they are developed. But it is my understanding that the permission guidelines for earthcaches exists in large measure to avoid problems with sensitive geological formations or places that could be impacted by cachers. There are some earthcaches that have had to be archived because problems arose at fossil sites or similar locations. If agencies did not know that an earthcache was listed there, it would have made the situation far more problematic. It was also something that the NPS requested when they were brought into the game. As a result, park managers have assisted me with my earthcaches, and some cachers have used these kind of relationships to convince managers to allow traditional caches within their areas.

 

Maybe reviewers should be required to get names and numbers like you need for an earthcache.

... and call & verify each one before publishing the cache?

 

I don't believe that an earthcache reviewer has ever contacted the park managers I have listed in my submissions. But the information exists should there be a problem with the placement. Providing contact information for traditional caches (at least those on private property) or explaining why permission is not necessary would get people to think about whether permission is required or why it is not. And should a problem arise, it might even give Groundspeak greater protection.

Edited January 31, 2011 by mulvaney