Another black eye for geocaching

[+CanadianRockies]

The second highlighted text appears to be sardonic (note the "Wow"). The response provides just a few things that Section 230 does not provide immunity from. You don't really believe Groundspeak is immune from everything except the three listed laws, do you?

Strawman argument. I never made that absolute statement.

No, but you appeared to make that claim with the quotation you provided. Why did you provide that quotation?

 

In the context of this discussion, Groundspeak is not the legal publisher of the cache descriptions. Under US law, suing them for damage caused by visiting a cache is the equivalent of suing the Wall Street Journal for something that was published by the Washington Post.

Citation?

[+briansnat]

The rule of 150ft from the RR ROW seems to be in general when there is no barrier between where the cache is being placed and where the actual tracks are (active or inactive).

If the tracks are inactive, then there doesn't need to be a barrier between them and the cache. I've found several caches underneath inactive tracks.

 

doesn't trespassing laws apply to inactive lines?

 

They certainly do if the inactive line is still RR property. For that reason the guideline can also apply to inactive RR lines.

[+Panther&Pine]

And just to complicate things you can have active rails that aren't owned by a RR company, but by a company running a tourist rail and all they have is an easment of somewhere around 20 feet on either side of the rail (as far as I can tell that is the distance).

 

Here in Durango we've got a railroad that the only places you'll get in trouble for trespassing is in the rail yard and on the tressle bridges. You can walk over the rails, stand in the rails (probably don't want to play chicken with the train... but I've seen it happen) and float under the bridges.

[+Castle Mischief]

Hey guys, I have no idea what sort of conversation happened between the CO and reviewer, what information was provided to the reviewer, a record of any edits to the cache page or deletions of coordinate change logs that may or may not have been made but can I offer up my particular theory as to why this is/isn't the reviewer's/CO's complete fault and how I would never make the same mistake if I were the reviewer/CO?

 

Can I then offer my expert amature legal advice on trespass law and liability that I learned with 20 WHOLE minutes of google searches and visits to at least two other interweb forums?

 

 

As you were...

Edited June 2, 2011 by Castle Mischief

[+d+n.s]

Not really directly relating to the subject, but I always smile when I see that "Abe Froman" is the reviewer for that area.

 

Yes, some of the reviewers have been coming up with some clever names. Better yet, the guy who posted the SBA, and was sought out by the Police as a Geocaching expert was "Spanish Bombs". That's a Clash song, by the way.

 

This might shock some people, but I don't think this was all that "stupid". I've seen much worse. This was a pedestrian bridge. Am I crazy, or should I give it up and grab my torch and pitchfork?

The song is cool enough, that I'll forgive them

[+Ecylram]

The second highlighted text appears to be sardonic (note the "Wow"). The response provides just a few things that Section 230 does not provide immunity from. You don't really believe Groundspeak is immune from everything except the three listed laws, do you?

Strawman argument. I never made that absolute statement.

No, but you appeared to make that claim with the quotation you provided. Why did you provide that quotation?

 

In the context of this discussion, Groundspeak is not the legal publisher of the cache descriptions. Under US law, suing them for damage caused by visiting a cache is the equivalent of suing the Wall Street Journal for something that was published by the Washington Post.

Citation?

This is getting silly...

47 U.S.C. § 230 : US Code - Section 230: Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

Edited June 2, 2011 by Ecylram

[+tozainamboku]

Well thank you for pointing that out.

You did notice that I have already said the same basic thing, right?

Yes, but you didn't use enough words.

Well, GOF pointed out part of the guidelines that apply. I included another section that is often missed. The cache was archived because once the bomb squad became involved it is clear the sections of the guideline apply here. It wasn't archived because the cache was no longer there. If a muggle takes a cache, it doesn't get archived. At most the reviewer might disable the cache until the owner can replace it (in a reasonable time). This cache was archived because it appears to violate the guidelines.

 

So by that theory, Groundspeak has archived the cache because they agree with the bomb squad's removing the cache because it's a violation

 

Are you saying that the bomb squad removed the cache because it was violating Groundspeak's rules?

The section of guidelines previously quoted says that you should think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public. While you can't anticipate everything, the action of the bomb squad investigating this cache, provides some evidence that perhaps this wasn't a good location. So while the bomb squad doesn't enforce Groundspeak guidelines, their actions will generally cause the pertinent sections of the guidelines to take force, resulting the archiving of the cache.

 

Some people expect Geocaching.com volunteer reviewers can catch guidelines violation pre-emptively before a cache is published. This is not the case. There is only so much a reviewer can do. As far as I know, the reviewers are no more able to predict the future than anyone else (though their experience may help them anticipate problems that a newbie might miss). There are sections of the guidelines that apply only after the cache becomes problematic. These guidelines allow the cache to be archived. Nobody needs to blame Groundspeak, the reviewers, or the cache owner for these caches. What land owners, land managers, and law enforcement need to know is that Geocaching.com and most geocachers are willing to work to correct problems when they occur and, if necessary, make changes to reduce the likelihood of the same problems occuring in the future.

[+Ecylram]

More...

Claims Covered by Section 230

 

But immunity under Section 230 is not limited to defamation or speech-based torts. Courts have applied Section 230 immunity to bar claims such as invasion of privacy, misappropriation, and most recently in a case brought against MySpace (Doe v. MySpace, 474 F.Supp.2d 843 (W.D. Tex. 2007)), a claim asserting that MySpace was negligent for failing to implement age verification procedures and to protect a fourteen-year old from sexual predators.

 

And...

This immunity covers defamation and privacy claims, as well as negligence and other tort claims associated with publication.

The courts have specifically addressed the tort liability with Section 230 in Julie Doe II et al v. MySpace, Incorporated, 175 Cal. App. 4th 561; 96 Cal. Rptr. 3d 148; 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1073 (2009) and held:

The express language of the statute indicates Congress did not intend to limit its grant of immunity to defamation claims. Instead, the legislative history demonstrates Congress intended to extend immunity to all civil claims...

[+the4dirtydogs]

You did notice that I have already said the same basic thing, right?

Well sure, but you didn't use thousands of lines of text to convey your message.

Toz wins by sheer volume!

Thanks for the laugh CR.

[knowschad]

Well thank you for pointing that out.

You did notice that I have already said the same basic thing, right?

Yes, but you didn't use enough words.

Well, GOF pointed out part of the guidelines that apply. I included another section that is often missed.hood of the same problems occuring in the future.

I hope you realize that I have to tease you about your wordiness, even when you aren't really being particularily wordy.

[GOF and Bacall]

You did notice that I have already said the same basic thing, right?

Well sure, but you didn't use thousands of lines of text to convey your message.

Toz wins by sheer volume!

Thanks for the laugh CR.

 

Perhaps I should use a larger font?

[+mynetdude]

Have there been cases where bomb squad has removed a cache even though placed legitimately? If this cache wasn't placed in a legit spot they removed it according to what everybody else is saying.

 

So my question here is: has a bomb squad removed a cache that is in a valid location and a cache has been archived because I quote:

The bomb Squad Removed it

[GOF and Bacall]

Have there been cases where bomb squad has removed a cache even though placed legitimately? If this cache wasn't placed in a legit spot they removed it according to what everybody else is saying.

 

So my question here is: has a bomb squad removed a cache that is in a valid location and a cache has been archived because I quote:

The bomb Squad Removed it

 

Yes. There was at least one placed with permission in a parking lot that was blown up by the bomb squad.

[GOF and Bacall]

Here are a couple of bookmarks you can look at.

 

Bomb Scares

 

Bomb Scares and Other Fun Stuff

Edited June 2, 2011 by GOF and Bacall

[+rjb43nh]

Knowschad-“Groundspeak has stated here numerous times that the reason for the 150 foot railroad guideline is because of trespassing laws. That is not mere speculation on my part.”

GOF and Bacall-“A word of advice. Stop digging.”

If you did just a little digging you might find what Groundspeak bases its 150 foot guideline on. The hot link is to another thread where a reviewer posted this information which isn't mere speculation on my part.

 

Good day,

 

I'm a volunteer geocaching.com reviewer taking a look at this cache to make sure it meets the guidelines for posting on geocaching.com.

 

I'm concerned about how close the cache is to the railroad track. Can you please describe the distance, whether there is a public pathway, and address the items described below?

 

So you know, it is a Federal offense to place an object like a Geocache near an active rail line. A Geocacher has been arrested, jailed, had to go to court and paid a large fine for placing a cache near an active railroad line. The local bomb squad destroyed his cache. If this is an active line, even if it is only used infrequently, this cache must be moved or removed. This is covered in the guidelines and requirements to place a cache: http://www.geocachin...s.aspx#offlimit The guidelines specifically say that caches may be quickly archived if we see the following and include this in the list: "Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In general we use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) but your local area's trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply."

 

If it is a "rails to trails" area, if you can demonstrate that the tracks have been removed, or the cache is outside of a marked or bounded right-of-way, then I may be able to reconsider your cache submission.

 

For now, I am temporarily disabling this cache so you can place it in a location that meets the guidelines, or explain why the current location does meet the guidelines.

 

Please post a reviewer note on the cache page or write back to me with further details.

[GOF and Bacall]

Knowschad-“Groundspeak has stated here numerous times that the reason for the 150 foot railroad guideline is because of trespassing laws. That is not mere speculation on my part.”

GOF and Bacall-“A word of advice. Stop digging.”

If you did just a little digging you might find what Groundspeak bases its 150 foot guideline on. The hot link is to another thread where a reviewer posted this information which isn't mere speculation on my part.

 

Good day,

 

I'm a volunteer geocaching.com reviewer taking a look at this cache to make sure it meets the guidelines for posting on geocaching.com.

 

I'm concerned about how close the cache is to the railroad track. Can you please describe the distance, whether there is a public pathway, and address the items described below?

 

So you know, it is a Federal offense to place an object like a Geocache near an active rail line. A Geocacher has been arrested, jailed, had to go to court and paid a large fine for placing a cache near an active railroad line. The local bomb squad destroyed his cache. If this is an active line, even if it is only used infrequently, this cache must be moved or removed. This is covered in the guidelines and requirements to place a cache: http://www.geocachin...s.aspx#offlimit The guidelines specifically say that caches may be quickly archived if we see the following and include this in the list: "Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In general we use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) but your local area's trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply."

 

If it is a "rails to trails" area, if you can demonstrate that the tracks have been removed, or the cache is outside of a marked or bounded right-of-way, then I may be able to reconsider your cache submission.

 

For now, I am temporarily disabling this cache so you can place it in a location that meets the guidelines, or explain why the current location does meet the guidelines.

 

Please post a reviewer note on the cache page or write back to me with further details.

 

So basically you are pointing out that we were correct. Thank you.

If you are interested in where it all started look here.

[+WRASTRO]

Knowschad-"Groundspeak has stated here numerous times that the reason for the 150 foot railroad guideline is because of trespassing laws. That is not mere speculation on my part."

GOF and Bacall-"A word of advice. Stop digging."

If you did just a little digging you might find what Groundspeak bases its 150 foot guideline on. The hot link is to another thread where a reviewer posted this information which isn't mere speculation on my part.

 

Good day,

 

I'm a volunteer geocaching.com reviewer taking a look at this cache to make sure it meets the guidelines for posting on geocaching.com.

 

I'm concerned about how close the cache is to the railroad track. Can you please describe the distance, whether there is a public pathway, and address the items described below?

 

So you know, it is a Federal offense to place an object like a Geocache near an active rail line. A Geocacher has been arrested, jailed, had to go to court and paid a large fine for placing a cache near an active railroad line. The local bomb squad destroyed his cache. If this is an active line, even if it is only used infrequently, this cache must be moved or removed. This is covered in the guidelines and requirements to place a cache: http://www.geocachin...s.aspx#offlimit The guidelines specifically say that caches may be quickly archived if we see the following and include this in the list: "Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In general we use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) but your local area's trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply."

 

If it is a "rails to trails" area, if you can demonstrate that the tracks have been removed, or the cache is outside of a marked or bounded right-of-way, then I may be able to reconsider your cache submission.

 

For now, I am temporarily disabling this cache so you can place it in a location that meets the guidelines, or explain why the current location does meet the guidelines.

 

Please post a reviewer note on the cache page or write back to me with further details.

It seems to me the link and note you are quoting reinforces what others have been saying. The guidline is all about trespass laws. Do you think it implies something else?

[GOF and Bacall]

Knowschad-"Groundspeak has stated here numerous times that the reason for the 150 foot railroad guideline is because of trespassing laws. That is not mere speculation on my part."

GOF and Bacall-"A word of advice. Stop digging."

If you did just a little digging you might find what Groundspeak bases its 150 foot guideline on. The hot link is to another thread where a reviewer posted this information which isn't mere speculation on my part.

 

Good day,

 

I'm a volunteer geocaching.com reviewer taking a look at this cache to make sure it meets the guidelines for posting on geocaching.com.

 

I'm concerned about how close the cache is to the railroad track. Can you please describe the distance, whether there is a public pathway, and address the items described below?

 

So you know, it is a Federal offense to place an object like a Geocache near an active rail line. A Geocacher has been arrested, jailed, had to go to court and paid a large fine for placing a cache near an active railroad line. The local bomb squad destroyed his cache. If this is an active line, even if it is only used infrequently, this cache must be moved or removed. This is covered in the guidelines and requirements to place a cache: http://www.geocachin...s.aspx#offlimit The guidelines specifically say that caches may be quickly archived if we see the following and include this in the list: "Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In general we use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) but your local area's trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply."

 

If it is a "rails to trails" area, if you can demonstrate that the tracks have been removed, or the cache is outside of a marked or bounded right-of-way, then I may be able to reconsider your cache submission.

 

For now, I am temporarily disabling this cache so you can place it in a location that meets the guidelines, or explain why the current location does meet the guidelines.

 

Please post a reviewer note on the cache page or write back to me with further details.

It seems to me the link and note you are quoting reinforces what others have been saying. The guidline is all about trespass laws. Do you think it implies something else?

 

Precisely. The guideline is entirely about trespassing. And there was no trespassing involved in the cache that started this thread. It was accessed via a legal, no trespass required approach.

[+Castle Mischief]

Have there been cases where bomb squad has removed a cache even though placed legitimately? If this cache wasn't placed in a legit spot they removed it according to what everybody else is saying.

 

So my question here is: has a bomb squad removed a cache that is in a valid location and a cache has been archived because I quote:

The bomb Squad Removed it

 

Yes. There was at least one placed with permission in a parking lot that was blown up by the bomb squad.

 

...placed with permission with the property owner on site telling the bomb squad what the object was and asking them not to blow it up.

[GOF and Bacall]

Have there been cases where bomb squad has removed a cache even though placed legitimately? If this cache wasn't placed in a legit spot they removed it according to what everybody else is saying.

 

So my question here is: has a bomb squad removed a cache that is in a valid location and a cache has been archived because I quote:

The bomb Squad Removed it

 

Yes. There was at least one placed with permission in a parking lot that was blown up by the bomb squad.

 

...placed with permission with the property owner on site telling the bomb squad what the object was and asking them not to blow it up.

 

I remember the discussion, but not the details.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Precisely. The guideline is entirely about trespassing. And there was no trespassing involved in the cache that started this thread. It was accessed via a legal, no trespass required approach.

It does violate the section on terrorism, and in a way does involve trespassing. It may be perfectly legal to use the bridge over the tracks and even stop there to watch trains. When you leave a suspicious device on that bridge you are no longer welcome there, even if that suspicious device turns out to be a harmless geocache.

[+mynetdude]

Someone told me someone hid a cache on the grade crossing gate once, don't know if the cache is archived now or not but that's one cache I'd stay away from as it violates all kinds of regs including 150ft RR ROW separation and objects that might look like terrorism, etc. But I sure as heck wouldn't want to try finding this cache while a train is speeding past me at 25-50mph at a grade crossing!

[GOF and Bacall]

Precisely. The guideline is entirely about trespassing. And there was no trespassing involved in the cache that started this thread. It was accessed via a legal, no trespass required approach.

It does violate the section on terrorism, and in a way does involve trespassing. It may be perfectly legal to use the bridge over the tracks and even stop there to watch trains. When you leave a suspicious device on that bridge you are no longer welcome there, even if that suspicious device turns out to be a harmless geocache.

 

I am not gonna agree about the trespassing part. It is a public foot road. No more trespassing than parking your bike outside the library. But I agree that it should have been flagged as a possible terror target. See my earlier posts in this thread.

[GOF and Bacall]

Someone told me someone hid a cache on the grade crossing gate once, don't know if the cache is archived now or not but that's one cache I'd stay away from as it violates all kinds of regs including 150ft RR ROW separation and objects that might look like terrorism, etc. But I sure as heck wouldn't want to try finding this cache while a train is speeding past me at 25-50mph at a grade crossing!

 

In addition to trespassing issues and terror issues I would suspect a reviewer would find it hard to believe that permission was adequate for such a hide.

[+Coldgears]

This was one of my first caches, not knowing the guidelines, and never reading the description, I fully believed a train could've came down at anytime and had mapped out a plan in case of a train coming. I should've noticed all the plants growing... But W/E.

[+dfx]

[knowschad]

GEOCACHiNG

[+mynetdude]

This was one of my first caches, not knowing the guidelines, and never reading the description, I fully believed a train could've came down at anytime and had mapped out a plan in case of a train coming. I should've noticed all the plants growing... But W/E.

 

as stated earlier, if its inactive there might not be any trespassing issues so placing a cache on an inactive line would be ok cuz I'm sure if they reactivated it they're going to clean that mess up and look for anything on the tracks that could pose a hazard to trains (so if your cache is there, it'll get chucked if the line goes live)

[knowschad]

This was one of my first caches, not knowing the guidelines, and never reading the description, I fully believed a train could've came down at anytime and had mapped out a plan in case of a train coming. I should've noticed all the plants growing... But W/E.

I don't think that weeds equals abandoned. But I could be wrong... I haven't got a citation to prove my point.

[mresoteric]

Wow. A lot of this is over my head.

 

But I think I have figured out that Ecylram is a lawyer by trade and CanadianRockies stayed at a Holiday Inn?

 

Seriously, though, I would think that since Groundspeak has so much control over the publishing of caches that it would make them liable to some extent?

 

I understand Eclyram's contention that Groundspeak enjoys immunity by the fact that they don't actually do the publishing. But at what point do they lose that immunity?

 

I saw the citation of MySpace. But I wonder how well Facebook would fare in a similar lawsuit. They are much more involved in the censorship of postings where MySpace tends to allow pretty much anything.

[knowschad]

Seriously, though, I would think that since Groundspeak has so much control over the publishing of caches that it would make them liable to some extent?

I would guess that Groundspeak's liability is (at least in their lawyer's best opinions) limited by a very carefully worded guidelines document.

[+SaDiZTiKStyLeZ]

That one was picked up on one of my routes, but didn't have chance to get it. Amusing.

 

As for less than intelligent CO's, I had the fun experience of being caught in middle of seeking a cache placed on gas meters not too long ago. Then had to stick around & explain to officers. Meh.

Edited June 3, 2011 by SaDiZTiKStyLeZ

[+sbell111]

This was one of my first caches, not knowing the guidelines, and never reading the description, I fully believed a train could've came down at anytime and had mapped out a plan in case of a train coming. I should've noticed all the plants growing... But W/E.

I don't think that weeds equals abandoned. But I could be wrong... I haven't got a citation to prove my point.

I believe that Coldgears' comment about plants growing was related to the sentence immediately proceding it which spoke to his escape plan in case of oncoming train. Plants growing over a track along with super rusty rails and generally unmaintained railbed would tend to signal a very low chance of needing this escape plan, regardless of whether the track is technically 'abandoned'.

[+sbell111]

Someone told me someone hid a cache on the grade crossing gate once, don't know if the cache is archived now or not but that's one cache I'd stay away from as it violates all kinds of regs including 150ft RR ROW separation and objects that might look like terrorism, etc. But I sure as heck wouldn't want to try finding this cache while a train is speeding past me at 25-50mph at a grade crossing!

 

In addition to trespassing issues and terror issues I would suspect a reviewer would find it hard to believe that permission was adequate for such a hide.

That would depend on how the reviewer defines 'adequate'.

 

Certainly, it would not be a stretch to imagine someone who believes 1) that there is no trespassing issue related to a geocacher using a public footbridge, 2) that a microcache hidden on such a footbridge does not pose a 'terror' issue, and 3) that such a hide would not require explicit permission.

[knowschad]

 

This was one of my first caches, not knowing the guidelines, and never reading the description, I fully believed a train could've came down at anytime and had mapped out a plan in case of a train coming. I should've noticed all the plants growing... But W/E.

 

as stated earlier, if its inactive there might not be any trespassing issues so placing a cache on an inactive line would be ok cuz I'm sure if they reactivated it they're going to clean that mess up and look for anything on the tracks that could pose a hazard to trains (so if your cache is there, it'll get chucked if the line goes live)

 

I have to disagree with what you said there, because I believe you have offered some bad advice. Inactive most certainly does not mean that there are any trespassing issues. It might mean that you are less likely to get caught because the railroad is not likely to be patrolling the area, but unless the owership of the land has changed hands, it is still under the same trespassing laws that it was covered by when it had trains running on it. It would not be OK to place a cache there without confirming ownership first.

[GOF and Bacall]

Someone told me someone hid a cache on the grade crossing gate once, don't know if the cache is archived now or not but that's one cache I'd stay away from as it violates all kinds of regs including 150ft RR ROW separation and objects that might look like terrorism, etc. But I sure as heck wouldn't want to try finding this cache while a train is speeding past me at 25-50mph at a grade crossing!

 

In addition to trespassing issues and terror issues I would suspect a reviewer would find it hard to believe that permission was adequate for such a hide.

That would depend on how the reviewer defines 'adequate'.

 

Certainly, it would not be a stretch to imagine someone who believes 1) that there is no trespassing issue related to a geocacher using a public footbridge, 2) that a microcache hidden on such a footbridge does not pose a 'terror' issue, and 3) that such a hide would not require explicit permission.

 

Did you look at the post I was replying to? "Someone told me someone hid a cache on the grade crossing gate". Personally I find it very hard to believe that any reviewer would not question such a hide.

[+CanadianRockies]

Seriously, though, I would think that since Groundspeak has so much control over the publishing of caches that it would make them liable to some extent?

Unless the state of Washington has some unusual laws, it seems very likely that Groundspeak, its reviewers, and cache owners are liable for gross negligence (at the very least).

 

I understand Eclyram's contention that Groundspeak enjoys immunity by the fact that they don't actually do the publishing. But at what point do they lose that immunity?

Even if we make the leap and assume Groundspeak enjoys some immunity, it seems very unlikely that they would lose that immunity by considering safety issues when they review caches for publication. People who make such claims conveniently forget that Groundspeak already declines to publish caches that they know are placed illegally (such as on railroad right of ways without permission). By doing so, Groundspeak don't suddenly become liable for all caches that are placed illegally.

[+sbell111]

Someone told me someone hid a cache on the grade crossing gate once, don't know if the cache is archived now or not but that's one cache I'd stay away from as it violates all kinds of regs including 150ft RR ROW separation and objects that might look like terrorism, etc. But I sure as heck wouldn't want to try finding this cache while a train is speeding past me at 25-50mph at a grade crossing!

 

In addition to trespassing issues and terror issues I would suspect a reviewer would find it hard to believe that permission was adequate for such a hide.

That would depend on how the reviewer defines 'adequate'.

 

Certainly, it would not be a stretch to imagine someone who believes 1) that there is no trespassing issue related to a geocacher using a public footbridge, 2) that a microcache hidden on such a footbridge does not pose a 'terror' issue, and 3) that such a hide would not require explicit permission.

 

Did you look at the post I was replying to? "Someone told me someone hid a cache on the grade crossing gate". Personally I find it very hard to believe that any reviewer would not question such a hide.

Mea culpa.

 

I accidently read your post as if it was dicussing the topic of this thread.

[GOF and Bacall]

Someone told me someone hid a cache on the grade crossing gate once, don't know if the cache is archived now or not but that's one cache I'd stay away from as it violates all kinds of regs including 150ft RR ROW separation and objects that might look like terrorism, etc. But I sure as heck wouldn't want to try finding this cache while a train is speeding past me at 25-50mph at a grade crossing!

 

In addition to trespassing issues and terror issues I would suspect a reviewer would find it hard to believe that permission was adequate for such a hide.

That would depend on how the reviewer defines 'adequate'.

 

Certainly, it would not be a stretch to imagine someone who believes 1) that there is no trespassing issue related to a geocacher using a public footbridge, 2) that a microcache hidden on such a footbridge does not pose a 'terror' issue, and 3) that such a hide would not require explicit permission.

 

Did you look at the post I was replying to? "Someone told me someone hid a cache on the grade crossing gate". Personally I find it very hard to believe that any reviewer would not question such a hide.

Mea culpa.

 

I accidently read your post as if it was dicussing the topic of this thread.

 

I kinda figured. The conversation has grown a bit since that first post.

[+sbell111]

Seriously, though, I would think that since Groundspeak has so much control over the publishing of caches that it would make them liable to some extent?

Unless the state of Washington has some unusual laws, it seems very likely that Groundspeak, its reviewers, and cache owners are liable for gross negligence (at the very least).

I disagree.

I understand Eclyram's contention that Groundspeak enjoys immunity by the fact that they don't actually do the publishing. But at what point do they lose that immunity?

Even if we make the leap and assume Groundspeak enjoys some immunity, it seems very unlikely that they would lose that immunity by considering safety issues when they review caches for publication. People who make such claims conveniently forget that Groundspeak already declines to publish caches that they know are placed illegally (such as on railroad right of ways without permission). By doing so, Groundspeak don't suddenly become liable for all caches that are placed illegally.

I'm not seeing the connection between 'unsafe' and 'illegal' that you are attempting to draw.

[+CanadianRockies]

I understand Eclyram's contention that Groundspeak enjoys immunity by the fact that they don't actually do the publishing. But at what point do they lose that immunity?

Even if we make the leap and assume Groundspeak enjoys some immunity, it seems very unlikely that they would lose that immunity by considering safety issues when they review caches for publication. People who make such claims conveniently forget that Groundspeak already declines to publish caches that they know are placed illegally (such as on railroad right of ways without permission). By doing so, Groundspeak don't suddenly become liable for all caches that are placed illegally.

I'm not seeing the connection between 'unsafe' and 'illegal' that you are attempting to draw.

Perhaps this will help clarify the issue:

 

Its amazing that GS does not have guidelines for simply the fact it is dangerous in some situations but I suppose that's to reduce their liability.

You are right about liability. Groundspeak can not start determining what is or is not safe. The moment they do they open themselves the law suits by every cacher who stubs their toe or breaks a nail.

Why would Groundspeak be liable for unsafe caches and not be liable for illegally placed caches (such as some placed on railroad right of ways or interstate highways)?

[+GeoGeeBee]

Even if we make the leap and assume Groundspeak enjoys some immunity, it seems very unlikely that they would lose that immunity by considering safety issues when they review caches for publication.

 

"...the law is an a**." -- Charles Dickens

 

Suppose GS decided that the Psycho Urban Cache in the radioactive abandoned nuclear reactor was too dangerous to publish. Then sometime later a person falls out of a tree while trying to reach for a bison tube and is injured, and he decides to sue GS.

 

His lawyer is going to use the denial of the Psycho Urban Cache to argue that, by publishing the tree-climbing cache, GS had endorsed it as being safe.

 

Therefore, it is wise for GS to avoid making any judgment as to which caches or safe or unsafe.

[+CanadianRockies]

Even if we make the leap and assume Groundspeak enjoys some immunity, it seems very unlikely that they would lose that immunity by considering safety issues when they review caches for publication. People who make such claims conveniently forget that Groundspeak already declines to publish caches that they know are placed illegally (such as on railroad right of ways without permission). By doing so, Groundspeak don't suddenly become liable for all caches that are placed illegally.

 

Note: Emphasized portion restored.

 

"...the law is an a**." -- Charles Dickens

 

Suppose GS decided that the Psycho Urban Cache in the radioactive abandoned nuclear reactor was too dangerous to publish. Then sometime later a person falls out of a tree while trying to reach for a bison tube and is injured, and he decides to sue GS.

 

His lawyer is going to use the denial of the Psycho Urban Cache to argue that, by publishing the tree-climbing cache, GS had endorsed it as being safe.

 

Therefore, it is wise for GS to avoid making any judgment as to which caches or safe or unsafe.

Suppose GS declines to publish a cache that is along an active railroad's right of way. Then, sometime later, a person trespasses on another parcel of private property while trying to find a bison tube and is arrested, and he decides to sue GS.

 

Do you really think that his lawyer is going to use the denial of one illegally placed cache to argue that, by publishing the other illegal cache, GS has endorsed it as being legal?

 

Is you do, then do you think it is wise for GS to continue vetoing illegally placed caches?

[GOF and Bacall]

I understand Eclyram's contention that Groundspeak enjoys immunity by the fact that they don't actually do the publishing. But at what point do they lose that immunity?

Even if we make the leap and assume Groundspeak enjoys some immunity, it seems very unlikely that they would lose that immunity by considering safety issues when they review caches for publication. People who make such claims conveniently forget that Groundspeak already declines to publish caches that they know are placed illegally (such as on railroad right of ways without permission). By doing so, Groundspeak don't suddenly become liable for all caches that are placed illegally.

I'm not seeing the connection between 'unsafe' and 'illegal' that you are attempting to draw.

Perhaps this will help clarify the issue:

 

Its amazing that GS does not have guidelines for simply the fact it is dangerous in some situations but I suppose that's to reduce their liability.

You are right about liability. Groundspeak can not start determining what is or is not safe. The moment they do they open themselves the law suits by every cacher who stubs their toe or breaks a nail.

Why would Groundspeak be liable for unsafe caches and not be liable for illegally placed caches (such as some placed on railroad right of ways or interstate highways)?

 

Because another authority made the determination that railroads were off limits. IE the railroads. In the case of the cache in question it was the police bomb squad.

 

Nobody is saying that the protection afforded Groundspeak by the wording in the guidelines is perfect. But you can bet that they are as good as expensive lawyers can make them without just plain closing the site down. It seems that GS feels that between the guidelines, the disclaimer, and their insurance coverage that they are protected enough from crippling liability costs.

 

Like I said earlier, right or wrong this is Groundspeak's stance on railroads. The issue is trespassing, not safety. It matters not if you think they should ban caches do to safety issues.

[+CanadianRockies]

Its amazing that GS does not have guidelines for simply the fact it is dangerous in some situations but I suppose that's to reduce their liability.

You are right about liability. Groundspeak can not start determining what is or is not safe. The moment they do they open themselves the law suits by every cacher who stubs their toe or breaks a nail.

Why would Groundspeak be liable for unsafe caches and not be liable for illegally placed caches (such as some placed on railroad right of ways or interstate highways)?

Because another authority made the determination that railroads were off limits. IE the railroads. In the case of the cache in question it was the police bomb squad.

In this particular case, the bomb squad informed Groundspeak that the railroad was off limits. In many other instances, Groundspeak has determined that for themselves.

 

Like I said earlier, right or wrong this is Groundspeak's stance on railroads. The issue is trespassing, not safety. It matters not if you think they should ban caches do to safety issues.

But it's your claim that if Groundspeak considers safety when it reviews caches for publication, that somehow would make them liable if someone "stubs their toe or breaks a nail." My question to you is: Does that same strange legal argument also apply to illegally placed caches? If Groundspeak vetoes some illegally placed caches, then does that somehow make them liable for other illegally placed caches that they do publish?

[knowschad]

Suppose GS declines to publish a cache that is along an active railroad's right of way. Then, sometime later, a person trespasses on another parcel of private property while trying to find a bison tube and is arrested, and he decides to sue GS.

 

Do you really think that his lawyer is going to use the denial of one illegally placed cache to argue that, by publishing the other illegal cache, GS has endorsed it as being legal?

 

Is you do, then do you think it is wise for GS to continue vetoing illegally placed caches?

Sue somebody because you got arrested? I suppose it could happen.

 

I don't understand why you want so badly to argue this issue. We are just the messengers. If you have a problem with the policy, or want clarification on the policy, get it from the horse's mouth. And please let us know what you learn.

[+CanadianRockies]

Suppose GS declines to publish a cache that is along an active railroad's right of way. Then, sometime later, a person trespasses on another parcel of private property while trying to find a bison tube and is arrested, and he decides to sue GS.

 

Do you really think that his lawyer is going to use the denial of one illegally placed cache to argue that, by publishing the other illegal cache, GS has endorsed it as being legal?

 

Is you do, then do you think it is wise for GS to continue vetoing illegally placed caches?

Sue somebody because you got arrested? I suppose it could happen.

We appear to be in agreement that such a lawsuit would seem rather silly. I also think that the earlier imagined lawsuit by someone with a stubbed toe would be just as silly and just as groundless.

[GOF and Bacall]

Tell you what. You go break you're arm on a railroad track cache hunt, if you can find one, and let us know how the lawsuit goes.

[knowschad]

Suppose GS declines to publish a cache that is along an active railroad's right of way. Then, sometime later, a person trespasses on another parcel of private property while trying to find a bison tube and is arrested, and he decides to sue GS.

 

Do you really think that his lawyer is going to use the denial of one illegally placed cache to argue that, by publishing the other illegal cache, GS has endorsed it as being legal?

 

Is you do, then do you think it is wise for GS to continue vetoing illegally placed caches?

Sue somebody because you got arrested? I suppose it could happen.

We appear to be in agreement that such a lawsuit would seem rather silly. I also think that the earlier imagined lawsuit by someone with a stubbed toe would be just as silly and just as groundless.

I can recognize satire when I see it. Try changing "stubbed toe" to "broken neck" and see what you think.

[+CanadianRockies]

Suppose GS declines to publish a cache that is along an active railroad's right of way. Then, sometime later, a person trespasses on another parcel of private property while trying to find a bison tube and is arrested, and he decides to sue GS.

 

Do you really think that his lawyer is going to use the denial of one illegally placed cache to argue that, by publishing the other illegal cache, GS has endorsed it as being legal?

 

Is you do, then do you think it is wise for GS to continue vetoing illegally placed caches?

Sue somebody because you got arrested? I suppose it could happen.

We appear to be in agreement that such a lawsuit would seem rather silly. I also think that the earlier imagined lawsuit by someone with a stubbed toe would be just as silly and just as groundless.

I can recognize satire when I see it. Try changing "stubbed toe" to "broken neck" and see what you think.

Even if you change "stubbed toe" to "broken neck," I think such a lawsuit still would be silly and groundless, assuming it was based on the premise that "policing safety implies liability."

 

You, however, seem to believe that policing safety implies liability. I wonder if parks that close hiking trails due to recent bear activity are aware of your interesting legal theory. I also wonder if you believe that policing illegally placed caches also implies liability.

Edited June 3, 2011 by CanadianRockies