Another black eye for geocaching

[knowschad]

I want to know what this guy named "baklldsjdkjk3j5424823y5423h45h24k5ghk345k3g4k5hhhjvf34ghj1f3h4jg21hj3g21hjg231g21hj3" (Or something similair) is getting his information from. He has four people disagreeing with him now, I too have saw this proof in an old thread where Keystone, a reviewer, has stated the reasoning behind this rule.

 

Huh? Was that supposed to be a link to something, or what?

[+Coldgears]

I want to know what this guyis getting his information from. He has four people disagreeing with him now, I too have saw this proof in an old thread where Keystone, a reviewer, has stated the reasoning behind this rule.

 

Huh? Was that supposed to be a link to something, or what?

I was getting agitated trying to type his name. I would type some of it, press the back button memorize type and repeat. I messed up 5 times and got PO by such a ridiculus name and slammed my keyboard.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Coldgears

[knowschad]

I want to know what this guy named "baklldsjdkjk3j5424823y5423h45h24k5ghk345k3g4k5hhhjvf34ghj1f3h4jg21hj3g21hjg231g21hj3" (Or something similair) is getting his information from. He has four people disagreeing with him now, I too have saw this proof in an old thread where Keystone, a reviewer, has stated the reasoning behind this rule.

 

Huh? Was that supposed to be a link to something, or what?

I was getting agitated trying to type his name. I would type some of it, press the back button memorize type and repeat. I messed up 5 times and got PO by such a ridiculus name and slammed my keyboard.

Would you care to give it another try? Try to remember that this is not the Off-Topic forum, OK?

 

[Edit: OK, I have seen your edits. The point you were trying to make is at least a little bit clearer.]

 

 

.

Edited June 2, 2011 by knowschad

[+Coldgears]

I want to know what this guy named is getting his information from. He has four people disagreeing with him now, I too have saw this proof in an old thread where Keystone, a reviewer, has stated the reasoning behind this rule.

 

Huh? Was that supposed to be a link to something, or what?

I was getting agitated trying to type his name. I would type some of it, press the back button memorize type and repeat. I messed up 5 times and got PO by such a ridiculus name and slammed my keyboard.

Would you care to give it another try? Try to remember that this is not the Off-Topic forum, OK?

 

[Edit: OK, I have seen your edits. The point you were trying to make is at least a little bit clearer.]

 

 

.

I'm usually better at most at keeping threads in these forums from turning Off Topic, but I removed the snide comments now.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Coldgears

[GOF and Bacall]

GOF and Bacall-“They archived it because it was removed by the bomb squad.”

 

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, not just that it happened to be muggled. No matter how you look at it, the cache was in violation of Groundspeak guidelines about caches being within 150 feet of active RR tracks. You’re arguing with the guidelines trying to justify a position that is incorrect.

 

Knowschad-“ That 150 foot generalization is based upon trespassing laws. The bridge was a public byway. To be on the bridge for any other reason is not trespassing, obviously, so legally, the trespassing laws do not apply to vertical distances or that overpass (which is certainly less than 150 feet) could never have existed in the first place.”

 

Wrong, this has nothing to do with trespass laws or right of way, it is based on Groundspeak guidelines(did I mention that before?). If you want to prove otherwise, try placing a cache anywhere within 150 feet of active RR tracks and tell your reviewer truthfully what you’re doing. Any bets on their answer?

 

A word of advice. Stop digging.

[+mynetdude]

GOF and Bacall-"The point is where is the specific violation? I'd think it would fall under 'other such locations' but I'm not the reviewer."

 

The violation is clearly stated in your own quote of the guidelines where it says: "Cache is near active railroad tracks. In the United States we generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) from tracks. Other local laws may vary.

 

TaranWanderer picked up on this and is correct that it is a proximity issue, and the others who say that the cache is ok because it isn't actually on RR property are wrong. If you look at the photo from Google Earth, the cache is directly over the middle of the 3 tracks. Any location on that bridge would be in violation of the guidelines.

 

That 150 foot generalization is based upon trespassing laws. The bridge was a public byway. To be on the bridge for any other reason is not trespassing, obviously, so legally, the trespassing laws do not apply to vertical distances or that overpass (which is certainly less than 150 feet) could never have existed in the first place.

 

Edit: If there is a guideline that can be used against this cache, it would have to be what I believe used to be worded as the "terrorist target" clause, which, I think, has been reworded to:

 

Cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure including and not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, military bases, schools, hospitals, airports and other such locations.

 

I bet city municipal buildings are included as government buildings... we have lots of caches very close to government buildings if not right next to them.

[GOF and Bacall]

I couldn't find the keystone one, but I made a thread a while back SPECIFICALLY asking why the rule was. I assumed it was due to people getting hit by a train, and I received an answer by none other then palmetto.

 

I have always thought that the reason that caches aren't allowed near railroad tracks was because of the danger of a train hitting someone.

 

No, it's because there's been a conviction for criminal trespass over a cache on a railroad right of way. 150 feet is mentioned because it's a pretty standard ROW width in much of the central and western U.S.

If the right of way is narrower, and the cache owner can demonstrate that it is, a cache can be nearer.

Danger is NOT a guidelines issue.

 

Thanks CG.

[+CanadianRockies]

Wrong, this has nothing to do with trespass laws or right of way, it is based on Groundspeak guidelines(did I mention that before?). If you want to prove otherwise, try placing a cache anywhere within 150 feet of active RR tracks and tell your reviewer truthfully what you’re doing. Any bets on their answer?

I recently placed a cache that is beside a public bike path and about 15 metres from active railroad tracks. Our reviewers asked if there was a chain link fence between the cache and the tracks. There is. When I provided that information, the cache was published.

[GOF and Bacall]

Wrong, this has nothing to do with trespass laws or right of way, it is based on Groundspeak guidelines(did I mention that before?). If you want to prove otherwise, try placing a cache anywhere within 150 feet of active RR tracks and tell your reviewer truthfully what you’re doing. Any bets on their answer?

I recently placed a cache that is beside a public bike path and about 15 metres from active railroad tracks. Our reviewers asked if there was a chain link fence between the cache and the tracks. There is. When I provided that information, the cache was published.

 

That's because nobody has to trespass to find the cache.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

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, not just that it happened to be muggled.

 

The bomb squad removed the cache because they were called to the scene. Anytime the bomb squad gets called out because of a geocache, the cache gets blown up. You could have huge, blinking neon signs pointing and saying "Geocache" and they're still going to blow it up, no matter how far inside the guidelines the cache is. Groundspeak archived it as a PR move.

[+mynetdude]

It seems to me from reading the entire thread the cache was archived because the bomb squad removed it, not because of violation.

 

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). I don't think the cache being on the bridge seemed to violate the ROW rules or it wouldn't have been published assuming this reviewer isn't daft.

 

My sister lives 20ft from a RR ROW with no fence/barrier of any kind, and she has 5 children who run around, I could put a cache there but would I? No, I think its extremely dangerous and lastly its private property so I forgo caches on private property anyway. 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.

 

As I stated earlier, the cache would have been fine if some idiot wasn't daft about why it was there.

[mtbikernate]

I'm just throwing this out there...

 

The reviewer quite possibly published this based on the available information - the cache was on the pedestrian bridge. Nowhere on the cache page is it obvious that the cache is hanging beneath the bridge. There are so many micros that hang from railings that I doubt the reviewer thought twice about it.

 

My guess is that a rail worker spotted it and got nervous about potential terrorist activity, since railroads are a potential target as outlined by Homeland Security and the TSA.

[GOF and Bacall]

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, not just that it happened to be muggled.

 

The bomb squad removed the cache because they were called to the scene. Anytime the bomb squad gets called out because of a geocache, the cache gets blown up. You could have huge, blinking neon signs pointing and saying "Geocache" and they're still going to blow it up, no matter how far inside the guidelines the cache is. Groundspeak archived it as a PR move.

 

Well that and the fact that there is no cache there.

[+CanadianRockies]

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.

[GOF and Bacall]

It seems to me from reading the entire thread the cache was archived because the bomb squad removed it, not because of violation.

 

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). I don't think the cache being on the bridge seemed to violate the ROW rules or it wouldn't have been published assuming this reviewer isn't daft.

 

My sister lives 20ft from a RR ROW with no fence/barrier of any kind, and she has 5 children who run around, I could put a cache there but would I? No, I think its extremely dangerous and lastly its private property so I forgo caches on private property anyway. 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.

 

As I stated earlier, the cache would have been fine if some idiot wasn't daft about why it was there.

 

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.

[+CanadianRockies]

The Chicago tribune. That newspaper has been broadcasting geocaching in a negative way again. Like 5 times this year.

I'm not sure about the other 4 times, but it appears to me that this story was reported in a reasonably objective manner.

[+mynetdude]

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?

[+CanadianRockies]

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?

Many inactive lines are now public property. For those that are still railroad property, permission is needed, not barriers.

Edited June 2, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+sword fern]

The Chicago tribune. That newspaper has been broadcasting geocaching in a negative way again. Like 5 times this year.

I'm not sure about the other 4 times, but it appears to me that this story was reported in a reasonably objective manner.

 

Yes. This story was. It still interprets geocaching in a dangerous and risky manner.

[+tozainamboku]

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, not just that it happened to be muggled.

 

The bomb squad removed the cache because they were called to the scene. Anytime the bomb squad gets called out because of a geocache, the cache gets blown up. You could have huge, blinking neon signs pointing and saying "Geocache" and they're still going to blow it up, no matter how far inside the guidelines the cache is. Groundspeak archived it as a PR move.

 

Well that and the fact that there is no cache there.

Guidelines:

1.2.1 Select an appropriate location and container. Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public. Although your geocache will be hidden with landowner permission, concerned passersby who are unaware of geocaching may view people searching the property as suspicious. For example, a geocacher will likely be wrongly suspected of being malicious if a cache is hidden in full view of an office or apartment windows.

Containers that could be perceived as a bomb or another dangerous item should not be placed. Geocachers have received fines for such placements and as the geocache owner you are responsible for any repercussions of your cache and its placement. Groundspeak is unwilling to accept liability for individual cache placements. More details can be found in our disclaimer. To reduce the risk of your cache being perceived as dangerous by non-geocachers, and being permanently archived by Groundspeak, use common sense when selecting hiding places and containers.

1.3.3 A cache may be disabled or archived if (list is not exhaustive) one or more of the following is true. If your cache is located within one of the areas listed below and you have complied with special regulations by obtaining written permission or a permit, please explain this in a "Note to Reviewer."

(5) Cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure including and not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, military bases, schools, hospitals, airports and other such locations.

 

When the cache was published either the reviewer did not question the above sections or he got a explanation from the cache owner why these were not an issue. Sometimes the reviewer (and the cache owner) can not anticipate every issue a cache may have in the future. It may not seem that the sections apply. It is hard to predict where a cache might cause a muggle to report a suspicious object or what locations might be problematic. The list in section 1.3.3 (5) is not complete for a reason; and because it is not complete, is left to the judgement of the cache owner and the reviewer as to whether this is good place for a cache or not. Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

It is would not have been unreasonable for the reviewer to refuse the cache based on the location and how it was hidden, but not knowing the details, it is also not unreasonable for the reviewer to assume the cache was hidden in a manner that a muggle would not have viewed it as a suspicious object. I think the description said it was a clear pre-form, so it should have been easy to see what was in it. After the bomb squad was called, the reviewer had additional information that showed these sections of the guidelines apply and he archived the cache.

[+The Jester]

Anytime the bomb squad gets called out because of a geocache, the cache gets blown up. You could have huge, blinking neon signs pointing and saying "Geocache" and they're still going to blow it up, no matter how far inside the guidelines the cache is.

I know of one time the cache was NOT blown up - Bird Cage - not only didn't they blow it up, they (bomb squad) signed the log. See the 7-7-2004 note from the CO, with pictures.

[+mynetdude]

Anytime the bomb squad gets called out because of a geocache, the cache gets blown up. You could have huge, blinking neon signs pointing and saying "Geocache" and they're still going to blow it up, no matter how far inside the guidelines the cache is.

I know of one time the cache was NOT blown up - Bird Cage - not only didn't they blow it up, they (bomb squad) signed the log. See the 7-7-2004 note from the CO, with pictures.

 

Geocaching is VERY popular in that area, HQ isn't too far from there either so I would presume the Bellvue PD are quite familiar with geocaching as the whole entire area is quite saturated with caches.

 

Sure the cache itself was destroyed (not too bad!) but see they did the smart thing, Instead of wasting resources/time in blowing it up they still needed to see inside with little impact I applaud them. It PAYS to label your caches folks1

[+Manville Possum]

I wonder which site it was primarily listed on?

Had to be this one. One of the other sites have lots of volunteer reviewers.

LMAO!!!

And you've done such a wonderful job of reviewing caches you know nothing about.

 

Thank you. I'm just glad to be part of the team. We don't miss much in our reviews, even with little to go on. I would have thought this site would have done a better job, but with only one reviewer things can be missed.

[GOF and Bacall]

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, not just that it happened to be muggled.

 

The bomb squad removed the cache because they were called to the scene. Anytime the bomb squad gets called out because of a geocache, the cache gets blown up. You could have huge, blinking neon signs pointing and saying "Geocache" and they're still going to blow it up, no matter how far inside the guidelines the cache is. Groundspeak archived it as a PR move.

 

Well that and the fact that there is no cache there.

Guidelines:

1.2.1 Select an appropriate location and container. Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public. Although your geocache will be hidden with landowner permission, concerned passersby who are unaware of geocaching may view people searching the property as suspicious. For example, a geocacher will likely be wrongly suspected of being malicious if a cache is hidden in full view of an office or apartment windows.

Containers that could be perceived as a bomb or another dangerous item should not be placed. Geocachers have received fines for such placements and as the geocache owner you are responsible for any repercussions of your cache and its placement. Groundspeak is unwilling to accept liability for individual cache placements. More details can be found in our disclaimer. To reduce the risk of your cache being perceived as dangerous by non-geocachers, and being permanently archived by Groundspeak, use common sense when selecting hiding places and containers.

1.3.3 A cache may be disabled or archived if (list is not exhaustive) one or more of the following is true. If your cache is located within one of the areas listed below and you have complied with special regulations by obtaining written permission or a permit, please explain this in a "Note to Reviewer."

(5) Cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure including and not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, military bases, schools, hospitals, airports and other such locations.

 

When the cache was published either the reviewer did not question the above sections or he got a explanation from the cache owner why these were not an issue. Sometimes the reviewer (and the cache owner) can not anticipate every issue a cache may have in the future. It may not seem that the sections apply. It is hard to predict where a cache might cause a muggle to report a suspicious object or what locations might be problematic. The list in section 1.3.3 (5) is not complete for a reason; and because it is not complete, is left to the judgement of the cache owner and the reviewer as to whether this is good place for a cache or not. Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

It is would not have been unreasonable for the reviewer to refuse the cache based on the location and how it was hidden, but not knowing the details, it is also not unreasonable for the reviewer to assume the cache was hidden in a manner that a muggle would not have viewed it as a suspicious object. I think the description said it was a clear pre-form, so it should have been easy to see what was in it. After the bomb squad was called, the reviewer had additional information that showed these sections of the guidelines apply and he archived the cache.

 

Well thank you for pointing that out.

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

[+DanOCan]

...it is also not unreasonable for the reviewer to assume the cache was hidden in a manner that a muggle would not have viewed it as a suspicious object.

 

I don't think there is any manner you can hide something anymore without some muggle coming along and thinking "bomb". It's another reason why narcissa's quote in my sig line is so appropriate.

[Clan Riffster]

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!

[knowschad]

The Chicago tribune. That newspaper has been broadcasting geocaching in a negative way again. Like 5 times this year.

I'm not sure about the other 4 times, but it appears to me that this story was reported in a reasonably objective manner.

 

Yes. This story was. It still interprets geocaching in a dangerous and risky manner.

 

A little off-topic, so I will keep this brief: I was able to find four other stories about geocaching in the Chicago Tribune. Three are very favorable reports, and one mentions that it is causing issues for the Forest Service:

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-03-11/features/sc-fam-0311-geocaching-20100311_1_geocaching-scavenger-hunts

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-07-24/business/0407240170_1_geocaching-magellan-gps-police-sergeant

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-04-06/news/0604060390_1_geocaching-com-gps-receiver-longitude-and-latitude-coordinates

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-11-28/news/0311280138_1_geocaching-com-forest-hidden

[+broncobob9]

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

 

That cracks me up, too.

[knowschad]

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, not just that it happened to be muggled.

 

The bomb squad removed the cache because they were called to the scene. Anytime the bomb squad gets called out because of a geocache, the cache gets blown up. You could have huge, blinking neon signs pointing and saying "Geocache" and they're still going to blow it up, no matter how far inside the guidelines the cache is. Groundspeak archived it as a PR move.

 

Well that and the fact that there is no cache there.

Guidelines:

1.2.1 Select an appropriate location and container. Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public. Although your geocache will be hidden with landowner permission, concerned passersby who are unaware of geocaching may view people searching the property as suspicious. For example, a geocacher will likely be wrongly suspected of being malicious if a cache is hidden in full view of an office or apartment windows.

Containers that could be perceived as a bomb or another dangerous item should not be placed. Geocachers have received fines for such placements and as the geocache owner you are responsible for any repercussions of your cache and its placement. Groundspeak is unwilling to accept liability for individual cache placements. More details can be found in our disclaimer. To reduce the risk of your cache being perceived as dangerous by non-geocachers, and being permanently archived by Groundspeak, use common sense when selecting hiding places and containers.

1.3.3 A cache may be disabled or archived if (list is not exhaustive) one or more of the following is true. If your cache is located within one of the areas listed below and you have complied with special regulations by obtaining written permission or a permit, please explain this in a "Note to Reviewer."

(5) Cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure including and not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, military bases, schools, hospitals, airports and other such locations.

 

When the cache was published either the reviewer did not question the above sections or he got a explanation from the cache owner why these were not an issue. Sometimes the reviewer (and the cache owner) can not anticipate every issue a cache may have in the future. It may not seem that the sections apply. It is hard to predict where a cache might cause a muggle to report a suspicious object or what locations might be problematic. The list in section 1.3.3 (5) is not complete for a reason; and because it is not complete, is left to the judgement of the cache owner and the reviewer as to whether this is good place for a cache or not. Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

It is would not have been unreasonable for the reviewer to refuse the cache based on the location and how it was hidden, but not knowing the details, it is also not unreasonable for the reviewer to assume the cache was hidden in a manner that a muggle would not have viewed it as a suspicious object. I think the description said it was a clear pre-form, so it should have been easy to see what was in it. After the bomb squad was called, the reviewer had additional information that showed these sections of the guidelines apply and he archived the cache.

 

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.

[+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.

Ignoring safety reduces liability? Citation, please.

[knowschad]

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.

Ignoring safety reduces liability? Citation, please.

 

Policing safety implies liability. Citation has been given here by the site owners in the past.

[+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.

Ignoring safety reduces liability? Citation, please.

Policing safety implies liability. Citation has been given here by the site owners in the past.

And could you provide a link to that citation?

Edited June 2, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[knowschad]

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.

Ignoring safety reduces liability? Citation, please.

Policing safety implies liability. Citation has been given here by the site owners in the past.

And could you provide a link to that citation?

 

Nope. I will take my word for it.

 

Besides, you have already been involved in discussions regarding that issue, haven't you?

Edited June 2, 2011 by knowschad

[+t4e]

/me thinks the OP should have specified the country in the title of the thread

[+Ecylram]

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.

Ignoring safety reduces liability? Citation, please.

 

Actually, GOF is on the right track with his response. (I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.)...

 

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Wikipedia):

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230©(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

 

In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:

 

• The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."
• The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must "treat" the defendant "as the publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.
• The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.

 

Groundspeak is the "interactive computer service" and each cacher who posts a cache description is the "publisher or speaker". As long as Groundspeak is not "publisher" under this act, they enjoy immunity from liability.

 

If Groundspeak gets too involved in the creation of the cache listings (lawyers figure that part out) then they could become liable under this act. That's why "ignoring safety reduces liability" to use your phrase gives them protection.

[+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.

Ignoring safety reduces liability? Citation, please.

Policing safety implies liability. Citation has been given here by the site owners in the past.

And could you provide a link to that citation?

Nope. I will take my word for it.

 

Besides, you have already been involved in discussions regarding that issue, haven't you?

Yes, and no citations were offered then, either. No big surprise.

[+Castle Mischief]

The Chicago tribune. That newspaper has been broadcasting geocaching in a negative way again. Like 5 times this year.

I'm not sure about the other 4 times, but it appears to me that this story was reported in a reasonably objective manner.

 

I don't think calling a cache container a "device" in order to make it sound more scary is objective at all.

[+dfx]

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?

[+Flintstone5611]

I have always thought that the reason that caches aren't allowed near railroad tracks was because of the danger of a train hitting someone.

 

No, it's because there's been a conviction for criminal trespass over a cache on a railroad right of way. 150 feet is mentioned because it's a pretty standard ROW width in much of the central and western U.S.

If the right of way is narrower, and the cache owner can demonstrate that it is, a cache can be nearer.

Danger is NOT a guidelines issue.

 

That was the only reason I respected it, lol. I got one of my first caches denied because it was on a walkway underneath a suburban set of tracks. I made it clear that it was underneath, and even posted in my cache description that you had to be underneath and to not go near the (fenced off) tracks that were there. Peculiar how it is interpreted by the reviewers and then supported on appeal by Groundspeak. Oh well, in Canada at least the safety aspect of this guideline is the key factor. You can't get charged with tresspassing if you leave once asked.

[+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.

Ignoring safety reduces liability? Citation, please.

Actually, GOF is on the right track with his response. (I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.)...

 

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Wikipedia):

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230©(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

 

In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:

 

• The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."
• The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must "treat" the defendant "as the publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.
• The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.

Groundspeak is the "interactive computer service" and each cacher who posts a cache description is the "publisher or speaker". As long as Groundspeak is not "publisher" under this act, they enjoy immunity from liability.

 

If Groundspeak gets too involved in the creation of the cache listings (lawyers figure that part out) then they could become liable under this act. That's why "ignoring safety reduces liability" to use your phrase gives them protection.

This is why citations are helpful. One can read them and see if they actually say what people claim they say. In this instance, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides interactive computer services with some immunity against libel (not liability) and intellectual property issues. It has nothing to do with safety.

Edited June 2, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[knowschad]

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.

Ignoring safety reduces liability? Citation, please.

Policing safety implies liability. Citation has been given here by the site owners in the past.

And could you provide a link to that citation?

Nope. I will take my word for it.

 

Besides, you have already been involved in discussions regarding that issue, haven't you?

Yes, and no citations were offered then, either. No big surprise.

Which is exactly why I do not intend to get into this discussion with you. Have you tried contacting geocaching.com directly for a definative answer yet?

[+JBnW]

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.

Ignoring safety reduces liability? Citation, please.

Actually, GOF is on the right track with his response. (I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.)...

 

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Wikipedia):

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230©(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

 

In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:

 

• The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."
• The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must "treat" the defendant "as the publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.
• The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.

 

Groundspeak is the "interactive computer service" and each cacher who posts a cache description is the "publisher or speaker". As long as Groundspeak is not "publisher" under this act, they enjoy immunity from liability.

 

If Groundspeak gets too involved in the creation of the cache listings (lawyers figure that part out) then they could become liable under this act. That's why "ignoring safety reduces liability" to use your phrase gives them protection.

This is why citations are helpful. One can read them and see if they actually say what people claim they say. In this instance, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides interactive computer services with some immunity against libel (not liability) and intellectual property issues. It has nothing to do with safety.

Where in the world do you see the word "libel" in this link?

[+BAMBOOZLE]

We have found several around the country on these type of bridges over roadways, interstates, railroads, etc. A few where suspended by fishing line and others magnetics stuck to the structure.

The only problem we've had is the noise levels above interstates will make you sick......I can only take it a short while.

[+Ecylram]

Ignoring safety reduces liability? Citation, please.

Actually, GOF is on the right track with his response. (I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.)...

 

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Wikipedia):

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230©(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

 

In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:

 

• The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."
• The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must "treat" the defendant "as the publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.
• The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.

 

Groundspeak is the "interactive computer service" and each cacher who posts a cache description is the "publisher or speaker". As long as Groundspeak is not "publisher" under this act, they enjoy immunity from liability.

 

If Groundspeak gets too involved in the creation of the cache listings (lawyers figure that part out) then they could become liable under this act. That's why "ignoring safety reduces liability" to use your phrase gives them protection.

This is why citations are helpful. One can read them and see if they actually say what people claim they say. In this instance, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides interactive computer services with some immunity against libel (not liability) and intellectual property issues. It has nothing to do with safety.

 

Not exactly...

 

The act declares that websites meeting the criteria, which Groundspeak does, are NOT the legal publisher under the law. If you're not the publisher of the harmful content, you're not liable. From the EFF:

 

Is Section 230 limited to defamation?No. It has been used to protect intermediaries against claims of negligent misrepresentation, interference with business expectancy, breach of contract, intentional nuisance, violations of federal civil rights, and emotional distress. It protected against a state cause of action for violating a statute that forbids dealers in autographed sports items from misrepresenting those items as authentically autographed. It extends to unfair competition laws. It protected a library from being held liable for misuse of public funds, nuisance, and premises liability for providing computers allowing access to pornography.Wow, is there anything Section 230 can't do?

 

Yes. It does not apply to federal criminal law, intellectual property law, and electronic communications privacy law.

[+CanadianRockies]

Where in the world do you see the word "libel" in this link?

Do a search for "defamation."

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I got one of my first caches denied because it was on a walkway underneath a suburban set of tracks. I made it clear that it was underneath, and even posted in my cache description that you had to be underneath and to not go near the (fenced off) tracks that were there. Peculiar how it is interpreted by the reviewers and then supported on appeal by Groundspeak. Oh well, in Canada at least the safety aspect of this guideline is the key factor. You can't get charged with tresspassing if you leave once asked.

 

Could yours have been denied for the following reason:

 

1.3.3 A cache may be disabled or archived if (list is not exhaustive) one or more of the following is true. If your cache is located within one of the areas listed below and you have complied with special regulations by obtaining written permission or a permit, please explain this in a "Note to Reviewer."

(5) Cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure including and not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, military bases, schools, hospitals, airports and other such locations.

[+CanadianRockies]

The act declares that websites meeting the criteria, which Groundspeak does, are NOT the legal publisher under the law. If you're not the publisher of the harmful content, you're not liable. From the EFF:

 

Is Section 230 limited to defamation?No. It has been used to protect intermediaries against claims of negligent misrepresentation, interference with business expectancy, breach of contract, intentional nuisance, violations of federal civil rights, and emotional distress. It protected against a state cause of action for violating a statute that forbids dealers in autographed sports items from misrepresenting those items as authentically autographed. It extends to unfair competition laws. It protected a library from being held liable for misuse of public funds, nuisance, and premises liability for providing computers allowing access to pornography.Wow, is there anything Section 230 can't do?

 

Yes. It does not apply to federal criminal law, intellectual property law, and electronic communications privacy law.

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?

 

Directly from Section 230:

 

(2) Civil liability

 

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

 

A. any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

 

B. any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)[1].

 

[1] So in original. Probably should be “subparagraph (A).”

Edited June 2, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[GOF and Bacall]

If I go to an amusement park and get hurt is the newspaper that ran an advertisement for that park responsible? That is all geocaching dot com is, a place for us to advertise our caches.

 

In the end, right or wrong, Groundspeak does not make safety decisions. The reviewer Palmetto, quoted by Coldgears here, has stated that it is not about safety. You are welcome to go out and get hurt so you can become the test case. I won't stop you.

[+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.

 

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.

[Clan Riffster]

That is all geocaching dot com is, a place for us to advertise our caches.

For the most part, I agree with you. I think Groundspeak has protected themselves pretty well. Especially in light of the fact that their headquarters are located in a country known world wide for excesses in civil litigation. Ours is a sue happy nation, and considering how many cachers get injured, I would think that, if Groundspeak was not fairly well protected, they would have been sued out of existence by now. That being said, I am not an attorney. I think, if all they did was list caches that are posted by players, they would remain safe from liability. However, I also believe that every time Groundspeak increases their ownership, (for lack of a better word), of individual caches, through ever increasing guidelines, that at some point a saturation point will be reached where some jury, somewhere, will feel they are at least partially responsible for a particular injury. Time will tell.