Jump to content

Legality or common sense?


user13371

Recommended Posts

If you take Geocaching Guidelines as law and also take local/state/federal ordinances into account, 99% or more of all caches should be archived.

 

Parking lots? Lamp posts and power poles? Street signs? Guard rails? Bus shelters? All are either private property or protected by various "do not tamper" or "no loitering" ordinances. Parks and other "public" lands? All managed and maintained by government agencies who might say yes or might say no to geocaching, but the majority of cache owners don't bother to ask.

 

If the description page for any cache does't explicitly say "Permission granted for this location by…" and name a person or agency who authorized it, and if reviewers aren't willing or able to check that authorization, Ithe caches should NOT be approved.

 

I suggest temporarily disabling ALL caches that do not already have this permission info in their description, and if the pages aren't updated and permissions confirmed within 45 days, the caches should not only be archived but even removed from archival viewing. If these leads to a collapse of Geocaching, well, better to be a law abiding citizen than a lawbreaking thrill seeker.

 

What do you think?

 

---

By the way, I was just kidding up there; purposely taking some reasonable ideas to absurd extremes. But I do think it's worth discussing where to draw the line between legalism and common sense. I'd be interested in hearing how some people would answer any of those objections to specific cache placements. Especially if you've ever had a placement denied (or archived) for any of those reasons. In the meantime, I'm gonna go out today and find a few caches placed without proper permission. Hope to crack 500 today.

Link to comment

If you take Geocaching Guidelines as law and also take local/state/federal ordinances into account, 99% or more of all caches should be archived.

 

Parking lots? Lamp posts and power poles? Street signs? Guard rails? Bus shelters? All are either private property or protected by various "do not tamper" or "no loitering" ordinances. Parks and other "public" lands? All managed and maintained by government agencies who might say yes or might say no to geocaching, but the majority of cache owners don't bother to ask.

 

If the description page for any cache does't explicitly say "Permission granted for this location by…" and name a person or agency who authorized it, and if reviewers aren't willing or able to check that authorization, Ithe caches should NOT be approved.

 

I suggest temporarily disabling ALL caches that do not already have this permission info in their description, and if the pages aren't updated and permissions confirmed within 45 days, the caches should not only be archived but even removed from archival viewing. If these leads to a collapse of Geocaching, well, better to be a law abiding citizen than a lawbreaking thrill seeker.

 

What do you think?

 

---

By the way, I was just kidding up there; purposely taking some reasonable ideas to absurd extremes. But I do think it's worth discussing where to draw the line between legalism and common sense. I'd be interested in hearing how some people would answer any of those objections to specific cache placements. Especially if you've ever had a placement denied (or archived) for any of those reasons. In the meantime, I'm gonna go out today and find a few caches placed without proper permission. Hope to crack 500 today.

 

When geocaching is outlawed...only outlaws will be geocaching.

Link to comment

:drama:

 

What do you think?

 

---

By the way, I was just kidding up there; purposely taking some reasonable ideas to absurd extremes. But I do think it's worth discussing where to draw the line between legalism and common sense. I'd be interested in hearing how some people would answer any of those objections to specific cache placements. Especially if you've ever had a placement denied (or archived) for any of those reasons.

 

I think most folks will have already lit their torches and be grabbing for their pitchforks before they read that last paragraph and that you will get very little of the civil discussion you say you want.

 

Fun thread for angst generation though. Pass the popcorn please. :drama:

Link to comment

:drama:

What do you think?

 

---

By the way, I was just kidding up there; purposely taking some reasonable ideas to absurd extremes. But I do think it's worth discussing where to draw the line between legalism and common sense. I'd be interested in hearing how some people would answer any of those objections to specific cache placements. Especially if you've ever had a placement denied (or archived) for any of those reasons.

 

I think most folks will have already lit their torches and be grabbing for their pitchforks before they read that last paragraph and that you will get very little of the civil discussion you say you want.

 

Fun thread for angst generation though. Pass the popcorn please. :drama:

 

torches-and-pitchforks.jpg

Link to comment

I just moved six weeks ago to Amsterdam from the USA, and one of the interesting details here is even a lame micro requires permission from the city. There are however still a TON of geocaches everywhere, albeit a lot more emphasis on puzzles and multis.

 

So hey based off of this experience if the same thing happened in the USA we would all survive somehow. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I just moved six weeks ago to Amsterdam from the USA, and one of the interesting details here is even a lame micro requires permission from the city. There are however still a TON of geocaches everywhere, albeit a lot more emphasis on puzzles and multis.

 

So hey based off of this experience if the same thing happened in the USA we would all survive somehow. :rolleyes:

 

puzzles and multis still have containers, the emphasis is not on them because of permission requirements

 

 

What do you think?

 

---

By the way, I was just kidding up there; purposely taking some reasonable ideas to absurd extremes. But I do think it's worth discussing where to draw the line between legalism and common sense. I'd be interested in hearing how some people would answer any of those objections to specific cache placements. Especially if you've ever had a placement denied (or archived) for any of those reasons. In the meantime, I'm gonna go out today and find a few caches placed without proper permission. Hope to crack 500 today.

 

didn't head over for my pitchfork but i was going to ask if you're bored

 

technically except those caches that have permission, every single one out there is on somebody's property and should acquire permission

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

 

When geocaching is outlawed...only outlaws will be geocaching.

 

When parking lot turds are outlawed, Mr. Yuck will be here saying "I told you so".

 

What was the real question? Where to draw the line? The OP has been around since 2001; I say the good old-fashioned Frisbee rule. I could play Frisbee without permission in the local town or County Park, assuming they don't have a local Geocaching policy. I could not play Frisbee in the Wal-Mart Parking lot without permission.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

What do you think?

I think your avatar looks like Gary Sinise.

 

Seriously... I wouldn't miss any of those cache types that you reference, but I do think that by banning them (or requiring explicit proof of permission for them) that you may find a domino effect begin that does start to where each and every cache hidden will require the same burden of proof, even if the land manager does not care about caches on their land, but does not wish to put that in writing. In other words, there could be some unintended consequences.

 

You still look like Gary Sinise, by the way. :D

Link to comment
If you take Geocaching Guidelines as law and also take local/state/federal ordinances into account, 99% or more of all caches should be archived.

 

Before I read the rest of your post you're going to have to convince me, and I think most geocachers, that this statement has merit. Go for it.

 

Ahhhhh.... would you believe 97% +/- 2%? :lol:

Link to comment
...Gary Sinise...

You're kidding, right? That's about as silly as my opening remark. Find me a picture of Sinise with a beard and before I will even consider if this comment has merit.

 

Seriously, that picture is off of one of my ID cards from work. Many of my co-workers think I look like our branch chief. We once swapped badges to see if security at the front desk would notice (they didn't). And I have on other ocassions mockingly imitated him -- sometimes to his face, other times not...

 

:D

Edited by Portland Cyclist
Link to comment
I just moved six weeks ago to Amsterdam from the USA, and one of the interesting details here is even a lame micro requires permission from the city. There are however still a TON of geocaches everywhere, albeit a lot more emphasis on puzzles and multis. So hey based off of this experience if the same thing happened in the USA we would all survive somehow. :rolleyes:

Good response! I admit I was posting from a US-centric, urban-cache biased point of view; it's interesting to hear what happens elsewhere. So forcing people to get permission, and the emphasis on puzzles/multies -- do you think the caches and the game itself is any more or less fun to play?

Link to comment
.

The OP has been around since 2001...

Around, but not actively caching except for the past couple of years.

 

...I say the good old-fashioned Frisbee rule....

Yeah, I like that. Simple, quotable, and it doesn't answrt the question unless people think about it. It's not so much that I care about expressed or implied permission -- but common sense should say if it's likely a constable or property owner could come along and run you off, it's probably not a good place for a cache.

 

I was on the fence about a couple of finds I made today. Or I should say the caches themselves were -- on fences, clearly INSIDE someone's property line. One of those fences was the 10' tall, barbed wire on top, surrounding vacant land owned by a business that put their signage out front. The other was on a chain link fence that ran between tow parcels in a residential neighborhood: one with a house on it, the other vacant. You had to reach into the vacant yard to grab a piece that had been added to the fence.

 

Do you call a Needs Archived on those? Send the reviewer a note? For all I know permission MIGHT have been granted, but the cache page didn't say so.

Edited by Portland Cyclist
Link to comment

My caches have adequate permission. (Actually, they have explicit permission, although there are many places around here that do not require explicit permission for caches.) I've confirmed adequate permission every time I checked the checkbox labeled "Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache."

 

I see no reason to clutter my cache listings with an additional statement regarding permission.

Link to comment
Gary Sinise, by the way. :D

You're kidding, right? That's about as silly as my opening remark. Find me a picture of Sinise with a beard and before I will even consider if this comment has merit.

 

Seriously, that picture is off of one of my ID cards from work. Many of my co-workers think I look like our branch chief. And on some occasions I have mockingly impersonated him -- sometimes to his face, other times not :D

 

I already tried to find one with a beard... couldn't (well, actually, I did, but it doesn't look like you... or him). I stand by what I said, though.

 

But that's not what you came here to talk about, is it?

Link to comment
All of our caches have been placed with permission without asking a single person. It is all implied permission, no where does it say we cannot place a cache in those spots. We were given implied permission to be there and do any legal activity at those places.

I don't quite understand this. Sounds like something I might have said to my parents when I was little.

"You never told me I *couldn't* do that!"

But you've hidden a lot of caches in a variety of areas -- would all of your placements be Frisbee safe?

Easy aphorism swiped from Mr. Yuck, he didn't tell me I couldn't.

:D

Edited by Portland Cyclist
Link to comment

I was on the fence about a couple of finds I made today. Or I should say the caches themselves were -- on fences, clearly INSIDE someone's property line. One of those fences was the 10' tall, barbed wire on top, surrounding vacant land owned by a business that put their signage out front. The other was on a chain link fence that ran between tow parcels in a residential neighborhood: one with a house on it, the other vacant. You had to reach into the vacant yard to grab a piece that had been added to the fence.

 

Do you call a Needs Archived on those? Send the reviewer a note? For all I know permission MIGHT have been granted, but the cache page didn't say so.

 

So, did you sign the log?

Link to comment
Please explain your basis for 99%.

Good challenge!

 

Admittedly from a US-centric position, where so much land is owned and/or managed, or claimed by SOMEONE, I think in principal 100% of cache placements should require permission from property owners, land managers, etc. The 99% figure is my wild uneducated guess about what percentage DON'T have any permission.

 

Might be a job for a GSAK guru to see how good my guess is. Anyone out there have a significant large cache database (several thousand) on hand, and able to query how many listings include the word "permission" or "approved" or "approval"?

Edited by Portland Cyclist
Link to comment
So, did you sign the log?

Sure, a find is a find. But I raised the question in the logs (see also GC2J5DE, GCJXWM).

 

In the past I've signed the log and then followed up with a NA log -- tacky, I know, but it made SUCH a fun picture holding the cache container up in front of the No Trespassing sign it was stuck to. Other times I'll log the find and send the reviewer a note, raising the the question in the background. It really does depend on the situation - sometimes there's no doubt about it and I feel like gotta log the NA, other times I feel okay to just sort of poke and prod around it.

Edited by Portland Cyclist
Link to comment

I was on the fence about a couple of finds I made today. Or I should say the caches themselves were -- on fences, clearly INSIDE someone's property line. One of those fences was the 10' tall, barbed wire on top, surrounding vacant land owned by a business that put their signage out front. The other was on a chain link fence that ran between tow parcels in a residential neighborhood: one with a house on it, the other vacant. You had to reach into the vacant yard to grab a piece that had been added to the fence.

 

Do you call a Needs Archived on those? Send the reviewer a note? For all I know permission MIGHT have been granted, but the cache page didn't say so.

 

So, did you sign the log?

 

Yes you did (or at least logged the find). So as I see it, You come on the forum getting all high and mighty about permission and then you find a cache that you think is questionable...and you go for it? That's really lame. And, you had the nerve to question the CO on his cache page after you decided to go for it? That's just bad form.

Link to comment
... bad form...

How would you have handled it? These are often a matter of degree, from "no problem" to "is this right?" to "nah, this CIN'T be right!" and qut e few shades In between.

 

Take the two you're gripping about here: The first one apparently inside the property line in a residential area; the other hidden inside a tall exclusion fence in an industrial park. No mention of permission on the cache page, though that latter one explicitly warms people not to try it during business hours.

 

Your call, what do you do on these?

Link to comment
... bad form...

How would you have handled it? These are often a matter of degree, from "no problem" to "is this right?" to "nah, this CIN'T be right!" and qut e few shades In between.

 

Take the two you're gripping about here: The first one apparently inside the property line in a residential area; the other hidden inside a tall exclusion fence in an industrial park. No mention of permission on the cache page, though that latter one explicitly warms people not to try it during business hours.

 

Your call, what do you do on these?

 

Walk away if the cache seems suspicious. If confronted by a property owner who confirms they don't want a cache there, then notify the CO. What struck a nerve w/ me was the notion that all COs should be made to conform so you don't have to practice common sense when making a find.

Link to comment

Your call, what do you do on these?

 

Whenever I've come across caches that appeared to be on private property or behind No Trespassing signs I have chosen not to look for those caches. I may or may not log a note about it depending on how strongly I felt about the cache's permission issues.

 

But given your OP to this thread, I'm surprised to see you logged them as well.

Link to comment

[but that goes both ways, doesn't it? Cache owners SHOULD act responsiby.

 

And it sounds like you're only offering cachers the choice of of log it, or don't log it -- and only report a problem to the cache owner (not in a log? not to the reviewer?) if confronted. You don't see any other options in between?

Edited by Portland Cyclist
Link to comment

The 99% figure is my wild uneducated guess ...

 

I completely agree with this statement. Since many of the local Regional and State Parks in my area (and a handful of City Municipalities) have documented Geocaching Policies in place, I would say the number is far smaller than 99% for my area. And before you assert it, no, I don't believe explicit permission is required for Geocache placements where an established Policy is clearly defined and available, just as I would not consider getting explicit permission for other recreational activities I take part in on Public Lands where Policies are well established.

Link to comment
Please explain your basis for 99%.

Good challenge!

 

Admittedly from a US-centric position, where so much land is owned and/or managed, or claimed by SOMEONE, I think in principal 100% of cache placements should require permission from property owners, land managers, etc. The 99% figure is my wild uneducated guess about what percentage DON'T have any permission.

 

 

A great many places now have a Geocache policy. Parks, trails, forest lands, both public and private. You do not need to ask specific permission, you just need to be sure you follow their policy.

 

I think your 99% is way over. I would guess less than 50% would be placed where permission should have been asked. Of those I would bet more than half of them are placed where the property owner doesn't care.

 

I only have one cache that I had to ask permission for, that is at a fish hatchery. All the rest of my caches fall within the policy of the property managers and I didn't need to seek permission beyond that.

 

Of course I am not sure why I would respond to this thread as I really think it is just a troll. If you believed what you are saying, Geocaching may not be for you.

Link to comment
...many of the local Regional and State Parks in my area (and a handful of City Municipalities) have documented Geocaching Policies in place, I would say the number is far smaller than 99% for my area. And before you assert it, no, I don't believe explicit permission is required for Geocache placements where an established Policy is clearly defined and available, just as I would not consider getting explicit permission for other recreational activities I take part in on Public Lands where Policies are well established.

Touchstone, I have no wild guess here - do you know what %-age of caches are placed on such public lands? I agree that where there is a published policy there would be no need to individually seek permission; but I don't have a good idea of how many and how large those are, and what portion of geocaches are within those bounds.

Edited by Portland Cyclist
Link to comment
I would guess less than 50% would be placed where permission

Indeed, we're both guessing. But my guess differs from yours is that far fewer than 50% of caches are placed within those areas. That could be my city-slicker bias. I originally wrote that opening post specifically about urban caches, but then the 99% figure seemed too LOW.

 

I'd still infer from the GC.com guidelines that any cache placed outside of public land should have explicit, individual permission -- and anything WITHIN public land would need the same kind of permission UNLESS there was a published policy on geocaching for that area.

 

So you think my 99% guess is two high and I think your <50% is too low. How would we research that without mining on GC.com's database against property maps?

Link to comment
...I really think it is just a troll...

Well, that is a tricky thing to decide. Depends what you mean by troll. Of COURSE I posted what I did, and how I did it, to elicit responses. Not for the entertainment value of angry mobs with torches and pitchforks, but because I really am interested in how people figure out what is and isn't legit here. Does it still count as being a troll if I'm genuinely interested in the answers?

Link to comment

Let's just play, and use common sense approaches. It's not possible to get permission for everything, nor should it be. Rebel against a world of inane rules and overreaching regulation. The best approach is the implied permission approach, unless you find explicit disapproval: a no trespassing sign, for example. Even as a novice, I know most if not all state & national parks have policies, and would address them if placing a cache. Excuse, me, I need to go fill out some forms so I can go place a Munzee.

Link to comment
...I really think it is just a troll...

Well, that is a tricky thing to decide. Depends what you mean by troll. Of COURSE I posted what I did, and how I did it, to elicit responses. Not for the entertainment value of angry mobs with torches and pitchforks, but because I really am interested in how people figure out what is and isn't legit here. Does it still count as being a troll if I'm genuinely interested in the answers?

 

Nope, sure doesn't. I totally agree with the approach. Learning and engaging are how we improve ourselves.

Link to comment
All of our caches have been placed with permission without asking a single person. It is all implied permission, no where does it say we cannot place a cache in those spots. We were given implied permission to be there and do any legal activity at those places.

I don't quite understand this. Sounds like something I might have said to my parents when I was little.

"You never told me I *couldn't* do that!"

But you've hidden a lot of caches in a variety of areas -- would all of your placements be Frisbee safe?

Easy aphorism swiped from Mr. Yuck, he didn't tell me I couldn't.

:D

 

As a matter of fact, Yes, ALL of our caches are Frisbee safe. Whether or not someone would be foolish enough to try and play Frisbee at some of the cache locations is another question, but they would be allowed to try if they so desired.

 

John

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...