Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
4wheelin_fool

Who owns throwdowns?

Recommended Posts

Generally it has been accepted practice that geocaches are not abandoned property, but owned by the CO. This is how the game often is described to land managers and non cachers. The owner is responsible for their property. However in the case of throw downs, who would the owner be considered to be? Does the cache owner acquire this new property by inheriting it? Or does the throw downer maintain control over it? Or is it just really abandoned property? If the CO accepts it, is it theirs? How does anyone know exactly?

 

Often throwdowns are somewhere between generous gifts meant to help cache owners and finders, and worthless garbage meant to selfishly get a find rather than a DNF, and tends to cause angst between cache owners and finders. I've found a variety which falls on both ends of the scale. Who owns it?

Share this post


Link to post

Short of all of us ponying up for a professional consulation, I'll take a shot and say that the intention of the person throwing down is to make a gift to the CO. At its best the throwdown is a gesture of appreciation to the CO and an effort to "help out." I never heard of the person going back to claim the cache. The CO decides what to do next, & remains in control with all the rights & responsibilities of cache ownership.

Share this post


Link to post

Id say the throw down is garbage and no one owns it and can be disposed of appropriately but the CO has the option to adopt the garbage as a legitimate container.

Share this post


Link to post

Id say the throw down is garbage and no one owns it and can be disposed of appropriately but the CO has the option to adopt the garbage as a legitimate container.

I thought the view of the sunset mellowed you today. Guess not. Is slipping out of the lead in your game like having a bee in your bonnet? :anibad:

Share this post


Link to post

As far as I am concerned it is rubbish, and as someone has left rubbish laying around it gets thrown in the bin. and if someone did that at one of my caches the log is deleted without explanation, they have not found my cache, so they have no right to log it.

Share this post


Link to post

It's trash. The CO left a cache there with a purpose-to be found. They also have it listed. The throwdown, is not listed, and was left only for the use of the person who left it there, rather than for future finders. You could argue that since the cacher left something to find and sign, then there consideration for others But if that truly was the case, the throwdown would be a proper cache, similar to what the original was; LnL or ammo can, or even bison tube rather then something random that was just laying around.

 

Of course if they do leave a quality cache, and the original is still there, then it's mine :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Unless the CO is aware of the throw down. I wouldn't see anyone going to maintain a throw down they replaced without the CO permission. I have replaced some and there is a couple that I have said I will maintain it like it was my own cache. One for a CO who has moved...and my throw down is a upgrade to the original version and one that I replaced for a guy that is getting older and can no longer physically make it to his hide location. I seen he loved his old cache and it has been active for many years. He stated he would try but was not physically able to get there any more. I replaced it with a cool container with cool swagg but not a ammo can like it was. Next time it needs maintenance I am planning on possibly adding a ammo can just to be cool like that.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think there would be a significant legal difference between a replacement cache placed by someone else under the direction of the CO and a throwdown placed against the CO's wishes. In either case, the intention of the person placing the container is for that container to be the cache, hence owned by the CO as much as the original container. I can't see that general disapproval of unauthorized throwdowns by multitudes of third parties changes that line of thought, so I don't think it would be within a seekers rights to pick it up and discard it as trash without the CO's approval.

 

Having said that, I can't see any CO complaining if you took a throwdown after having found the original container. So while it's perhaps not so important in practice, technically if you picked up a throwdown, you should ask the CO if he wants it.

 

I think we're all in agreement that the person placing the throwdown doesn't own it any more, but since 3rd parties don't own it any more than the throwers, one might not want to indiscriminately take throwdowns to avoid pissing someone off that was doing something quite reasonable such as the case WarNinjas describes.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see how someone doing a throw down obligates the original CO to be the owner of the throw down. If some moron throws his McDonald's take out trash in my front yard it wasn't my meal although I get stuck with cleaning it up and that only because I don't want trash in my front yard. If it there is a witness to the littering who gets the criminal citation? Me or the guy who threw it out of his car? How about someone who plants marijuana on a very remote section of my property -- does that make me the owner of the plants and subject to criminal charges? It might if there is a worn path from my house to the those plants but absent that it won't.

 

Now a property owner where a cache is located starts seeing trash -- throw downs -- that he didn't bargain for he might decide he's no longer interested in a cache on his property. This might obligate a responsible CO to do the clean up of the trash to prevent this or to even archive it to protect the property owner but that does not create ownership of someone else's trash.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think there would be a significant legal difference between a replacement cache placed by someone else under the direction of the CO and a throwdown placed against the CO's wishes. In either case, the intention of the person placing the container is for that container to be the cache, hence owned by the CO as much as the original container. I can't see that general disapproval of unauthorized throwdowns by multitudes of third parties changes that line of thought, so I don't think it would be within a seekers rights to pick it up and discard it as trash without the CO's approval.

 

Having said that, I can't see any CO complaining if you took a throwdown after having found the original container. So while it's perhaps not so important in practice, technically if you picked up a throwdown, you should ask the CO if he wants it.

 

I think we're all in agreement that the person placing the throwdown doesn't own it any more, but since 3rd parties don't own it any more than the throwers, one might not want to indiscriminately take throwdowns to avoid pissing someone off that was doing something quite reasonable such as the case WarNinjas describes.

 

If the legal situation is that the cache belongs to the owner and it's considered theft for anyone else to take it, the only logical conclusion is that the throwdown belongs to whoever threw it down and it must be considered theft for anyone else to take it, including the owner of the original cache. Arguably the only person who might be able to claim a right to remove it is the landowner, if the throwdown was placed without permission.

 

Groundspeak's rules may prohibit listing a cache within 528 feet of another cache but that wouldn't have any standing at all regarding the legal ownership of a container one particular community regards as a "throwdown". Certainly there's nothing to prohibit a person hiding a film pot just because someone else hid another container within a specified distance.

Share this post


Link to post

I honestly believe that the answer to the OP's question is completely relative to the situation.

 

If the cache has been abandoned and somebody within the community wants to keep that cache alive for one reason or another (we have one such cacher in our area), then I believe the "throwdowner" would own the cache in that situation.

 

Now if somebody throws down a cache without the cache owner's permission simply because they could not find it and claims a find on their throwdown, then it's trash for the CO to remove.

 

I'm sure there's more examples, but those are the two that immediately come to mind.

Share this post


Link to post

Id say the throw down is garbage and no one owns it and can be disposed of appropriately but the CO has the option to adopt the garbage as a legitimate container.

I add that I think that throw downers are garbage and should be CITO'd from this website. I had two over the years which I immediately deleted. Never heard back from them. Guilty conscience.

Share this post


Link to post

I honestly believe that the answer to the OP's question is completely relative to the situation.

 

If the cache has been abandoned and somebody within the community wants to keep that cache alive for one reason or another (we have one such cacher in our area), then I believe the "throwdowner" would own the cache in that situation.

 

Now if somebody throws down a cache without the cache owner's permission simply because they could not find it and claims a find on their throwdown, then it's trash for the CO to remove.

 

I'm sure there's more examples, but those are the two that immediately come to mind.

 

Why should the CO suddenly become responsible for someone else's trash when they didn't even want it left there? And if the CO is the legal owner of the cache they placed, why isn't the person placing the throwdown the legal owner of the throwdown?

Share this post


Link to post

The cache owner is responsible for the cache and any trash in the area that was left as a result of that cache being there. Therefore, whether the cache owner sees the throwdown as a replacement for the original cache container or as trash, he is responsible.

Share this post


Link to post

I honestly believe that the answer to the OP's question is completely relative to the situation.

 

If the cache has been abandoned and somebody within the community wants to keep that cache alive for one reason or another (we have one such cacher in our area), then I believe the "throwdowner" would own the cache in that situation.

 

Now if somebody throws down a cache without the cache owner's permission simply because they could not find it and claims a find on their throwdown, then it's trash for the CO to remove.

 

I'm sure there's more examples, but those are the two that immediately come to mind.

 

Why should the CO suddenly become responsible for someone else's trash when they didn't even want it left there? And if the CO is the legal owner of the cache they placed, why isn't the person placing the throwdown the legal owner of the throwdown?

For me, it's about respecting the ability to place the cache in that location. As a cache owner, I need to make sure that my cache isn't causing any decline in the area. So if cachers are damaging something, it's on me. If cachers are littering, it's on me. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

If the legal situation is that the cache belongs to the owner and it's considered theft for anyone else to take it, the only logical conclusion is that the throwdown belongs to whoever threw it down and it must be considered theft for anyone else to take it, including the owner of the original cache. Arguably the only person who might be able to claim a right to remove it is the landowner, if the throwdown was placed without permission.

I disagree. A person leaving a throwdown is clearly doing it with the intention of it replacing the original lost cache. As such, he is presenting it as a gift to the original cache's owner. As such, that cache owner has every right (and responsibility) to remove it if he does not wish it to actually be the replacement cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I honestly believe that the answer to the OP's question is completely relative to the situation.

 

If the cache has been abandoned and somebody within the community wants to keep that cache alive for one reason or another (we have one such cacher in our area), then I believe the "throwdowner" would own the cache in that situation.

 

Now if somebody throws down a cache without the cache owner's permission simply because they could not find it and claims a find on their throwdown, then it's trash for the CO to remove.

 

I'm sure there's more examples, but those are the two that immediately come to mind.

 

Why should the CO suddenly become responsible for someone else's trash when they didn't even want it left there? And if the CO is the legal owner of the cache they placed, why isn't the person placing the throwdown the legal owner of the throwdown?

For me, it's about respecting the ability to place the cache in that location. As a cache owner, I need to make sure that my cache isn't causing any decline in the area. So if cachers are damaging something, it's on me. If cachers are littering, it's on me.

 

On the contrary...it's the cachers' responsibility to ensure there is no damage or litter to the area due to their activities. Sure, you have the responsibility to not place it in a sensitive area or on a structure that might see damage...but your placing one in such a place does not absolve others who don't take appropriate care when searching.

Share this post


Link to post

I honestly believe that the answer to the OP's question is completely relative to the situation.

 

If the cache has been abandoned and somebody within the community wants to keep that cache alive for one reason or another (we have one such cacher in our area), then I believe the "throwdowner" would own the cache in that situation.

 

Now if somebody throws down a cache without the cache owner's permission simply because they could not find it and claims a find on their throwdown, then it's trash for the CO to remove.

 

I'm sure there's more examples, but those are the two that immediately come to mind.

 

Why should the CO suddenly become responsible for someone else's trash when they didn't even want it left there? And if the CO is the legal owner of the cache they placed, why isn't the person placing the throwdown the legal owner of the throwdown?

For me, it's about respecting the ability to place the cache in that location. As a cache owner, I need to make sure that my cache isn't causing any decline in the area. So if cachers are damaging something, it's on me. If cachers are littering, it's on me.

 

On the contrary...it's the cachers' responsibility to ensure there is no damage or litter to the area due to their activities. Sure, you have the responsibility to not place it in a sensitive area or on a structure that might see damage...but your placing one in such a place does not absolve others who don't take appropriate care when searching.

I didn't say that cache seekers weren't responsible for their actions. However, that doesn't absolve the cache owner of his responsiblity, either.

Share this post


Link to post

A person leaving a throwdown is clearly doing it with the intention of it replacing the original lost cache. As such, he is presenting it as a gift to the original cache's owner. As such, that cache owner has every right (and responsibility) to remove it if he does not wish it to actually be the replacement cache.

Even if the person leaving the throwdown intends it as a gift, it's not a gift if the cache owner doesn't accept the gift (and the responsibilities of such a gift).

 

And while some who leave throwdowns certainly intend for them to be gifts, it's not at all clear that everyone has such intents. One could leave an ammo can as a throwdown with the intention of reclaiming it at some future date. They might even list that ammo can on an alternative geocaching site.

Share this post


Link to post

If the legal situation is that the cache belongs to the owner and it's considered theft for anyone else to take it, the only logical conclusion is that the throwdown belongs to whoever threw it down and it must be considered theft for anyone else to take it, including the owner of the original cache. Arguably the only person who might be able to claim a right to remove it is the landowner, if the throwdown was placed without permission.

I disagree. A person leaving a throwdown is clearly doing it with the intention of it replacing the original lost cache. As such, he is presenting it as a gift to the original cache's owner. As such, that cache owner has every right (and responsibility) to remove it if he does not wish it to actually be the replacement cache.

 

+1.

Share this post


Link to post

A person leaving a throwdown is clearly doing it with the intention of it replacing the original lost cache. As such, he is presenting it as a gift to the original cache's owner. As such, that cache owner has every right (and responsibility) to remove it if he does not wish it to actually be the replacement cache.

Even if the person leaving the throwdown intends it as a gift, it's not a gift if the cache owner doesn't accept the gift (and the responsibilities of such a gift).

 

And while some who leave throwdowns certainly intend for them to be gifts, it's not at all clear that everyone has such intents. One could leave an ammo can as a throwdown with the intention of reclaiming it at some future date. They might even list that ammo can on an alternative geocaching site.

 

On one of my caches an ammo can was left as a " replacement cache "......the original was just 4 feet away. I may still have that can. :)

Share this post


Link to post

A person leaving a throwdown is clearly doing it with the intention of it replacing the original lost cache. As such, he is presenting it as a gift to the original cache's owner. As such, that cache owner has every right (and responsibility) to remove it if he does not wish it to actually be the replacement cache.

Even if the person leaving the throwdown intends it as a gift, it's not a gift if the cache owner doesn't accept the gift (and the responsibilities of such a gift).

 

And while some who leave throwdowns certainly intend for them to be gifts, it's not at all clear that everyone has such intents. One could leave an ammo can as a throwdown with the intention of reclaiming it at some future date. They might even list that ammo can on an alternative geocaching site.

 

On one of my caches an ammo can was left as a " replacement cache "......the original was just 4 feet away. I may still have that can. :)

 

Now that's a straight up gift! I guess some good can come from throwdowns.

 

Seriously though, if a cacher leaves the throwdown for the CO without permission, they're basically littering. The CO can complain that it's not their responsibility all they want, that doesn't mean the cacher that left the geo litter will go pick it up.

 

If the CO doesn't want a throwdown, they should remove it. Yes, it sucks that this becomes the CO's responsibility, but isn't that one of the reasons why throwdowns are a PITA?

Edited by Traditional Bill

Share this post


Link to post

If the legal situation is that the cache belongs to the owner and it's considered theft for anyone else to take it, the only logical conclusion is that the throwdown belongs to whoever threw it down and it must be considered theft for anyone else to take it, including the owner of the original cache. Arguably the only person who might be able to claim a right to remove it is the landowner, if the throwdown was placed without permission.

I disagree. A person leaving a throwdown is clearly doing it with the intention of it replacing the original lost cache. As such, he is presenting it as a gift to the original cache's owner. As such, that cache owner has every right (and responsibility) to remove it if he does not wish it to actually be the replacement cache.

 

So you're assuming ownership based on your belief of what their intention was? Is the person placing a throwndown intending it as a gift to the cache owner, or merely a way they can justify claiming a "find" when they didn't actually find anything? If the original cache isn't lost but the person placing the throwdown merely can't be bothered to look for it, how can it be claimed to be a gift to the cache owner when there's no way of knowing whether the cache owner's property has even gone missing or not? And if someone places a pill bottle as a throwndown when the cache was supposed to be an ammo can how can it be considered to be doing anything useful since there still isn't an ammo can to find at the location listed as hiding an ammo can?

 

If the throwndown is a like for like replacement and the original cache is missing there's at least some merit in assuming the intention is to replace a lost cache. If the original cache isn't missing, or the throwdown is nothing like the original cache, it's hard to see how anyone could claim the intention was to replace something missing because all they have done is left some litter. Dumping a takeaway container or a film pot with a scrap of paper in it clearly isn't replacing an ammo can or other decent weatherproof container using any sensible interpretation of "replacing". It would almost be like crashing your car only to find the insurance company gave you a little matchbox toy and argued they had replaced your car with another car so their responsibilities were fulfilled.

Share this post


Link to post

A person leaving a throwdown is clearly doing it with the intention of it replacing the original lost cache. As such, he is presenting it as a gift to the original cache's owner. As such, that cache owner has every right (and responsibility) to remove it if he does not wish it to actually be the replacement cache.

Even if the person leaving the throwdown intends it as a gift, it's not a gift if the cache owner doesn't accept the gift (and the responsibilities of such a gift).

 

And while some who leave throwdowns certainly intend for them to be gifts, it's not at all clear that everyone has such intents. One could leave an ammo can as a throwdown with the intention of reclaiming it at some future date. They might even list that ammo can on an alternative geocaching site.

You ungrateful bastard! If your grandma sends you a sweater you didn't want do you simply ignore it? Maybe you re-gift it. Maybe you put in the donation box. Maybe you even throw it away. But you don't say "Grandma, I don't want this sweater, take it back".

 

I think sbell111 has it right. It's your cache and your responsibility to do maintenance on it. The help center article on throwdowns makes it clear that cache owners are expected to deal with throwdowns. Those who are against any unsolicited throwdowns are happy to point out that the article tells caches owners that "as soon as they are aware of throwdowns, the physical geocache should be checked and if it is still there, the throwdown geocache should be removed."

 

You don't need to be grateful for the "gift", but you sure as heck own it.

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post

A person leaving a throwdown is clearly doing it with the intention of it replacing the original lost cache. As such, he is presenting it as a gift to the original cache's owner. As such, that cache owner has every right (and responsibility) to remove it if he does not wish it to actually be the replacement cache.

Even if the person leaving the throwdown intends it as a gift, it's not a gift if the cache owner doesn't accept the gift (and the responsibilities of such a gift).

 

And while some who leave throwdowns certainly intend for them to be gifts, it's not at all clear that everyone has such intents. One could leave an ammo can as a throwdown with the intention of reclaiming it at some future date. They might even list that ammo can on an alternative geocaching site.

You ungrateful bastard! If your grandma sends you a sweater you didn't want do you simply ignore it? Maybe you re-gift it. Maybe you put in the donation box. Maybe you even throw it away. But you don't say "Grandma, I don't want this sweater, take it back".

 

...

 

You don't need to be grateful for the "gift", but you sure as heck own it.

If anyone has any unwanted kittens or puppies, then feel free to leave them on Toz's front porch.

Share this post


Link to post

If the legal situation is that the cache belongs to the owner and it's considered theft for anyone else to take it, the only logical conclusion is that the throwdown belongs to whoever threw it down and it must be considered theft for anyone else to take it, including the owner of the original cache. Arguably the only person who might be able to claim a right to remove it is the landowner, if the throwdown was placed without permission.

I disagree. A person leaving a throwdown is clearly doing it with the intention of it replacing the original lost cache. As such, he is presenting it as a gift to the original cache's owner. As such, that cache owner has every right (and responsibility) to remove it if he does not wish it to actually be the replacement cache.

 

So you're assuming ownership based on your belief of what their intention was? Is the person placing a throwndown intending it as a gift to the cache owner, or merely a way they can justify claiming a "find" when they didn't actually find anything? If the original cache isn't lost but the person placing the throwdown merely can't be bothered to look for it, how can it be claimed to be a gift to the cache owner when there's no way of knowing whether the cache owner's property has even gone missing or not? And if someone places a pill bottle as a throwndown when the cache was supposed to be an ammo can how can it be considered to be doing anything useful since there still isn't an ammo can to find at the location listed as hiding an ammo can?

 

If the throwndown is a like for like replacement and the original cache is missing there's at least some merit in assuming the intention is to replace a lost cache. If the original cache isn't missing, or the throwdown is nothing like the original cache, it's hard to see how anyone could claim the intention was to replace something missing because all they have done is left some litter. Dumping a takeaway container or a film pot with a scrap of paper in it clearly isn't replacing an ammo can or other decent weatherproof container using any sensible interpretation of "replacing". It would almost be like crashing your car only to find the insurance company gave you a little matchbox toy and argued they had replaced your car with another car so their responsibilities were fulfilled.

I get that your just wanting to argue this for some reason, but either way it falls on the cache owner.

Share this post


Link to post

If the legal situation is that the cache belongs to the owner and it's considered theft for anyone else to take it, the only logical conclusion is that the throwdown belongs to whoever threw it down and it must be considered theft for anyone else to take it, including the owner of the original cache. Arguably the only person who might be able to claim a right to remove it is the landowner, if the throwdown was placed without permission.

I disagree. A person leaving a throwdown is clearly doing it with the intention of it replacing the original lost cache. As such, he is presenting it as a gift to the original cache's owner. As such, that cache owner has every right (and responsibility) to remove it if he does not wish it to actually be the replacement cache.

 

So you're assuming ownership based on your belief of what their intention was? Is the person placing a throwndown intending it as a gift to the cache owner, or merely a way they can justify claiming a "find" when they didn't actually find anything? If the original cache isn't lost but the person placing the throwdown merely can't be bothered to look for it, how can it be claimed to be a gift to the cache owner when there's no way of knowing whether the cache owner's property has even gone missing or not? And if someone places a pill bottle as a throwndown when the cache was supposed to be an ammo can how can it be considered to be doing anything useful since there still isn't an ammo can to find at the location listed as hiding an ammo can?

 

If the throwndown is a like for like replacement and the original cache is missing there's at least some merit in assuming the intention is to replace a lost cache. If the original cache isn't missing, or the throwdown is nothing like the original cache, it's hard to see how anyone could claim the intention was to replace something missing because all they have done is left some litter. Dumping a takeaway container or a film pot with a scrap of paper in it clearly isn't replacing an ammo can or other decent weatherproof container using any sensible interpretation of "replacing". It would almost be like crashing your car only to find the insurance company gave you a little matchbox toy and argued they had replaced your car with another car so their responsibilities were fulfilled.

I get that your just wanting to argue this for some reason, but either way it falls on the cache owner.

 

The problem comes down to the idea that Groundspeak has declared themselves unauthorised to adopt a cache without the consent of the original cache owner because the container belongs to them. So how do they then say that a second container left in a comparable spot belongs to anyone other than the person who left it there?

 

If containers don't belong to the person who left them behind then Groundspeak can allow people to adopt a cache listing with or without the original owner's consent and the discussions about what action can be taken against habitual cache thieves is pointless. If they do belong to the person who left them then removing someone else's throwdown should be considered equivalent to removing someone else's cache. It's one or the other.

Share this post


Link to post

If the legal situation is that the cache belongs to the owner and it's considered theft for anyone else to take it, the only logical conclusion is that the throwdown belongs to whoever threw it down and it must be considered theft for anyone else to take it, including the owner of the original cache. Arguably the only person who might be able to claim a right to remove it is the landowner, if the throwdown was placed without permission.

I disagree. A person leaving a throwdown is clearly doing it with the intention of it replacing the original lost cache. As such, he is presenting it as a gift to the original cache's owner. As such, that cache owner has every right (and responsibility) to remove it if he does not wish it to actually be the replacement cache.

 

So you're assuming ownership based on your belief of what their intention was? Is the person placing a throwndown intending it as a gift to the cache owner, or merely a way they can justify claiming a "find" when they didn't actually find anything? If the original cache isn't lost but the person placing the throwdown merely can't be bothered to look for it, how can it be claimed to be a gift to the cache owner when there's no way of knowing whether the cache owner's property has even gone missing or not? And if someone places a pill bottle as a throwndown when the cache was supposed to be an ammo can how can it be considered to be doing anything useful since there still isn't an ammo can to find at the location listed as hiding an ammo can?

 

If the throwndown is a like for like replacement and the original cache is missing there's at least some merit in assuming the intention is to replace a lost cache. If the original cache isn't missing, or the throwdown is nothing like the original cache, it's hard to see how anyone could claim the intention was to replace something missing because all they have done is left some litter. Dumping a takeaway container or a film pot with a scrap of paper in it clearly isn't replacing an ammo can or other decent weatherproof container using any sensible interpretation of "replacing". It would almost be like crashing your car only to find the insurance company gave you a little matchbox toy and argued they had replaced your car with another car so their responsibilities were fulfilled.

I get that your just wanting to argue this for some reason, but either way it falls on the cache owner.

 

The problem comes down to the idea that Groundspeak has declared themselves unauthorised to adopt a cache without the consent of the original cache owner because the container belongs to them. So how do they then say that a second container left in a comparable spot belongs to anyone other than the person who left it there?

 

If containers don't belong to the person who left them behind then Groundspeak can allow people to adopt a cache listing with or without the original owner's consent and the discussions about what action can be taken against habitual cache thieves is pointless. If they do belong to the person who left them then removing someone else's throwdown should be considered equivalent to removing someone else's cache. It's one or the other.

Apples and oranges, in my opinion.

 

The person leaving the throwdown clearly gave his consent, in my opinion, as throwdowns by definition are left to replace the original cache. It is the person's very intention for that container to become the cache. Therefore, it becomes the cache owner's reponsiblity to either remove or use as intended.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with Sbell111, although logically Team Tisri is correct.

 

However different scenarios may create different opinions. Suppose a bomb squad gets a call on a throwdown, and they want to hold the placer responsible. The CO might deny any responsibility of the "gift", even if they have been made aware of it. I'd say that that if the CO makes some acknowledgement of acceptance, then it's theirs. If not, then it's either litter or property of the throwdown placer.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with Sbell111, although logically Team Tisri is correct.

 

However different scenarios may create different opinions. Suppose a bomb squad gets a call on a throwdown, and they want to hold the placer responsible. The CO might deny any responsibility of the "gift", even if they have been made aware of it. I'd say that that if the CO makes some acknowledgement of acceptance, then it's theirs. If not, then it's either litter or property of the throwdown placer.

I don't think Team Tisri is logically correct because I don't believe that Groundspeak has taken a position on who own's the container (I could be wrong). The position on non-consensual adoptions is based on the idea the Groundspeak lists caches on behalf of the cache owner. As long as the cache meets the guidelines it can remain listed on Geocaching.com. When the cache fails to meet the guidelines (for example lack of owner maintenance) all Groundspeak can do is to archive the listing. There were specific issues in the past when a listing ownership was transfered without consent of the original owner, so Groundspeak decided to stop that practice.

 

The owner of a cache (listing) has agreed to do maintenance on their physical cache as well as be responsible for quality control of posts on the cache page. If someone logs that they left a throwdown, it is up to the cache owner to deal with both the log on the cache page and any extra containers that may now be at their cache site. It is possible that the person leaving the throwdown has registered their container on another site. Perhaps the throwdown has a QR code from the game who must not be named :unsure:. So there could be an issue of whether the cache owner should remove a piece in another game. I never heard of a case where someone left a throwdown to replace an Geocaching.com cache and then registered it under their own name for another game. As far as Geocaching.com is concerned, extra containers are a maintenance issue for the cache owner to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post

Great... this topic was not started by me but I replied it in another topic!

 

1. It is clear that the CO is responsible for his own listing.

 

2. The container that is placed in the location mentioned in the listing is property of the CO.

 

No doubts until this point, right?

 

3. A second player places a new container in the location mentioned by the CO.

 

Now, this is the tricky part, since the new container belongs to the second player and that player is offering it to the CO. The CO can accept the offer or not, it is his choice.

 

By accepting the offer, the property of the new container passes from the second player to the CO.

 

But if the CO doesn´t accept the offer, or doesn´t mention he accepts the offer (silence is not prof of acceptance) the new container will always belong to the second player.

 

If the CO is logging into the game and know about the new container the should, as advised by Groundspeak:

 

Our policy is that geocache owners are responsible for maintenance, so as soon as they are aware of throwdowns, the physical geocache should be checked and if it is still there, the throwdown geocache should be removed.

 

But if the CO is absent form the game, the new container will always belong to the person that placed it!

 

This is why I my opinion is that all caches that the COs are absent and new caches have been placed should be archived because the ownership of the new container is not the same as the listing! Thus, the person responsible for the listing is not responsible for the new container.

 

I am 100% against Throwdowns!!!!

Share this post


Link to post

A person leaving a throwdown is clearly doing it with the intention of it replacing the original lost cache. As such, he is presenting it as a gift to the original cache's owner. As such, that cache owner has every right (and responsibility) to remove it if he does not wish it to actually be the replacement cache.

Even if the person leaving the throwdown intends it as a gift, it's not a gift if the cache owner doesn't accept the gift (and the responsibilities of such a gift).

 

And while some who leave throwdowns certainly intend for them to be gifts, it's not at all clear that everyone has such intents. One could leave an ammo can as a throwdown with the intention of reclaiming it at some future date. They might even list that ammo can on an alternative geocaching site.

You ungrateful bastard! If your grandma sends you a sweater you didn't want do you simply ignore it? Maybe you re-gift it. Maybe you put in the donation box. Maybe you even throw it away. But you don't say "Grandma, I don't want this sweater, take it back".

 

...

 

You don't need to be grateful for the "gift", but you sure as heck own it.

If anyone has any unwanted kittens or puppies, then feel free to leave them on Toz's front porch.

 

Fact 1: Any "gift" belongs to the person who is giving the "gift" until acceptance of the gift by a second person.

Fact 2: The acceptance of the "gift" must be declared in any way. Like saying "thank you" or any other form.

Fact 3: If you refuse the "gift" the person who tried to give you the "gift" is fully responsible for it.

 

No need to talk about cats and dogs, talk about garbage...

 

Garbage belongs to the owner until it is placed in the garbage can outside your home/property (street, curb,...). From that moment on, the garbage belongs to either the municipality or the company that manages garbage because you are saying: "I don´t want this anymore" and the answer is automatic: "Ok, we want it and will take care of it". The company can forbid and sue a person from picking garbage from their garbage can. If you look closely almost all garbage cans say: "Property of...." there is a reason for that!

 

So, if I place my garbage in your house is it yours immediately? Or you have to accept it?

Share this post


Link to post

A person leaving a throwdown is clearly doing it with the intention of it replacing the original lost cache. As such, he is presenting it as a gift to the original cache's owner. As such, that cache owner has every right (and responsibility) to remove it if he does not wish it to actually be the replacement cache.

Even if the person leaving the throwdown intends it as a gift, it's not a gift if the cache owner doesn't accept the gift (and the responsibilities of such a gift).

 

And while some who leave throwdowns certainly intend for them to be gifts, it's not at all clear that everyone has such intents. One could leave an ammo can as a throwdown with the intention of reclaiming it at some future date. They might even list that ammo can on an alternative geocaching site.

You ungrateful bastard! If your grandma sends you a sweater you didn't want do you simply ignore it? Maybe you re-gift it. Maybe you put in the donation box. Maybe you even throw it away. But you don't say "Grandma, I don't want this sweater, take it back".

 

...

 

You don't need to be grateful for the "gift", but you sure as heck own it.

If anyone has any unwanted kittens or puppies, then feel free to leave them on Toz's front porch.

 

Fact 1: Any "gift" belongs to the person who is giving the "gift" until acceptance of the gift by a second person.

Fact 2: The acceptance of the "gift" must be declared in any way. Like saying "thank you" or any other form.

Fact 3: If you refuse the "gift" the person who tried to give you the "gift" is fully responsible for it.

 

No need to talk about cats and dogs, talk about garbage...

 

Garbage belongs to the owner until it is placed in the garbage can outside your home/property (street, curb,...). From that moment on, the garbage belongs to either the municipality or the company that manages garbage because you are saying: "I don´t want this anymore" and the answer is automatic: "Ok, we want it and will take care of it". The company can forbid and sue a person from picking garbage from their garbage can. If you look closely almost all garbage cans say: "Property of...." there is a reason for that!

 

So, if I place my garbage in your house is it yours immediately? Or you have to accept it?

Good analogy.

 

A homeowner is responsible for the removal of garbage from his property regardless of how it arrived. Similarly, a cache owner is responsible for any and all garbage that his cache attracted.

Share this post


Link to post

A person leaving a throwdown is clearly doing it with the intention of it replacing the original lost cache. As such, he is presenting it as a gift to the original cache's owner. As such, that cache owner has every right (and responsibility) to remove it if he does not wish it to actually be the replacement cache.

Even if the person leaving the throwdown intends it as a gift, it's not a gift if the cache owner doesn't accept the gift (and the responsibilities of such a gift).

 

And while some who leave throwdowns certainly intend for them to be gifts, it's not at all clear that everyone has such intents. One could leave an ammo can as a throwdown with the intention of reclaiming it at some future date. They might even list that ammo can on an alternative geocaching site.

You ungrateful bastard! If your grandma sends you a sweater you didn't want do you simply ignore it? Maybe you re-gift it. Maybe you put in the donation box. Maybe you even throw it away. But you don't say "Grandma, I don't want this sweater, take it back".

 

...

 

You don't need to be grateful for the "gift", but you sure as heck own it.

If anyone has any unwanted kittens or puppies, then feel free to leave them on Toz's front porch.

 

Fact 1: Any "gift" belongs to the person who is giving the "gift" until acceptance of the gift by a second person.

Fact 2: The acceptance of the "gift" must be declared in any way. Like saying "thank you" or any other form.

Fact 3: If you refuse the "gift" the person who tried to give you the "gift" is fully responsible for it.

 

No need to talk about cats and dogs, talk about garbage...

 

Garbage belongs to the owner until it is placed in the garbage can outside your home/property (street, curb,...). From that moment on, the garbage belongs to either the municipality or the company that manages garbage because you are saying: "I don´t want this anymore" and the answer is automatic: "Ok, we want it and will take care of it". The company can forbid and sue a person from picking garbage from their garbage can. If you look closely almost all garbage cans say: "Property of...." there is a reason for that!

 

So, if I place my garbage in your house is it yours immediately? Or you have to accept it?

Good analogy.

 

A homeowner is responsible for the removal of garbage from his property regardless of how it arrived. Similarly, a cache owner is responsible for any and all garbage that his cache attracted.

 

Wrong!!!! If someone else places the garbage there it is not your responsibility... Imagine that you have cameras recording that clearly show that person throwing the garbage you can sue that person!

 

Let´s install webcams in all the caches!!!!

Share this post


Link to post

A homeowner is responsible for the removal of garbage from his property regardless of how it arrived.

So if you see me dumping a couple tons of garbage onto your front yard, then you think the court will determine that you are responsible for removing that garbage and not me.

 

Think again.

Share this post


Link to post

So, if I place my garbage in your house is it yours immediately? Or you have to accept it?

I should just leave it on my porch then? If you dumped garbage at my house I might call the police to have you arrested, but I'm certainly not going to wait for you to clean it up. It's my house and my resposibility to maintain it.

 

If anyone has any unwanted kittens or puppies, then feel free to leave them on Toz's front porch.

If you abandon some kittens or puppies on my porch, sure I can say they were unsolicited and deny any responsibility. By I suspect the SPCA will not look favoriably if I just leave them to languish there. I'd probably do the responsible thing and take them to the pound :unsure:.

 

I don't mind that you see the throwdown as putrid undesirable trash. What I find disconcerting is that you will let that unwanted trash sit there with the claim that it doesn't belong to you and fail to maintain your cache. And, JPreto, that's the "rule" that Groundspeak gives in the help center article on throwndowns; or don't you follow rules anymore :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

A homeowner is responsible for the removal of garbage from his property regardless of how it arrived.

So if you see me dumping a couple tons of garbage onto your front yard, then you think the court will determine that you are responsible for removing that garbage and not me.

 

Think again.

The court may find the person guilty of illegal dumping, but the health department is going to fine you for leaving a public nuisance on your property. (Not to speak of the dead puppies).

Share this post


Link to post

A homeowner is responsible for the removal of garbage from his property regardless of how it arrived.

So if you see me dumping a couple tons of garbage onto your front yard, then you think the court will determine that you are responsible for removing that garbage and not me.

 

Think again.

The court may find the person guilty of illegal dumping, but the health department is going to fine you for leaving a public nuisance on your property.

You claim a gift becomes the property of the recipient regardless of whether or not they accept that gift. Legally, that's simply not the case.

 

If I dump a bunch of garbage in your yard, then that garbage still belongs to me even if I unilaterally declare it to be a gift. As a property owner, you have certain responsibilities, including keeping the area free of health hazards (even if you don't own the garbage). If I don't remove MY garbage that I dumped in your yard, then you will need to clear it yourself. But you can sue me for the costs of removing that garbage and restoring your yard to its original condition. Because it's still MY garbage and I'm legally responsible for it.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

A homeowner is responsible for the removal of garbage from his property regardless of how it arrived.

So if you see me dumping a couple tons of garbage onto your front yard, then you think the court will determine that you are responsible for removing that garbage and not me.

 

Think again.

The court may find the person guilty of illegal dumping, but the health department is going to fine you for leaving a public nuisance on your property.

You claim a gift becomes the property of the recipient regardless of whether or not they accept that gift. Legally, that's simply not the case.

 

If I dump a bunch of garbage in your yard, then that garbage still belongs to me even if I unilaterally declare it to be a gift. As a property owner, you have certain responsibilities, including keeping the area free of health hazards (even if you don't own the garbage). If I don't remove MY garbage that I dumped in your yard, then you will need to clear it yourself. But you can sue me for the costs of removing that garbage and restoring your yard to its original condition. Because it's still MY garbage and I'm legally responsible for it.

I don't believe that anyone is making the bolded argument. In fact, I believe that your second paragraph squares you with Toz' position as well as mine.

 

The fact is, you guys are getting too worked up about 'ownership' where the fact is that a throwdown either is the property of the cache owner (if he wants it to be) or it is abandoned property that was left as a direct result of the original cache being hidden in that location. As such, it is no different than if a cacher dropped an empty water bottle or a printed cache page at ground zero. It is the responsibility of the cache owner to make sure that it is cleaned up.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't mind that you see the throwdown as putrid undesirable trash. What I find disconcerting is that you will let that unwanted trash sit there with the claim that it doesn't belong to you and fail to maintain your cache. And, JPreto, that's the "rule" that Groundspeak gives in the help center article on throwndowns; or don't you follow rules anymore :unsure:

It's become pretty clear that some cachers believe that the help center articles, GC101, and the guidelines are hard rules right to the point where they become inconvenient. At that point, they are mere recommendations for noobs that can be ignored.

Share this post


Link to post

You [Toz] claim a gift becomes the property of the recipient regardless of whether or not they accept that gift. Legally, that's simply not the case.

I don't believe that anyone is making the bolded argument.

Here's Toz's statement that I was referring to:

 

You don't need to be grateful for the "gift", but you sure as heck own it.

Share this post


Link to post

You [Toz] claim a gift becomes the property of the recipient regardless of whether or not they accept that gift. Legally, that's simply not the case.

I don't believe that anyone is making the bolded argument.

Here's Toz's statement that I was referring to:

 

You don't need to be grateful for the "gift", but you sure as heck own it.

In my work world, 'owning' an issue means that I'm responsible for it. This, along with the fact that he used quotes around 'gift' resulted in my reading that sentence as:

 

You don't need to be grateful for the <issue>, but you sure as heck <are responsible for> it.

Share this post


Link to post

You [Toz] claim a gift becomes the property of the recipient regardless of whether or not they accept that gift. Legally, that's simply not the case.

I don't believe that anyone is making the bolded argument.

Here's Toz's statement that I was referring to:

 

You don't need to be grateful for the "gift", but you sure as heck own it.

I'll admit IANAL. I don't know what the law says about property rights when a gift is unsolicited. It may be my statement is wrong, at least in certain jurisdictions. I do find it hard to belive that one has to actively accept a gift, in particular by saying "thanks". If that were true, there is a ton of things I have that are still the property of someone else. Certainly you can actively refuse a gift but I wouldn't expect that a person leaving the throwdown is going to go back and pick it up.

 

It may be that in many jurisdictions someone leaving trash or abandoning some item has some financial responsibility to pay for the cleanup. However, that presumes you can identify the person, take them to court, and then collect on any judgment.

 

Regardless of the financial responsibility, I still believe that the property owner is responsible for maintaining the area and has the both the right and responsibility to remove any garbage. Perhaps the nit-picking wouldn't be taken so far if I ammend my statement to "You might not accept the gift, but you're responsible for dealing with the consequences."

 

Nobody argues if a property owner/land manager can remove a cache they no longer want on their property. While many geocachers would like that person to return the container (or at least any travel bugs), the truth is there isn't much you can do if the property owner chucks the whole thing in the trash. I think that a cache owner has just as much right to do the same to a throwdown.

 

I have the impression that some people simply want to shirk their responsibility because they can blame someone else.

Share this post


Link to post

It all comes to the conclusion, that throwdowns are a bad idea and simply should not be done.

 

I may use this line in other discussions as well...

Share this post


Link to post

It all comes to the conclusion, that throwdowns are a bad idea and simply should not be done.

 

I may use this line in other discussions as well...

My kind of person!!!! Lets start an Anti-Throwdown movement!!!!

Share this post


Link to post

It all comes to the conclusion, that throwdowns are a bad idea and simply should not be done.

 

I may use this line in other discussions as well...

My kind of person!!!! Lets start an Anti-Throwdown movement!!!!

 

You can accomplish that by tossing it as high in the air as possible.

Share this post


Link to post

In the case of throw downs, who would the owner be considered to be?

Most of the time, when I come across throwdown caches, the original cache owner has long left the scene, and the thrower-downer thinks that he/she is doing the community a service by renewing the cache. (I will admit to doing this a few times when I was living in one area that didn't have many caches and knew I wouldn't be staying long enough to hide many caches and would have to archive most of my hides before I left.)

 

The issue with these is that it just perpetuates the problem. If the original CO ever does log back on, they've learned a bad lesson, because now they see they can abandon their caches and someone else will suck it up and do maintenance for them. New cachers might also get this lesson and never bother to maintain their caches. And chances are that the thrower-downer isn't going to follow back up, which just puts the abandoned cache on life support for a little while longer. Better to just archive and then hide your own cache, I'd say, but perhaps that requires more commitment than most thrower-downers are willing to accept.

Share this post


Link to post

It all comes to the conclusion, that throwdowns are a bad idea and simply should not be done.

 

I may use this line in other discussions as well...

My kind of person!!!! Lets start an Anti-Throwdown movement!!!!

 

You can accomplish that by tossing it as high in the air as possible.

What goes up must come down. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

It all comes to the conclusion, that throwdowns are a bad idea and simply should not be done.

 

I may use this line in other discussions as well...

My kind of person!!!! Lets start an Anti-Throwdown movement!!!!

 

You can accomplish that by tossing it as high in the air as possible.

What goes up must come down. ;)

If you launch it straight up in the air it won't go as high as if you tossed it at a 45 degree angle away from GZ.

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...