Who owns throwdowns?

[+Traditional Bill]

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.

I suppose we can call that a "throwup", hmm?

[4wheelin_fool]

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.

I suppose we can call that a "throwup", hmm?

 

No. Technically it's just an anti throwdown movement.

[+Traditional Bill]

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.

I suppose we can call that a "throwup", hmm?

 

No. Technically it's just an anti throwdown movement.

Sounds like a fun movement. I'll bring my slingshot.

[+CanadianRockies]

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.

I can see this being true for horizontal distance, but for vertical? A little harder to believe. Certainly would be counter-intuitive.

[+SwineFlew]

I see throw downs as a way for cachers to get their "brownie points". Often they are number hogs.

 

Nothing to do with geocaching.

[4wheelin_fool]

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.

I can see this being true for horizontal distance, but for vertical? A little harder to believe. Certainly would be counter-intuitive.

 

A bullet fired from a gun would go higher if aimed straight upward. Throwing an object with your arm is different due to it being at an uncomfortable angle. It's also best to fill it with some ballast if it's a micro, such as a pill bottle or film can. I don't think it could be considered littering as the owner, whomever that may be, has already left it as litter.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

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

 

No. The throw down is not the original container and therefore under geocaching rules it is placed illegally (against geocachings rules) because the throw down owner has not sought permission for their cache to be placed. Furthermore because of this it also does not have the landowners permission to be there. Because of this it is not a legitimate geocache. Only the original CO can confirm if their cache is still in place so until that happens the throw down breaches the proximity rule as well.

 

Simple but logical.

 

Legally as in within the law of the land in the Uk, if this new container is classed as litter and they can be identified (taking this to extremes) the local authority can remove it and charge the throw down CO for removal in the same way as any fly tipper. If you drop a crisp (chips) packet in the UK and you are witnessed you can be fined.

 

The original CO cannot be held accountable for the actions of the throw down CO because they have not colluded/encouraged/or sanctioned this action. So it's all on the throw down CO as they acted on their own authority. It does not become the property of the original CO unless the throw down CO gives permission in their log to keep it and therefore it is external to the possessions of the original CO.

 

If you delete their log that is your right as it states in geocachings rules "you as the CO are responsible for any content of your listing and no responsibility will be taken by geocaching.com." But by allowing the log you are now colluding with the throw down CO and anything that arises from this act is shared between you. Worst case scenario you make a difficult hide on a bridge over a road. A magnetic nano on a railing. You hide it good. Someone (mentioning no names but it's tempting) goes to find it and misses it. Assumes it's missing and places another cache which falls down but is reachable by climbing over the railing. The next cacher comes along and "ohhhhh that's why this is so hard. No problem over I go". Falls and dies. Investigation of the details will discover who caused the problem. Extreme and unlikely but not worth the fall out.

 

Unless you have the express permission of a CO never replace a cache.

DONT log a NM if you can't find it no matter what your cache count is ( and a high roller who has been round here is a throw down king)

Delete logs created by a throw down CO and remove their cache. If they want it back they can collect it at the nearest police station like any discarded belongings of any value. Or if your feeling generous, by post.

 

The more simple something is, the easier it is. Make it complicated and you make everyone's life that bit more difficult and you could create a disaster.

[+sbell111]

Thoughts regarding that big wall of text:

 

• The proximity rule only matters if someone were to attempt to list the throwdown as a new, separate cache on GC.com.
  
• While you are correct that the owner of the original cache has no legal responsibility for the throwdown, he does have the responsibility to manage the area of his geocache and has a comittment to the land owner that the cache won't cause an issue. Litter is an issue, so the cache owner should resolve it.
  

[+TeamRabbitRun]

Thoughts regarding that big wall of text:

 

• The proximity rule only matters if someone were to attempt to list the throwdown as a new, separate cache on GC.com.
  
• While you are correct that the owner of the original cache has no legal responsibility for the throwdown, he does have the responsibility to manage the area of his geocache and has a comittment to the land owner that the cache won't cause an issue. Litter is an issue, so the cache owner should resolve it.

 

+1

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Thoughts regarding that big wall of text:

 

• The proximity rule only matters if someone were to attempt to list the throwdown as a new, separate cache on GC.com.
  
• While you are correct that the owner of the original cache has no legal responsibility for the throwdown, he does have the responsibility to manage the area of his geocache and has a comittment to the land owner that the cache won't cause an issue. Litter is an issue, so the cache owner should resolve it.
  

 

You are incorrect. The land owner is responsible for the area as he or she owns it - Law. The CO is responsible for the maintenance of the cache - geocaching terms and conditions (not a law).

 

No need for snark "wall of text". Glib responses do not the truth reveal and require concise responses within the confines of the facts while maintaining context. In short - it's needs to be a wall of text to be precise. And as you need to be precise to answer the question correctly it reauires precise detail not assumption.

 

Proximity - again incorrect because you cannot place a cache within the distance specified. But to publish a cache the container has to be in place before submission. It's being picky buuuut, if a puzzle cache is within that distance already publishing will be refused. However this relates to the normal behaviour of geocaching but the Law will use standard practice and standard practice means you use the terms and coditions and listing guidelines of geocaching.com. So as a user you would know you cannot place another cache within the specified distance no matter what the reason be it new cache or replacement.

[+sbell111]

• While you are correct that the owner of the original cache has no legal responsibility for the throwdown, he does have the responsibility to manage the area of his geocache and has a comittment to the land owner that the cache won't cause an issue. Litter is an issue, so the cache owner should resolve it.
  

You are incorrect. The land owner is responsible for the area as he or she owns it - Law. The CO is responsible for the maintenance of the cache - geocaching terms and conditions (not a law).

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out what it is that you are saying that I was incorrect about.

 

It is certainly true that a land owner has legal responsibility for his land. Nothing that I posted disputes that fact. It is also true that the cache owner has the responsibility of maintaining his cache. Part of that maintenance responsibility is to ensure that his cache isn't resulting in the area being trashed. Therefore, the cache owner must deal with any litter that his cache attracts, as explained in my post.

 

• The proximity rule only matters if someone were to attempt to list the throwdown as a new, separate cache on GC.com.
  

Proximity - again incorrect because you cannot place a cache within the distance specified. But to publish a cache the container has to be in place before submission. It's being picky buuuut, if a puzzle cache is within that distance already publishing will be refused. However this relates to the normal behaviour of geocaching but the Law will use standard practice and standard practice means you use the terms and coditions and listing guidelines of geocaching.com. So as a user you would know you cannot place another cache within the specified distance no matter what the reason be it new cache or replacement.

As I explained in the referenced post, the proximity rule only applies to caches listed on GC.com. Therefore, while the throwdown could not be listed as a new cache on GC.com, it could be listed on some other geocaching site without violating this rule. It could also be not listed anywhere and it wouldn't violate this rule. The proximity rule, therefore, cannot be repurposed to exclude throwdowns.

Edited September 11, 2014 by sbell111

[+dprovan]

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

No. The throw down is not the original container and therefore under geocaching rules it is placed illegally (against geocachings rules) because the throw down owner has not sought permission for their cache to be placed. Furthermore because of this it also does not have the landowners permission to be there. Because of this it is not a legitimate geocache. Only the original CO can confirm if their cache is still in place so until that happens the throw down breaches the proximity rule as well.

...

The original CO cannot be held accountable for the actions of the throw down CO because they have not colluded/encouraged/or sanctioned this action

....

Unless you have the express permission of a CO never replace a cache.

...

The more simple something is, the easier it is. Make it complicated and you make everyone's life that bit more difficult and you could create a disaster.

I don't have any argument about what you're saying. My take on the original question was from the point of view of a 3rd party, and that 3rd party would not be able to determine whether the CO sanctioned the action or would sanction when he learned about it. From that point of view, the 3rd party would have to assume that the replacement cache is legitimate. That doesn't prove -- or even suggest -- that the replacement actually is legitimate, and it certainly isn't meant to suggest that people should throw down caches.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

It's probably my poor explanation but it appears you are confusing law with terms and conditions. People can be prosecuted for breaches in the law and not so with terms and conditions.

 

The land owner bears full responsibility for his land. If he breaches this he may be prosecuted. Whatever the cause just for arguments sake.

 

A CO is responsible for a cache but is only burdnened by terms and conditions. No laws. So how can he be held to account for something that is not his fault. Do you see. He can't. He can only be held to account for breaching the terms and conditions of geocaching.com. Well the worst that can happen is his membership is revoked.

 

A throw down CO (for want of a better way of putting it) is in breach of the terms and conditions because they do not state he can throw down a container. So he has no right to do it. Under the terms and conditions. The Law would see him as someone who has littered an area. He has neither permission of the land owner to protect him. Nor does he have common practice to protect him (he can't say well that's what's usually done). He cannot use the terms and conditions to protect him. He does not have the permission of the CO to protect him. So the law would pursue him and him alone.

 

Geocaching would look at their terms and conditions to aportion blame. The only thing close to a don't do it would be their proximity rule. They would say the throw down CO knew there was a cache already there. So he should not have placed a new one. The throw down CO would claim he was replacing a missing cache in his defence and geocsching would ask where it states he can do that. He has no defence but the one rule he has broken all be it out of context is his knowledge that one cache cannot be placed within a specified distance of an existing cache.

 

It is a bit more complicated than that but only slightly. The land owner could pursue the CO for compensation for having another container on his land. The CO would point to the incriminating post stating "this cache was clearly missing so we replaced it for the co" and state he did not give permission for this. So the land owner has a culprit and a admission of guilt via the log and he has all he needs to take things further. If the land owner were to take legal action ( and this is pie in the sky but just for the sake of seeing the time line through), he would be forced by burden or proof to lay the blame at the throw down CO. He could state that it was the CO's fault. You can anyone can. But the facts are that ia problem arose which the landowner was not happy about and he found this extra container, classed it as litter and he has the name of the person who has admitted doing it. The terms and conditions may be called into question with regard to the CO not removing the extra cache but they are only terms and conditions. Not laws. You cannot go to jail for breaking geocaching.coms terms and conditions. Therefore you cannot be prosecuted using those specific T's & C's. If you cannot be prosecuted you cannot be held to account. If you cannot be held to account you are not at fault - the law. Lol.

 

Sorry another wall of text but you cannot explain things like this clearly in a sentence. Obviously. And it's all rubbish anyway because it would never come to that unless it went pear shaped. Best not throw down caches then you can never be in a situation where things can snowball.

[+sbell111]

I'm not sure that anyone is concerned about the legal issues as it is super unlikely that any particular 'throwdowner' is every going to be cited for for placing a replacement cache in the woods.

 

The reason that the cache owner is responsible for throwdowns is not just because the removal of such litter is covered by the maintenance requirement in the guidelines, but also because if his cache results in the area being junked up, then the landowner will demand that the cache itself is removed.

Edited September 11, 2014 by sbell111

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Well ... lol

 

Forestry comission rules state (uk only), a container may be placed using the blanket agreement as long as it follows the terms laid out in that blanket agreement. Part of that blanket agreement is that no container smaller than (I think) 10 centimetres shall be permitted. So no micros (film pots at least) or nanos. This is to protect the animal population. And it's set in stone. Not may throw downers, throw down a lock and lock it's normally always film pots. The animal population can be owned cattle including ponies sheep and cows. Well here anyway. They have a monetary value and if they choke on a throw down ... expensive. Defra (our animal legal body for farming and all sorts) will examine corpses to determine death. In case it's endemic disease.

 

But not sure what other countries legislation states.

 

As per your edit we'll be going round in circles. No land owner can legally hold an innocent to account using the law. He can only hold him to account for breach of terms and conditions. By complaint to grounspeak. Grounspeak will side with the landowner as has been proven even if they aren't the landowner in one case and the cache will be removed as you say. But no 'action' will or can be taken for littering 'junking up an area' by a landowner against a. CO because of a throwdown. Because to do so he would have to find a statute in law to prosecute. And any statute would require presentation of the facts. The facts would burden the throw down CO as the person doing the littering.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Seaglass Pirates

[+Seaglass Pirates]

... Oh sorry forgot to add that your statement began - "I'm not sure that anyone is concerned about the legal issues ..."

 

But the main post asks who owns a throw down. Property ownership is designated by Law. Therefore the Law is what we will be using to answer the question.

[+JPreto]

... Oh sorry forgot to add that your statement began - "I'm not sure that anyone is concerned about the legal issues ..."

 

But the main post asks who owns a throw down. Property ownership is designated by Law. Therefore the Law is what we will be using to answer the question.

 

Hurray... one of mine!!!!! Give me five!!!!

[+sbell111]

... Oh sorry forgot to add that your statement began - "I'm not sure that anyone is concerned about the legal issues ..."

 

But the main post asks who owns a throw down. Property ownership is designated by Law. Therefore the Law is what we will be using to answer the question.

Yes, but that is as helplful as trying to determine who actually owns a piece of litter. The ownership of a piece of litter isn't what is at legal issue. The issues become who littered and who is responsible for cleaning up that litter. That is why the thread naturally moved to those more relevant issues.

Edited September 11, 2014 by sbell111

[+DanOCan]

It's been an interesting read, that's for sure. To me, as with most caching related situations, my opinion is "It depends." Very few things in Geocaching are absolute gospel and there's almost always room for interpretation. Ask me who owns a throwdown and I'll ask you for the specifics of the situation and then I'll tell you who I think owns it in that case. Describe a different situation and I might have a completely different answer than the first time.

 

Either way, if a throwdown is left behind and the CO doesn't like it, it is up to the CO to remove it as part of regular cache maintenance. If going out to your cache to remove a throwdown (regardless of "ownership") is too much effort than perhaps cache ownership isn't really for you.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

 

Hurray... one of mine!!!!! Give me five!!!!

 

Huge apologies.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

... Oh sorry forgot to add that your statement began - "I'm not sure that anyone is concerned about the legal issues ..."

 

But the main post asks who owns a throw down. Property ownership is designated by Law. Therefore the Law is what we will be using to answer the question.

Yes, but that is as helplful as trying to determine who actually owns a piece of litter. The ownership of a piece of litter isn't what is at legal issue. The issues become who littered and who is responsible for cleaning up that litter. That is why the thread naturally moved to those more relevant issues.

 

... at the risk of repeating an already made point - no - sorry again ...

 

You admit in your post that ownership of the 'litter' new cache is the property of the throwdown CO. Now that's clear we need to convince you that it is not the responsibility of the CO to clear it away.

 

You state that under the terms and conditions it is the responsibility of the CO to clear away 'litter' from his cache site. Checking ... nothing in the terms and conditions specifying responsibility of a CO in the circumstance in the OP.

 

Maybe the listing guidelines ... apart from respect the area around your geocache we have in section 5 -

 

"Step 5 - Maintaining Your cache

Once you place the cache, it is your responsibility to maintain the cache and the area around it. You will need to return as often as you can to ensure that your cache is not impacting the area negatively, and to check that the container is in good shape.

 

Does the area look disturbed? Are visitors disrupting the landscape in any way? If you eventually have concerns about the location, remove the container and make appropriate changes to your online listing."

 

Return as often as YOU can. Not to remove any offending litter. Nothing specific. Nothing binding. Nothing legal. Just common sense as you would expect. Is it being negatively impacted - well only if you class an extra container as litter. To be litter it has to be defined as litter. That can only be done using the law which you don't permit so we are stuck with if you can do so and as often as you can. Not you must and have to or your in the poop. And certainly not because some number junky dare not log a DNF so lobbed down a spare pot. No nothing I could find to hold up to scrutiny.

[+DanOCan]

Is it being negatively impacted - well only if you class an extra container as litter. To be litter it has to be defined as litter. That can only be done using the law which you don't permit so we are stuck with if you can do so and as often as you can.

It can only be defined as litter by using the law?

 

I came across a fast food coffee cup on the ground in my local park while walking the dog last night. I deemed it as litter and treated it accordingly. Pretty sure I don't need to worry about Johnny LEO coming after me because I failed to establish proper ownership of it before tossing it in the trash.

 

If someone drops a film canister in a bush where I have a cache hidden, I can either accept the throwdown as the cache and leave it or I can deem it litter and remove it. Regardless of ownership or the law, in real life the person who left it there ain't coming back to remove it for me, even if I can find out who it was and get in contact with them.

 

The law says pedestrians have the right of way when crossing the street. Regardless, when a car hits a pedestrian it is the pedestrian who loses therefore the pedestrian should take responsibility for their safety when crossing the street. Regardless of who owns a throwdown in the eyes of the law, it is you as the CO who needs to take responsibility for what is happening to the area around your cache.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Yes of course because else it could be anything. A gift for the CO or land owner. Only an official body can decide its designation. Litter gift something else blah blah blah.

 

Besides you have missed a beat. All this assumption of who does what and when can only be enforced using something to enforce it with. And T's & C's aren't it. Neither is popular opinion in here. No it's down to the individual to decide ... "If eventually you decide" ... Section 5. Easy.

 

But do what you feel you need to do and believe what you wish. Inadvertently I've convinced myself never to leave a throw down not even to help a mate lol.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Is it being negatively impacted - well only if you class an extra container as litter. To be litter it has to be defined as litter. That can only be done using the law which you don't permit so we are stuck with if you can do so and as often as you can.

It can only be defined as litter by using the law?

 

I came across a fast food coffee cup on the ground in my local park while walking the dog last night. I deemed it as litter and treated it accordingly. Pretty sure I don't need to worry about Johnny LEO coming after me because I failed to establish proper ownership of it before tossing it in the trash.

 

If someone drops a film canister in a bush where I have a cache hidden, I can either accept the throwdown as the cache and leave it or I can deem it litter and remove it. Regardless of ownership or the law, in real life the person who left it there ain't coming back to remove it for me, even if I can find out who it was and get in contact with them.

 

The law says pedestrians have the right of way when crossing the street. Regardless, when a car hits a pedestrian it is the pedestrian who loses therefore the pedestrian should take responsibility for their safety when crossing the street. Regardless of who owns a throwdown in the eyes of the law, it is you as the CO who needs to take responsibility for what is happening to the area around your cache.

 

I agree.....I think this is what sbell has been advocating.

[+JPreto]

Is it being negatively impacted - well only if you class an extra container as litter. To be litter it has to be defined as litter. That can only be done using the law which you don't permit so we are stuck with if you can do so and as often as you can.

It can only be defined as litter by using the law?

 

I came across a fast food coffee cup on the ground in my local park while walking the dog last night. I deemed it as litter and treated it accordingly. Pretty sure I don't need to worry about Johnny LEO coming after me because I failed to establish proper ownership of it before tossing it in the trash.

 

If someone drops a film canister in a bush where I have a cache hidden, I can either accept the throwdown as the cache and leave it or I can deem it litter and remove it. Regardless of ownership or the law, in real life the person who left it there ain't coming back to remove it for me, even if I can find out who it was and get in contact with them.

 

The law says pedestrians have the right of way when crossing the street. Regardless, when a car hits a pedestrian it is the pedestrian who loses therefore the pedestrian should take responsibility for their safety when crossing the street. Regardless of who owns a throwdown in the eyes of the law, it is you as the CO who needs to take responsibility for what is happening to the area around your cache.

 

I agree.....I think this is what sbell has been advocating.

Sorry but the CO cannot say what things can and can´t be on the side of his/her geocache!!!!

 

Imagine I am not a geocacher but I am playing a game with my family that is called "seek the 35mmm tube" and I hide ten of them in my neighborhood unaware that a geocacher already placed a 35mm tube there.

 

My game is about following tracks and doesn´t involve a GPS.

 

I am allowed to play my game and all the ten 35mm pots I placed are mine! If by any chance I see the CO of the cache removing my 35mm tube because he/her thinks it is a throwdown I will be pretty mad at him... Why is he ruining my game?

 

So... really... You can´t advocate that!!!!

[+tozainamboku]

.

Edited September 11, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+DanOCan]

So... really... You can´t advocate that!!!!

Actually, I can and I just did.

 

That's the exact reason why we label our Geocaches and include stash notes -- in the hope that people who come across our little game will understand it's not litter and leave it alone. If you want to leave random things around you can pretty much assume someone will call it litter and toss it.

[+JPreto]

So... really... You can´t advocate that!!!!

Actually, I can and I just did.

 

That's the exact reason why we label our Geocaches and include stash notes -- in the hope that people who come across our little game will understand it's not litter and leave it alone. If you want to leave random things around you can pretty much assume someone will call it litter and toss it.

Great... So in the US/Canadá all geocaches are labeled, and I guess when a person places a throwdown he/she carefully labeled the cache with the GC code and owner data, right?

 

Well, in Brazil I can say that very few caches are labelled as caches... just look at my profile I take pictures of evey container I found. I would say less then 5% of the caches the I found are labeled with, at least a geocaching logo, much less the GC code or the owner data!

Edited September 11, 2014 by JPreto

[+DanOCan]

So... really... You can´t advocate that!!!!

Actually, I can and I just did.

 

That's the exact reason why we label our Geocaches and include stash notes -- in the hope that people who come across our little game will understand it's not litter and leave it alone. If you want to leave random things around you can pretty much assume someone will call it litter and toss it.

Great... So in the US/Canadá all geocaches are labeled, and I guess when a person places a throwdown he/she carefully labeled the cache with the GC code and owner data, right?

Not what I am saying at all.

 

What I am getting at is "If you are going to leave a game piece lying around in public without a label, don't be surprised if someone treats it as litter." That applies to your original cache, a throwdown cache, a discarded coffee cup, or a 35mm film canister left by your family playing their "seek the 35mmm tube" game.

[+The A-Team]

As far as most of this discussion goes, especially the parts about legal ownership, all I have to say is:

 

 

I'll sum things up for you:

A throwdown is, by definition, intended as a replacement for the cache being attempted by the seeker. If it wasn't, why would the throwdowner log a find on said cache's listing page?

 

A throwdown container is not being thrown-down as a different cache, but as a replacement for an existing cache, so guidelines like proximity have no bearing. A cache is not required to be a certain distance from itself.

 

A throwdown is not litter. It's a gift to the owner of the cache to, in the opinion of the throwdowner, "save the owner from having to go out just to replace the container". The alternate term "angel cache" is another indication of this, because the throwdowner thinks they're being an angel by taking care of perceived maintenance issues (ie. a missing container) on behalf of the owner. They feel they're just being nice.

 

I'm honestly confused how this discussion has gone on so long. It isn't a hard concept to understand.

[+sbell111]

.

Who wishes that they had read that big block of text in time? I sure do.

Edited September 11, 2014 by sbell111

[+tozainamboku]

I'm canceling my CITO event. I've become aware that the trash we were going to CITO is the property of the person who left it and since geocachers respect property rights we will not be removing someone's property.

Edited September 11, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+tozainamboku]

.

Who wishes that they had read that big block of text in time? I sure do.

That's what I get for trying to post when I'm supposed to be working

[+Seaglass Pirates]

As far as most of this discussion goes, especially the parts about legal ownership, all I have to say is:

 

 

I'll sum things up for you:

A throwdown is, by definition, intended as a replacement for the cache being attempted by the seeker. If it wasn't, why would the throwdowner log a find on said cache's listing page?

 

A throwdown container is not being thrown-down as a different cache, but as a replacement for an existing cache, so guidelines like proximity have no bearing. A cache is not required to be a certain distance from itself.

 

A throwdown is not litter. It's a gift to the owner of the cache to, in the opinion of the throwdowner, "save the owner from having to go out just to replace the container". The alternate term "angel cache" is another indication of this, because the throwdowner thinks they're being an angel by taking care of perceived maintenance issues (ie. a missing container) on behalf of the owner. They feel they're just being nice.

 

I'm honestly confused how this discussion has gone on so long. It isn't a hard concept to understand.

 

I see the thinking but out of curiosity - using who's authority are they doing this. I mean it's not legislated for anywhere on geocaching is it. So the intention of the 'angel', lol I like that, is outside of any rule or recommendation or authority. An intended gift would be the only way of avoiding ... doing wrong ... but they are not in a position, according to the lack of permission, to do it.

[+sbell111]

As far as most of this discussion goes, especially the parts about legal ownership, all I have to say is:

 

 

I'll sum things up for you:

A throwdown is, by definition, intended as a replacement for the cache being attempted by the seeker. If it wasn't, why would the throwdowner log a find on said cache's listing page?

 

A throwdown container is not being thrown-down as a different cache, but as a replacement for an existing cache, so guidelines like proximity have no bearing. A cache is not required to be a certain distance from itself.

 

A throwdown is not litter. It's a gift to the owner of the cache to, in the opinion of the throwdowner, "save the owner from having to go out just to replace the container". The alternate term "angel cache" is another indication of this, because the throwdowner thinks they're being an angel by taking care of perceived maintenance issues (ie. a missing container) on behalf of the owner. They feel they're just being nice.

 

I'm honestly confused how this discussion has gone on so long. It isn't a hard concept to understand.

 

I see the thinking but out of curiosity - using who's authority are they doing this. I mean it's not legislated for anywhere on geocaching is it. So the intention of the 'angel', lol I like that, is outside of any rule or recommendation or authority. An intended gift would be the only way of avoiding ... doing wrong ... but they are not in a position, according to the lack of permission, to do it.

free will

[+tozainamboku]

I see the thinking but out of curiosity - using who's authority are they doing this. I mean it's not legislated for anywhere on geocaching is it. So the intention of the 'angel', lol I like that, is outside of any rule or recommendation or authority. An intended gift would be the only way of avoiding ... doing wrong ... but they are not in a position, according to the lack of permission, to do it.

I used to hold the door open for ladies because I was thought it was the nice thing to do. But I got too many women complain that they didn't ask for me to do this, so I stopped.

 

It so happens there is no rule against helping out other geocachers without being asked. Some will be very happy that you cared enough to replace their likely missing cache. Other will be offended that you butted in without being asked. This is independent on whether you claim a find on the cache. Obviously you may have cache owners who are happy you helped, but are ticked off that you logged the cache as found when you did this. And others who could care less what you logged, but prefer that you asked in advance to ensure that the replacement hid met their expectation as a cache owner.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

"Free will"

 

Lol yeah like it. Please wait outside to be shot. There will be no free will talk here.

[+wmpastor]

So... really... You can´t advocate that!!!!

Actually, I can and I just did.

 

That's the exact reason why we label our Geocaches and include stash notes -- in the hope that people who come across our little game will understand it's not litter and leave it alone. If you want to leave random things around you can pretty much assume someone will call it litter and toss it.

Great... So in the US/Canadá all geocaches are labeled, and I guess when a person places a throwdown he/she carefully labeled the cache with the GC code and owner data, right?

 

Well, in Brazil I can say that very few caches are labelled as caches... just look at my profile I take pictures of evey container I found. I would say less then 5% of the caches the I found are labeled with, at least a geocaching logo, much less the GC code or the owner data!

How do the CO's feel about a photo of every cache being published?? Around here we see that as a n00bish mistake (even if GZ is not shown) in most cases because it's usually a semi-spoiler.

[+dprovan]

It's probably my poor explanation but it appears you are confusing law with terms and conditions. People can be prosecuted for breaches in the law and not so with terms and conditions.

The OP wasn't asking who should be prosecuted. He was suggesting that ownership of the cache could be considered to have changed because of the new placement. In that context, "ownership" really meant the ability to control the cache listing. I don't think he was speaking of legal ownership, and I doubt he was the slightest bit worried about liability or the property owner. But perhaps I misread it.

[+Harry Dolphin]

As far as most of this discussion goes, especially the parts about legal ownership, all I have to say is:

 

 

I'll sum things up for you:

A throwdown is, by definition, intended as a replacement for the cache being attempted by the seeker. If it wasn't, why would the throwdowner log a find on said cache's listing page?

 

A throwdown container is not being thrown-down as a different cache, but as a replacement for an existing cache, so guidelines like proximity have no bearing. A cache is not required to be a certain distance from itself.

 

A throwdown is not litter. It's a gift to the owner of the cache to, in the opinion of the throwdowner, "save the owner from having to go out just to replace the container". The alternate term "angel cache" is another indication of this, because the throwdowner thinks they're being an angel by taking care of perceived maintenance issues (ie. a missing container) on behalf of the owner. They feel they're just being nice.

 

I'm honestly confused how this discussion has gone on so long. It isn't a hard concept to understand.

 

Sarcasm appreciated.

[+CanadianRockies]

A throwdown is not litter. It's a gift to the owner of the cache to, in the opinion of the throwdowner, "save the owner from having to go out just to replace the container".

It might (or might not) be offered as a gift. And it doesn't become a gift unless it is accepted. Gifts aren't unilateral decisions.

 

Suppose an ammo can cache goes missing and the owner is no longer active. Joe Doe decides to throwdown a replacement ammo can. In his Note log, however, Joe states the ammo can is his and he reserves the right to take it back at any time. The throwdown is NOT a gift in this situation.

 

Suppose Mary Q. Public owns a cleverly hidden cache. Peter Piper fails to find the cache and leaves a throwdown. Mary declares in her cache description that she doesn't accept the throwdown. Even if Peter left the throwdown with the best of intentions, that does NOT make it a gift in this situation.

[+wmpastor]

As far as most of this discussion goes, especially the parts about legal ownership, all I have to say is:

 

 

I'll sum things up for you:

A throwdown is, by definition, intended as a replacement for the cache being attempted by the seeker. If it wasn't, why would the throwdowner log a find on said cache's listing page?

 

A throwdown container is not being thrown-down as a different cache, but as a replacement for an existing cache, so guidelines like proximity have no bearing. A cache is not required to be a certain distance from itself.

 

A throwdown is not litter. It's a gift to the owner of the cache to, in the opinion of the throwdowner, "save the owner from having to go out just to replace the container". The alternate term "angel cache" is another indication of this, because the throwdowner thinks they're being an angel by taking care of perceived maintenance issues (ie. a missing container) on behalf of the owner. They feel they're just being nice.

 

I'm honestly confused how this discussion has gone on so long. It isn't a hard concept to understand.

 

I'm also confused about why it's gone on so long. In Post #2 I said something similar:

 

 

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. 

 

[+wmpastor]

A throwdown is not litter. It's a gift to the owner of the cache to, in the opinion of the throwdowner, "save the owner from having to go out just to replace the container".

It might (or might not) be offered as a gift. And it doesn't become a gift unless it is accepted. Gifts aren't unilateral decisions.

 

Suppose an ammo can cache goes missing and the owner is no longer active. Joe Doe decides to throwdown a replacement ammo can. In his Note log, however, Joe states the ammo can is his and he reserves the right to take it back at any time. The throwdown is NOT a gift in this situation.

 

Suppose Mary Q. Public owns a cleverly hidden cache. Peter Piper fails to find the cache and leaves a throwdown. Mary declares in her cache description that she doesn't accept the throwdown. Even if Peter left the throwdown with the best of intentions, that does NOT make it a gift in this situation.

 

Mary Q. Public has every right to do that and the result is as stated. However, she'd be dumb to do so. First, given Peter's good act (& not a n00bish blunder after a 2-minute search), she'd be a bit rude. A polite "thanks for trying to help but no thanks, i'll take care of my cache" keeps the community friendly.

 

The other scenario is obviously a loan.

[+CanadianRockies]

A throwdown is not litter. It's a gift to the owner of the cache to, in the opinion of the throwdowner, "save the owner from having to go out just to replace the container".

It might (or might not) be offered as a gift. And it doesn't become a gift unless it is accepted. Gifts aren't unilateral decisions.

 

Suppose an ammo can cache goes missing and the owner is no longer active. Joe Doe decides to throwdown a replacement ammo can. In his Note log, however, Joe states the ammo can is his and he reserves the right to take it back at any time. The throwdown is NOT a gift in this situation.

 

Suppose Mary Q. Public owns a cleverly hidden cache. Peter Piper fails to find the cache and leaves a throwdown. Mary declares in her cache description that she doesn't accept the throwdown. Even if Peter left the throwdown with the best of intentions, that does NOT make it a gift in this situation.

 

Mary Q. Public has every right to do that and the result is as stated. However, she'd be dumb to do so. First, given Peter's good act (& not a n00bish blunder after a 2-minute search), she'd be a bit rude. A polite "thanks for trying to help but no thanks, i'll take care of my cache" keeps the community friendly.

 

The other scenario is obviously a loan.

It's also often a bit rude for Peter to leave the throwdown, assuming it was not approved in advance. Rather arrogant as well.

Edited September 11, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+tozainamboku]

A throwdown is not litter. It's a gift to the owner of the cache to, in the opinion of the throwdowner, "save the owner from having to go out just to replace the container".

It might (or might not) be offered as a gift. And it doesn't become a gift unless it is accepted. Gifts aren't unilateral decisions.

Gift giving is almost always a unilateral decision. After all, asking for a gift is generally considered rude and rather arrogant. Of course you can refuse a gift and a that point the giver can take it back. But just as one can refuse a gift, the giver can refuse to take it back. At that point I would say that the gift is unclaimed and unowned.

 

Suppose an ammo can cache goes missing and the owner is no longer active. Joe Doe decides to throwdown a replacement ammo can. In his Note log, however, Joe states the ammo can is his and he reserves the right to take it back at any time. The throwdown is NOT a gift in this situation.

Do you know of an example like this. I suppose that someone could leave a temporary replacement and ask the owner or someone else to return it when a permanent replacement is available. The cases where I've seen this, the temporary replacement is almost always a plastic bag and the person who left it didn't ask for the bag back.

 

Suppose Mary Q. Public owns a cleverly hidden cache. Peter Piper fails to find the cache and leaves a throwdown. Mary declares in her cache description that she doesn't accept the throwdown. Even if Peter left the throwdown with the best of intentions, that does NOT make it a gift in this situation.

Of course Mary can refuse Peter's replacement. However if that container is now interfering with her cache (because people find it instead of her cleverly hidden cache) it would seem to be in her best interest to remove the extra container. If Peter really wants it back, she can give to him or leave it at an agreed upon location where it doesn't interfere with her cache.

 

There is an awful lot of pilpul in this thread over who owns something, when the issue is really that Mary can clearly remove the throwdown if it bothers her, and in all likelihood Peter probably isn't going to make much of an issue if Mary doesn't return it.

 

However, I'll admit that when I refused a throwdown and later archive the cache, the person who left the throwdown post the following in a note on the cache page

If the next cacher going up that killer hill finds the camo'd altoid that I left there under the SPOR, as directed by the hint, I would be very grateful for you to grab it and turn it into an awesome cache somewhere.

 

It's all a game!

If I could only figure out some way to make an altoid's tin that has now been sitting a year in the environment into an awesome cache I might take her up on it.

[+Ben0w]

Something which isn't covered yet but directly answers the question in the topic, at least in my jurisdiction:

 

Litter is defined as a moveable thing, where ownership is given up - real, intentionally or by force (of law or else). The specific legal definitions are complicated and I don't dare to translate them. Just remind "giving up ownership".

 

For the case of geocaching throwdowns it would be important, if the thrower-down gives up ownership. Since this is the essential part of a throwdown ("to help out") it could be constituted as fact. Therefore, it's litter! See below for the case if someone doesn't want to give up ownership ("it's a geocache!").

 

Litter can be owned again, if someone takes ownership. That can be:

• the original cache owner by spoken/written intention (thus accepting the "gift", turning the litter in a geocache)

• the original cache owner by custom/practise, i.e. knowing about the throwdown and not doing anything for a certain period of time (details of "knowing", "custom/practise" and "time" may be settled in court, large grey area here)

• the landowner, who is not only owning the land, but responsible for it - he can take ownership of the litter just to throw it away in a legal way (see note about household litter below)

• anybody else, who volunteers to throw it away or even to make money out of it (it's litter with given up ownership, it doesn't belong to anybody!) - i.e. a CITO participant or a homeless person collecting things

• some authority, i.e. in case of dangerous goods or public interest

 

The hard part is, how the finder can determine if the person leaving the thing has given up ownership - if it's really litter or not. "Value" has to be taken in count as well, but that is hard do determine, too. This is constantly subject of a lot of ongoing court cases and depends on a lot of factors. So if in doubt, better give it to the next lost+found office. Not every jevelry is litter just because it's laying on the ground...an unmarked film pot with a wet paper inside may be (this opens the discussion up for the case, when a thrower-down leaves a box labeled "geocache, no litter" - which may lead to whole other legal interpretations about intention or not, permission issues and proximity/listing guidelines).

 

The other aspect is: the thrower-down still can be held liable for littering and compensation of removing costs. Even without having ownership (which he gave up)! Therefore the question in the thread topic doesn't quite give THE solution the original author may have in mind: it's not about possession, but about the deed. You are responsible for throwing away even if the thing doesn't belong to you (any more).

 

This works the other way round, too: There was a recent case here, where a land owner removed a cache. In court he was forced to compensate the cache owner for the loss, since the court found, the cache owner never has given up ownership. Therefore it never was litter - and it was clearly marked as such ("geocache, no litter") plus was a rather complex installation (therefore the involvement of justice, working hours taken into account gave a value of ~1000 EUR, IIRC). Even if it was not placed there with permission...(which could be another legal case but was not included here).

 

Note: for your household litter, you give up ownership, too! But you're legally responsible to have a contract with someone who takes care of it (i.e. municipality or company), thus takes over the ownership immedeately in the very moment, you give it up (i.e. the moment you give your trashcan to the garbage collection truck or throw it on their garbage heap).

 

Disclaimer: Most probably there will be a specific law including specific definitions about litter in your jurisdiction. Your local law may differ from mine cited here (Germany, Kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz in accordance with European regulation 2008/98/EG). Details in a specific case may be regulated by a court. IANAL. However, I once considered a lawyer career, so please excuse the text wall.

 

Ceterum censeo: throwdowns are a bad idea and simply should not be done.

[+geodarts]

Something which isn't covered yet but directly answers the question in the topic, at least in my jurisdiction:

 

Litter is defined as a moveable thing, where ownership is given up - real, intentionally or by force (of law or else). The specific legal definitions are complicated and I don't dare to translate them. Just remind "giving up ownership".

 

For the case of geocaching throwdowns it would be important, if the thrower-down gives up ownership. Since this is the essential part of a throwdown ("to help out") it could be constituted as fact. Therefore, it's litter! See below for the case if someone doesn't want to give up ownership ("it's a geocache!").

 

 

I don't think its a matter of law. The legal status of many caches are in doubt -- caches placed on private property (such as parking lots) without express permission; caches placed on public lands that forbid items to be left unattended for more than 12 hours without express permission; caches placed that do not comply with land manager rules. But throwdowns take it a step further. Litter is a good way to describe it.

[+CanadianRockies]

A throwdown is not litter. It's a gift to the owner of the cache to, in the opinion of the throwdowner, "save the owner from having to go out just to replace the container".

It might (or might not) be offered as a gift. And it doesn't become a gift unless it is accepted. Gifts aren't unilateral decisions.

Gift giving is almost always a unilateral decision. After all, asking for a gift is generally considered rude and rather arrogant. Of course you can refuse a gift and a that point the giver can take it back. But just as one can refuse a gift, the giver can refuse to take it back. At that point I would say that the gift is unclaimed and unowned.

Of course the act of giving a gift is unilateral. Nobody has claimed otherwise. (See straw man argument.) What I've pointed out is that a gift must be both given and accepted. As I explained, "Gifts aren't unilateral decisions."

 

And, yes, the giver could refuse to take back the item if it is declined. But refusing to take the item back doesn't eliminate the giver's responsibility for that item. If I dump a ton of garbage on your property and you refuse to accept it, then I'm still responsible for that garbage. You can hire someone to cart it off and stick me with the bill. My unilateral declaration that it's a gift doesn't make it a gift.

[+CanadianRockies]

However, I'll admit that when I refused a throwdown and later archive the cache, the person who left the throwdown post the following in a note on the cache page

If the next cacher going up that killer hill finds the camo'd altoid that I left there under the SPOR, as directed by the hint, I would be very grateful for you to grab it and turn it into an awesome cache somewhere.

In other words, someone offered you a gift, but you declined it, so it never became a gift. The person who left the throwdown is responsible for it.

[+sbell111]

However, I'll admit that when I refused a throwdown and later archive the cache, the person who left the throwdown post the following in a note on the cache page

If the next cacher going up that killer hill finds the camo'd altoid that I left there under the SPOR, as directed by the hint, I would be very grateful for you to grab it and turn it into an awesome cache somewhere.

In other words, someone offered you a gift, but you declined it, so it never became a gift. The person who left the throwdown is responsible for it.

Will you also agree that the cache owner has a responsibility for ensuring that his cache is not attracting litter and to clean up any resulting litter?