Who owns throwdowns?

[+JPreto]

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?

No... the CO is responsible for the CONTAINER and what is INSIDE THE CONTAINER, he/she is not responsible for what is OUTSIDE THE CONTAINER... What he is responsible is for placing the cache is a location where:

 

Geocache placements do not damage, deface or destroy public or private property.

Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

Edited September 12, 2014 by JPreto

[+uxorious]

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?

 

I would not agree with that at all. I don't know how my cache would attract litter unless that litter was deliberately left. (throwdown)

 

I take no responsibility for something some other idiot does. I maintain my caches and if someone leaves a note there is a problem with the cache, I will check it out and do what needs to be done. If some lazy idiot throws a new cache down because he can't find mine, I would take less responsibility of that mess, then if you drink a beer at my cache and toss the bottle.

 

If there was a throw down at one of my caches, I would clean it up, but I would not feel I have to, or that someone else's stupid act becomes my problem.

[+sbell111]

I'm guessing that you guys must not care very much about your relationship with the land manager.

Edited September 12, 2014 by sbell111

[+dprovan]

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

...

• 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)

My claim is that throwdowns are covered by custom/practice, at least in relation to any other geocacher, even when the owner does not know about them. No doubt people against throwdown wish that weren't the case.

 

• 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)

I'm good with that. I think the OP was focused on how the ownership relates to the thrower and possibly another seeker. The relation of the property owner seems beyond the scope of the original question. (I would have thought it was relatively simple -- basically the land owner's wishes trump everything else -- but the court case you described reveals that it's more complicated than I would have expected.)

 

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

Agreed. I had to look up "ceterum censeo" in order to discover that it is ideal for my attitude towards this last point.

[+tozainamboku]

How can those who have quoted the following over and over again as some proof that Groundspeak has a "rule" against leaving throwdowns, now say that the cache owner is not responstible for removing the throwndown container?

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.

I guess it must just be a suggestion and a poor one at that because it ignores purported property law.

 

Although someone might try to leave a throwdown with the condition that I accept it as a replacement for my cache, my attitude is that I can ignore any conditions in the "gift" and do as I please with the thrown down contatiner, regardless of any of the dubious legal theories that have be proposed in this thread. And while there are laws that may prevent me from doing what I please with a box of puppies or kittens left on my porch, I could turn them over to the humane society or rescue shelter and not let them languish while I claim they are the resposibility of the person who left them.

[+JPreto]

How can those who have quoted the following over and over again as some proof that Groundspeak has a "rule" against leaving throwdowns, now say that the cache owner is not responstible for removing the throwndown container?

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.

I guess it must just be a suggestion and a poor one at that because it ignores purported property law.

 

Although someone might try to leave a throwdown with the condition that I accept it as a replacement for my cache, my attitude is that I can ignore any conditions in the "gift" and do as I please with the thrown down contatiner, regardless of any of the dubious legal theories that have be proposed in this thread. And while there are laws that may prevent me from doing what I please with a box of puppies or kittens left on my porch, I could turn them over to the humane society or rescue shelter and not let them languish while I claim they are the resposibility of the person who left them.

Basically we reach a to a conclusion that Law is above Groundspeak!!!!

 

That is:

 

1) if you choose to remove the throwdown you are accepting the gift therefore it is yours and you can do whatever you want with it, even using it as a geocache, replacing another one that was gone or just putting it on the garbage.

 

or,

 

2) you can just leave it there and say: "I didn´t put it there, it´s not mine!"

 

This is what the Law says... but Groundspeak, because the option 2) is not good for the game says what we quoted several times:

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.

 

Problem is, like the example I put before if I am playing the "find the 35mm tube" and someone thinks that that is a throwdown and removed my 35mm tube from my hideout. I can actually sue that person, accusing him from stealing!

 

So... Even tho Groundspeak suggests that the throwdown can be removed only with the confirmation that, in fact, the container is a throwdown and you are being offered a new container you cannot remove it because it isn´t yours!!!!

 

This is funny!!!!!

Edited September 12, 2014 by JPreto

[+The A-Team]

IMO, this discussion is beyond silly. Really, the answer to the original question is, "it doesn't matter". If someone throws-down on a cache of yours, do what you want with it. That's what I plan to do. I'm not going to fret about whether the container has been gifted to me or dropped as litter, I'm just going to deal with it as I see fit. If I remove it and some consider that action to be stealing someone else's property, then they can label me a thief. I suspect I'll survive, I won't be hauled off to prison, the sky will not fall, the world will not end, and I'll continue to geocache as I always have.

 

I propose a ban on philosophical discussions in these forums...

[+JPreto]

I propose a ban on philosophical discussions in these forums...

You are not forced to participate!!!! Talk to the hand....

[+SwineFlew]

I see a reviewer archived caches with throwdowns. Long line of DNF logs and all at once a found it log and the reviewer pop in and disable it!

[+Seaglass Pirates]

 

I propose a ban on philosophical discussions in these forums...

 

... not an accusation we could level at you ...

[+The A-Team]

I propose a ban on philosophical discussions in these forums...

You are not forced to participate!!!! Talk to the hand....

Agreed and I only plan to participate in discussions for which I feel I can contribute something meaningful. I only suggest the ban (lightheartedly, BTW) because of the confrontation and hard-feelings which almost always arise.

 

...now I think I'll depart this discussion to escape to the Los Angeles underground...

[+tozainamboku]

I propose a ban on philosophical discussions in these forums...

You are not forced to participate!!!! Talk to the hand....

Agreed and I only plan to participate in discussions for which I feel I can contribute something meaningful. I only suggest the ban (lightheartedly, BTW) because of the confrontation and hard-feelings which almost always arise.

 

...now I think I'll depart this discussion to escape to the Los Angeles underground...

Contributions to these sorts of discussion are like throwdowns. They're given as gifts of wisdom; but that doesn't mean anyone has to accept them. The discussions will eventually peter out when we realize that we are just talking to the hand...

Edited September 12, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+Ben0w]

Please take in account the following:

 

1. A box, left at or near the place of an existing cache, can have at least following meanings:

•• intended replacement of the cache (the real "Throwdown"), that's what we talk about here!

•• a thing the assumed thrower-down doesn't want to belong to anyone else, this could be a new geocache maybe for another listing service. That qualifies not for "Throwdown" and that's NOT what we talk about here.

 

Please don't mix that. The difference can be hard to tell and may require further investigation (a hint would be to ask the land-owner about additional permissions given). Bad if the new box is in close proximity to an existing cache (we have that in my near homezone: two small L'n'L boxes, just meters away, listed on different platforms - that constant misleads cachers, you can tell by the logs).

 

2. The question in the topic was about law (ownership), to find a legal reason to hold the thrower-down responsible, if I understood correctly. So the discussion doesn't cover other aspects much (and - technically - shouldn't to stay on-topic). But: There may be (or are) other regulations and contracts between the listing platform and the original cache owner or between him and the land owner. Plus there sure are such things as moral obligations or simple curtesy. And common sense. Such things exist... somewhere... I think... I hope...

 

Please dont mix law and moral obligation/curtesy up, either. Friendliness is optional in law.

 

3. Other laws may exist for special cases, that could be: dangerous goods, weapons, drugs, animals etc.

 

Please don't make the matter more complicated by comparing a simple film canister throw-down with a bag of kittens left at your front porch.

 

Thank you very much!

 

BTW: Don't do throwdowns.

[+tozainamboku]

 

It seems that the anti-throwdown movement, instead of following Groundspeak's recommendation that cache owners remove the throwdown, are more interested with inventing dubious legal arguments against doing anything.

 

Arguing against making owners responsible for cache maintenance is, if anything, an argument in favor of throwdowns.

Edited September 13, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+Seaglass Pirates]

 

It seems that the anti-throwdown movement, instead of following Groundspeak's recommendation that cache owners remove the throwdown, are more interested with inventing dubious legal arguments against doing anything.

 

Arguing against making owners responsible for cache maintenance is, if anything, an argument in favor of throwdowns.

 

I think inherently people want to obey laws. So I don't think it's a case of avoiding doing anything or shirking moral obligation. You have taken a snap shot of the recommendation from Groundspeak to suit your own argument earlier on in this thread. There is more to that passage from Groundspeak support which you conveniently omitted which is if you like, morally wrong and misleading ... It states at the beginning of the passage and therefore the prominent opinion and instruction from Groundspeak (which is why it comes first), that:

 

"Throwdowns are placed so the geocacher can log a find on a geocache that they couldn't find and suspect is missing. Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner as this frequently leads to multiple containers at the location and disputes about whether you found the "real" container and are entitled to log a find."

 

Never is the word used. Never replaced without the CO's permission. This is groundspeaks instruction. They go onto state what you have written as a recommendation if it does happen. But it NEVER can happen because they have stated that it must NEVER happen. Excuse capitals as using mobile device and it is restricting.

 

So when people are looking for a way to pass the responsibility to the throw down CO for anything to do with the throw down they need look no further than that statement. NEVER.

 

But if it does happen we have a right to be unhappy and deal with it as we see fit. Unless there is more instruction or recommendations. Groundspeak supply that we should check the original container and remove throwdown. This however under the law (which is our only protection against anything we are unhappy about), means that we then become the owner of the throwdown and anything that arises from that. Well it's important to know what that could mean. That's only sensible to find out. And we have Ben who has gone away and looked it up instead of guessing like many one this thread. And that states that as long as we accept this "gift" if it was intended as such, it then all becomes our problem. This could mean having to deal with an angry land owner or believe it or not - groundspeaks wrath. Because they will be obliged to deal with and angry land owner initially and Groundspeak will always refer to the law to deal with things. They have to to protect themselves.

 

So not shirking moral obligation at all but being sensible, and ensuring we are in charge of all of the facts to protect our position within the law - certainly. I mean you would not make a cache container look like a bomb if Groundspeak accidentally said that you could would you. Because you know it would be you in the wrong within the law. So if you remain within the law you are always safe. It's only sensible. Opinion is great and we all have one. But laws whilst dynamic for each situation, are final.

 

Edited to correct iPhones insistence that Ben should be called Benjamin.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Seaglass Pirates

[+Ben0w]

It seems that the anti-throwdown movement, instead of following Groundspeak's recommendation that cache owners remove the throwdown, are more interested with inventing dubious legal arguments against doing anything.

If this is directed towards me: you tend to misread things.

 

I just want to stay on-topic, which was a legal question.

 

AND I already stated, that other aspects - as morale, curtesy, guidelines & conntracts - are in play, too. That's NOT arguing against original cache owner responsibility. But first and foremost, the thrower-down is responsible for his deed. And shouldn't have done it in the first place.

 

If that was not directed towards me: please be more specific.

[+JPreto]

It seems that the anti-throwdown movement, instead of following Groundspeak's recommendation that cache owners remove the throwdown, are more interested with inventing dubious legal arguments against doing anything.

If this is directed towards me: you tend to misread things.

I feel the same way... and just starting with the guidelines, not even with what it is said in the forum!

 

I just want to stay on-topic, which was a legal question.

 

AND I already stated, that other aspects - as morale, curtesy, guidelines & conntracts - are in play, too. That's NOT arguing against original cache owner responsibility. But first and foremost, the thrower-down is responsible for his deed. And shouldn't have done it in the first place.

I guess what some of us are saying, like I said in many other topics, is that the person that places the throwdown is responsible for it. Groundspeak states that the CO is responsible for removing the throwdown and should guarantee that the cache is ok and that no other containers are in the surroundings.

 

Problem is the Law, the person that makes the throwdown is responsible for it so the CO can just say: "Not my fault that another person is placing containers around mine!" and this container can belong or not to the geocaching.com listing!

 

This means that I can be playing a different game a place a container in the same place as the CO geocache and he should not appropriate or remove my container.

 

Again, this is why it is so important to identify the container as a geocache so people don´t get lost on signing the logbook.

 

And just as a conclusion, to be on-topic, the throwdown it is owned by the person who placed it until being accepted by another person, that can be the CO, the landowner or another person that finds it and takes it, unless the person that places the throwdown clearly states that the gift is intended only for the CO, in that case, if the landowner or another person removes it, they are just stealing!

[+Ben0w]

And just as a conclusion, to be on-topic, the throwdown it is owned by the person who placed it until being accepted by another person, that can be the CO, the landowner or another person that finds it and takes it, unless the person that places the throwdown clearly states that the gift is intended only for the CO, in that case, if the landowner or another person removes it, they are just stealing!

I did explain, that most probably it's not how you describe here - the thrower-down gives up ownership and therefore is liable for littering (as the prosecuter may call it) or guideline-violation by throwdown (as Groundspeak calls it). If your point of view is based on facts, please cite them - it could be, your jurisdiction handles that otherwise than mine. But then please give sources as I did. Thank you.

 

BTW: this discussion remembers me a bit of the court scene in "Alice's Restaurant" (Song and movie, starring Arlo Guthrie). How do I get the tune out of my mind? Ah, never mind, it can stay a bit...

[+JPreto]

Ok Ben0w, I understand we are talking about different concepts here, but let me just say that I am not a lawyer so all my beliefs are based in my common sense and little knowledge I have on Laws:

 

1. Gift Someone - you propose to exchange ownership of a product;

 

2. Give up ownership - I don´t believe this exists by Law terms;

 

3. Leave and object in another person´s property - you call this littering.

 

Right?

 

In case 1. you the second person doesn´t accept the gift, the container is still yours and may be held responsible for it. This is the case I mention.

 

In case 2. as I don´t think you can´t just say: "I don´t want it anymore" you must pass the property to someone, usually by throwing it on the garbage bin, outside your door, giving the container to the municipality or a company that removes trash.

 

In case 3. is the one I think you mention. And you are right on saying that is littering because you are placing somehting is another person´s property without his permission.

 

Problem is, what if in case 3. it is a public property? Say a street... You may say you are just placing it there to hide it but it is still your property, you can even write n it: "Property of Ben0w".

 

The main problem here is the intention of the person that makes the throwdown, is he trying to gift the CO or is he just placing another container nearby so he can trick the CO? And yet again, the CO can always accept the gift or not...

 

Just give a, not so uncommon examples:

 

1. I am in a bar and can say to a friend: "look, your phone is old, have mine!" and by doing this I am trying to exchange ownership of the cellphone. If that person doesn´t accept the phone it is still my phone.

 

2. I am in a bar throw the phone on the floor and say: "Stupid phone, I don´t want it anymore" but by saying this I am not giving up ownership of the cellphone, it is still my phone until someone picks it up and keeps it for himself. If that person sees the situation he/she will say: "Are you sure you don´t want it... so can I have it". Another scenario would be if after I throw it on the floor the cleaning person found it and kept the cellphone but, if I would claim it I am sure the court would be on me and that person would be accused of stealing. So, I really think you cannot give up ownership unless someone is willing to gain the ownership of the object.

 

3. I go to a bar with my cellphone and I leave it on the bar, inside somebody else property, right? Actually I am not giving up the ownership of my cellphone, it is still mine and if I find it in the hands of someone else I may accuse that person of stealing me.

 

So... these are 3 examples, not with geocaches but with more common objects that you can relate with a geocache since the bar is a private property.

[+niraD]

Perhaps a valuable item like a cellphone is the wrong analogy. Perhaps a better analogy would be someone leaving something less valuable, like a sheet of paper, under the windshield wiper of my car.

 

Does that sheet of paper belong to me, or to the person who put it there? Or to someone else? And who is responsible for disposing of that sheet of paper properly?

 

Does it matter who left that sheet of paper? What if it's a teenage kid working to promote his favorite band? What if it's someone working for a nearby restaurant who's trying to drum up business? What if it's a parking control officer who noticed that my car had been parked longer than the time allowed in this parking lot?

[+wmpastor]

Does anyone have a prediction when we'll have a final answer on throwdowns? I'd like to make a note in my calendar (say around December 15, 2014, maybe?) when I can come back and receive full enlightenment. Serious question.

[+Ben0w]

JPreto, sorry, but your assumptions are wrong. "Giving up ownership" is legally totally possible and one basic concept of littering, but not only. You can do this by saying so ("I don't want this anymore") or by action ("throw it away in full state of mind"). What happens then is defined by the situation. It may be that you're littering if you don't throw it in a place where a new owner automatically is defined (that's often called "garbage bin"). Maybe you're selling that thing on ebay, giving it to another entity or whatever. "Giving up ownership" is a very inherent action of almost all things having to do with trade and therefore economics, so law books are full of it since ages (our formal law is based on roman law). You simply can't wipe that away with your believes.

 

So, no, your example #3 isn't my chain of arguments, therefore isn't countered by yours. And #2 does exist.

 

Examples with other entities, other settings and other things won't help much, because (in law) you have to treat the cases very individually. I could specifically tell you step by step what happens there legally, but you most probably will come up with the next example, thus ending in an infinite thread. So I won't. Please try to read about ownership issues and how they're handled in your jurisdiction. Could be fun and maybe you sometime end up as lawyer.

 

That's my best answer to the thread's topic. Case closed.

 

BTW: y'all better never place throwdowns. Thank you very much! You can get anything you want at Alice's restaurant...(fading out)...

Edited September 13, 2014 by Ben0w

[+wmpastor]

Let's not forget the all-important concept of "escheat." It means that a US state will take possession of the unclaimed or abandoned property and hold it. It holds it indefinitely, and the owner can claim it later, without any time limit, simply by presenting proof to the state that you are the rightful owner. In listed situations, a person in legally *required* to send abandoned property to the state. States maintain an online claim process, and often publish multipage ads in the newspaper listing names of people who may have a claim to escheated property:

 

Unclaimed property is both tangible and intangible property that is considered abandoned or unclaimed because someone other than the rightful owner holds the property for a designated period of time.

 

So in order to have a *complete* discussion of this subject, we need to address when someone must mail an abandoned cache to the state to retain in its "escheated property" inventory!

 

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Does anyone have a prediction when we'll have a final answer on throwdowns? I'd like to make a note in my calendar (say around December 15, 2014, maybe?) when I can come back and receive full enlightenment. Serious question.

 

Well yes in fact. Groundspeak say don't do it ever. Well the wordS they use are NEVER PERMITTED. And that can be found right here - http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=427

 

The last but explains how you can delete their log with impunity but subsequent finders should be let off if you feel kind.

 

However this exchange between Ben and Co is also interesting because the questions that "Co" are asking are precisely why the laws have come into existence.

[+Ben0w]

So in order to have a *complete* discussion of this subject, we need to address when someone must mail an abandoned cache to the state to retain in its "escheated property" inventory!

Oh I already mentioned this in my post some pages before. As you say, this can get rather complicated. Mostly it's based on value. Which is a total confusing and subjective thing anyhow. But please don't mix that up with the intentional throwdown of a ziplock baggie and a paper. Despite folklore, law has connections to reality.

 

...just around the corner from the railroadtrack...(whistling)...

[+dprovan]

I just want to stay on-topic, which was a legal question.

I think this is why there's an argument. Here's the original question:

 

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?

The key point here, as I see it, is "angst between cache owners and finders". That makes it sound like the question is about the standing of the throwdown container with respect to geocaching.com rules, not about the the ownership and responsibility of the container under the law.

[+Ben0w]

Sorry, you caught me. I checked my sources. The quote is wrong, it has to be: "...just a half a mile from the railroad track...".

 

BTW: be sure to get the full length track of the song to fit this thread (the movie is good, too). It's available on youtube.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

So in order to have a *complete* discussion of this subject, we need to address when someone must mail an abandoned cache to the state to retain in its "escheated property" inventory!

Oh I already mentioned this in my post some pages before. As you say, this can get rather complicated. Mostly it's based on value. Which is a total confusing and subjective thing anyhow. But please don't mix that up with the intentional throwdown of a ziplock baggie and a paper. Despite folklore, law has connections to reality.

 

...just around the corner from the railroadtrack...(whistling)...

 

I fail to find the continuing point in this interminable thread, so I'm going to throw down a replacement topic.

 

Boy, I like Arlo, too.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

 

....Perhaps a better analogy would be someone leaving something less valuable, like a sheet of paper, under the windshield wiper of ...

 

In a lifetime far away we delivered a lot of leaflets. There were quite a few of us. Some would deliver them ... others would deliver them into a hedge. So littering. But there were usually several hundred to cover your area. If someone delivered them into a hedge and they were subsequently found by the council it would result in a very hefty fine of (and I'm struggling to remember fully) but it was certainly over £100.00 per instance. I'm sure there was a ceiling amount but it would be low thousands at least because I remember a lad dumping them and he cost the company thousands. We dare not risk taking unused leaflets anywhere for disposal in case they went awry. So they were bonfired. I would imagine nothing has changed much in the last 25 years.

[+tozainamboku]

Does anyone have a prediction when we'll have a final answer on throwdowns? I'd like to make a note in my calendar (say around December 15, 2014, maybe?) when I can come back and receive full enlightenment. Serious question.

 

Well yes in fact. Groundspeak say don't do it ever. Well the wordS they use are NEVER PERMITTED. And that can be found right here - http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=427

 

The last but explains how you can delete their log with impunity but subsequent finders should be let off if you feel kind.

 

However this exchange between Ben and Co is also interesting because the questions that "Co" are asking are precisely why the laws have come into existence.

There have been other threads discussing the meaning of the Groundspeak help center article. This thread seem centered on some irrelevant mumbo jumbo over who owns a throwndown container and who is legally responsible to remove it.

 

That said, I had to take back something in another thread because of the statement in the Groundspeak article that "Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner ..." (BTW I don't see where it says NEVER PERMITTED - even in lowercase. Once again you can't just make up things because you want them to say that.) My opinion is that the first paragraph does not reflect Groundspeak policy but is only a explanation of what throwdowns are and why they sometimes cause issues. (I've emphasized opinion because the pilpulist will no doubt analyze the tense of the sentence and claim out it is in the imperative, Should = Must?).

 

Despite the claim by the lackey who wrote the help center article that "Throwdowns are placed so the geocacher can log a find on a geocache that they couldn't find ...", based on the interactions I've actually had when refusing "gifts", the motivation for leaving throwdowns is at least in part to help the owner with maintenace and ensure later cachers will have a cache to find. I realize some puritans are so uptight about find logs being use for anything that doesn't meet their definition of a find, they will ignore any other possibility.

 

Groundspeak is very aware that throwdowns have been a part of the game since almost the very beginning. Caches go missing for one reason or the other, and sometime cachers will help out one another - by replacing a full log sheet, adding a pencil, replacing a broken container with a new one, etc. Groundspeak knows they can't stop this from happening, and it isn't clear they have any interest one way or the other. Instead they have written a help center article that can be used to resolve disputes between cachers caused by throwdowns. You should be happy that this article allows you to delete the found log of the person who left the throwdown and encourages all cache owners to remove unwanted throwndown containers.

 

The puritan label fits. Instead of dealing with the throwdown, you wish to debate philosophical questions about responsibility, free will, and punishment, and that reminds me of Hester Prynne being made to wear a scarlet letter. You can discuss all you want who is "responsible" for the throwdown. Like Hester Prynne, people will wear your scarlet letter with pride, for they believe not just that they have done no wrong, but are that they acting in the interest of geocaching.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Well you'll just have to trust me as an English person who speaks English despite the efforts of my iPhone sometimes - that when the statement says "Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner ...", it isn't an explanation. It is a concise instruction following a definition as geroundspeak understand it. The explanation is for those who are not aware and the instruction is absolute. You can tell that because they use the word 'never'.

 

I'm sorry you don't agree with the policy ... Oh and it is policy. In the terms and conditions to which we must all adhere it states:(and I'm paraphrasing) that these terms and conditions apply to everything on their website. So instruction it is, advice it isn't and with Bens help we know the cache belongs to the throw downer. I don't really see where the confusion is. But that is the purpose of forums - to discuss and define ... stuff.

[+JPreto]

JPreto, sorry, but your assumptions are wrong. "Giving up ownership" is legally totally possible and one basic concept of littering, but not only. You can do this by saying so ("I don't want this anymore") or by action ("throw it away in full state of mind"). What happens then is defined by the situation.

I was reading the portuguese Law about ownership an it clearly states that you are responsible for your own property until some else becomes the new proprietary.

 

They even give an example that was ruled in Portugal:

 

"I person owned a building that was falling apart and the person didn´t want both the land nor the building, because in recent years taxes must be applied in both vertical and horizontal property (this means that the taxes are applied by the total area of the building, each floor, and not only the amount of constructed land, in the ground). So this guy said I don´t want it any more so I don´t have to pay the taxes. The government ruled against him saying it´s his property and he is responsible for it, taxes included!"

 

So... this is about a building, maybe about a cellphone is different... or it depends on the value of the object (which I sincerely don´t think so... but we never know). In any case, It is yours until it belongs to someone else, you can´t just say: "I don´t want to be held responsible for something that is mine so, I don´t want it anymore!".

[+GeoBain]

This reminds me of the great debate over whether or not you could be arrested for stealing caches. Maybe we need Repak to steal a few throwdowns so we can get a proper legal ruling.

[+JPreto]

This reminds me of the great debate over whether or not you could be arrested for stealing caches. Maybe we need Repak to steal a few throwdowns so we can get a proper legal ruling.

Can you put the topic in what that was debated? Thanks!

[+sbell111]

This reminds me of the great debate over whether or not you could be arrested for stealing caches. Maybe we need Repak to steal a few throwdowns so we can get a proper legal ruling.

Can you put the topic in what that was debated? Thanks!

A search will turn it up, but I have to warn you, you are not going to find the conclusion to be satisfying.

[+JPreto]

This reminds me of the great debate over whether or not you could be arrested for stealing caches. Maybe we need Repak to steal a few throwdowns so we can get a proper legal ruling.

Can you put the topic in what that was debated? Thanks!

A search will turn it up, but I have to warn you, you are not going to find the conclusion to be satisfying.

Google is better!!!!

 

http://romesentinel.com/news?newsid=20100217-141107

 

So the answer is yes... you can go to jail for stealing geocaches, so... you can go to jail for stealing any type of game related container. So, how do you know the throwdown container is a throwdown for your game or a container from another game?

 

Hahahahahaha... It seems after all that if the person that places the throwdown doesn´t mention it you cannot assume it is a throwdown in your cache or a cache from another game. This said, you should not remove the container!

[+sbell111]

This reminds me of the great debate over whether or not you could be arrested for stealing caches. Maybe we need Repak to steal a few throwdowns so we can get a proper legal ruling.

Can you put the topic in what that was debated? Thanks!

A search will turn it up, but I have to warn you, you are not going to find the conclusion to be satisfying.

Google is better!!!!

 

http://romesentinel.com/news?newsid=20100217-141107

 

So the answer is yes... you can go to jail for stealing geocaches, so... you can go to jail for stealing any type of game related container. So, how do you know the throwdown container is a throwdown for your game or a container from another game?

 

Hahahahahaha... It seems after all that if the person that places the throwdown doesn´t mention it you cannot assume it is a throwdown in your cache or a cache from another game. This said, you should not remove the container!

Two thoughts:

 

First, your logic is horribly broken. I get that you are just trying to bolster your argument, but I firmly believe that most people can tell the difference between a throw down and some other game's game piece.

 

Second, you pulled the wrong article if you are using it to conclude that a person who steals a geocache will go to jail. That article only stated that he was arrested.

[+JPreto]

Google is better!!!!

 

http://romesentinel.com/news?newsid=20100217-141107

 

So the answer is yes... you can go to jail for stealing geocaches, so... you can go to jail for stealing any type of game related container. So, how do you know the throwdown container is a throwdown for your game or a container from another game?

 

Hahahahahaha... It seems after all that if the person that places the throwdown doesn´t mention it you cannot assume it is a throwdown in your cache or a cache from another game. This said, you should not remove the container!

Two thoughts:

 

First, your logic is horribly broken. I get that you are just trying to bolster your argument, but I firmly believe that most people can tell the difference between a throw down and some other game's game piece.

 

Second, you pulled the wrong article if you are using it to conclude that a person who steals a geocache will go to jail. That article only stated that he was arrested.

 

First... read the link fully, but here is a quote just for you:

 

Bates said Repak is charged with petty larceny and fifth-degree possession of stolen property. He was released after posting $100 cash bail, and is scheduled to appear in City Court.

 

Second, BUSTED!!!!!!

[+GeoBain]

This reminds me of the great debate over whether or not you could be arrested for stealing caches. Maybe we need Repak to steal a few throwdowns so we can get a proper legal ruling.

Can you put the topic in what that was debated? Thanks!

A search will turn it up, but I have to warn you, you are not going to find the conclusion to be satisfying.

Google is better!!!!

 

http://romesentinel.com/news?newsid=20100217-141107

 

So the answer is yes... you can go to jail for stealing geocaches, so... you can go to jail for stealing any type of game related container. So, how do you know the throwdown container is a throwdown for your game or a container from another game?

 

Hahahahahaha... It seems after all that if the person that places the throwdown doesn´t mention it you cannot assume it is a throwdown in your cache or a cache from another game. This said, you should not remove the container!

Two thoughts:

 

First, your logic is horribly broken. I get that you are just trying to bolster your argument, but I firmly believe that most people can tell the difference between a throw down and some other game's game piece.

 

Second, you pulled the wrong article if you are using it to conclude that a person who steals a geocache will go to jail. That article only stated that he was arrested.

 

They probably booked him at jail, so technically...

 

JP, I don't the link to the discussion handy, but basically the court decided to drop everything as long as Repak promised to behave himself. So we never really got a legal precedent.

 

The only thing we learned is the police can arrest you for removing caches. But they can arrest you for just about anything.

[+Ben0w]

JPreto, again you're making wrong conclusions, even in your own national cases. Owning (and wanting to circumvent taxes with) a house is a whole other thing than owning (and throwing down) a film canister. The latter is rather easy regarding affected tegulations and moral obligations (where moral never is easy). Please don't make random comparations, that isn't very helpful in solving legal issues.

 

Check the movie or the song I mentioned, that shows a bit of the rather senseless (or as Tozainamboku may call it for reasons I don't understand: puritan) view things may get when it comes to littering. At least this thread has a cool soundtrack.

 

Still, I'm totally against throw-downs and there are a lot of regulations against them already in place, on a lot of levels. Maybe we could settle on this basic line? Thank you.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Ben0w

[+tozainamboku]

Well you'll just have to trust me as an English person who speaks English despite the efforts of my iPhone sometimes - that when the statement says "Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner ...", it isn't an explanation. It is a concise instruction following a definition as geroundspeak understand it. The explanation is for those who are not aware and the instruction is absolute. You can tell that because they use the word 'never'.

Could be. Here in America I will admit the we may not have done a good job maintaining the language. In fact we've accepted quite a few throwdown words.

 

Here the word 'never' does not change the meaning of the word 'should'. 'should' is a recommendation, not an absolute instruction. Sure 'never' is different then just plain 'not'. It indicates the writer can't think of some exception when you should leave a throwdown.

 

Based on my experience watching the guidelines change over 11+ years and seeing the help center develop from scratch, I'm pretty convinced that the recommendation made in the help center are just that - recommendations. Sure some articles are there to clarify or explain a policy, but the help center is not meant to be read as policy. (No matter there will be people who insist otherwise and only experience will correct that view).

 

I'm sorry you don't agree with the policy ... Oh and it is policy. In the terms and conditions to which we must all adhere it states:(and I'm paraphrasing) that these terms and conditions apply to everything on their website. So instruction it is, advice it isn't and with Bens help we know the cache belongs to the throw downer. I don't really see where the confusion is. But that is the purpose of forums - to discuss and define ... stuff.

I'm not sure where to begin here.

 

I didn't say I disagree with the recommendation. In fact I personally would recommend to anyone considering replacing a missing geocache that they should never do this without the permission of the geocache owner.

 

I did disagree with the reason the author of the article gave on why people leave throwdowns. Help center article are written by individual lackeys and often get only cursory review by their supervisors or by Groundspeak's legal advisers - because the help center is not a statement of policy. Sadly, when someone explaining the policy is not careful or injects their personal opinion, someone will invariably read something into this.

[+GeoBain]

This reminds me of the great debate over whether or not you could be arrested for stealing caches. Maybe we need Repak to steal a few throwdowns so we can get a proper legal ruling.

Can you put the topic in what that was debated? Thanks!

 

These discuss the arrest and final outcome of the Repak incident.

 

Cache Maggot Arrested

 

The facts and only the facts about Rome, NY

 

If you want to read up on opinions concerning who owns caches, you'll need to do some searching on cache maggots, cache thieves, etc. There were a number of discussions back in the day. I don't think it's been discussed much since Repak until now.

[+JPreto]

This reminds me of the great debate over whether or not you could be arrested for stealing caches. Maybe we need Repak to steal a few throwdowns so we can get a proper legal ruling.

Can you put the topic in what that was debated? Thanks!

 

These discuss the arrest and final outcome of the Repak incident.

 

Cache Maggot Arrested

 

The facts and only the facts about Rome, NY

 

If you want to read up on opinions concerning who owns caches, you'll need to do some searching on cache maggots, cache thieves, etc. There were a number of discussions back in the day. I don't think it's been discussed much since Repak until now.

 

Thanks, I´ll look into it...

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Well you'll just have to trust me as an English person who speaks English despite the efforts of my iPhone sometimes - that when the statement says "Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner ...", it isn't an explanation. It is a concise instruction following a definition as geroundspeak understand it. The explanation is for those who are not aware and the instruction is absolute. You can tell that because they use the word 'never'.

Could be. Here in America I will admit the we may not have done a good job maintaining the language. In fact we've accepted quite a few throwdown words.

 

Here the word 'never' does not change the meaning of the word 'should'. 'should' is a recommendation, not an absolute instruction. Sure 'never' is different then just plain 'not'. It indicates the writer can't think of some exception when you should leave a throwdown.

 

Based on my experience watching the guidelines change over 11+ years and seeing the help center develop from scratch, I'm pretty convinced that the recommendation made in the help center are just that - recommendations. Sure some articles are there to clarify or explain a policy, but the help center is not meant to be read as policy. (No matter there will be people who insist otherwise and only experience will correct that view).

 

I'm sorry you don't agree with the policy ... Oh and it is policy. In the terms and conditions to which we must all adhere it states:(and I'm paraphrasing) that these terms and conditions apply to everything on their website. So instruction it is, advice it isn't and with Bens help we know the cache belongs to the throw downer. I don't really see where the confusion is. But that is the purpose of forums - to discuss and define ... stuff.

I'm not sure where to begin here.

 

I didn't say I disagree with the recommendation. In fact I personally would recommend to anyone considering replacing a missing geocache that they should never do this without the permission of the geocache owner.

 

I did disagree with the reason the author of the article gave on why people leave throwdowns. Help center article are written by individual lackeys and often get only cursory review by their supervisors or by Groundspeak's legal advisers - because the help center is not a statement of policy. Sadly, when someone explaining the policy is not careful or injects their personal opinion, someone will invariably read something into this.

 

 

I think you have proved your last sentence admirably.

 

As I explained the terms and conditions specify that they cover the whole website. This means the support centre. It's in the name too. They say they do so they do. Anything on that site belongs to and is governed by the terms and conditions. There is no wiggle room. Probably deliberately on groundspeaks part.

 

Hmmm American eh. I would have said norther to Eastern European by the way you have said certain things. But anyway a source for an American ....

 

"Don't tell us what the lacky was intending when he wrote that he is'nt here to explain" making your point heresay

 

Source: Judge Judy, you go girl.

 

Nah seriously I think Never (I'm probably wrong) is a contraction of Not Ever. So in the respect of what the English of it means, it means NEVER ever. I mean it's pretty clear. But because of people choosing at one point or another to ignore it they had to put in a contingency statement. Which doesn't muddy the water it just fully explains all possible eventualities without drifting off into bits of paper under wipers on windscreens etc.

 

I'm relieved you are not advocating a throw down it did seem initially you did. Personally I've had no problems with them. But my family have had murders. At one point one of theirs had three caches knocking about and two had TB's in. All in one weekend. Despite it stating exactly where it was in the clue and description (under a rock at base of gorse, of which there is only one) people will keep placing it down a rabbit hole. The rabbit hole has been filled in repeatedly but people repeatedly replace the missing cache (which isn't missing) and replace it down the rabbit hole. So some up country folk kindly replaced 9 caches that were not missing. Much petrol and several trips to find all the blessed things and it was back to normal. Then another one turned up from somewhere and that visitor placed a TB in it. Rescued TB removed third pot and back to normal again.

 

Last week another throw down. This is a small cache about the size of a large mug and the hint is clear. Coordinates spot on. Many finders. But what we have found is that ... Sorry but it's true ... High rollers have been blasting through for the numbers and won't DNF but will throwdown with a "it's clearly missing" statement. Result - havoc. Because of their cache count no one argues. I even had the same high roller lie to me in an email to wheedle our puzzle coordinates out of us. The trick was "I've solved the code on the main page and have gotten these coordinates but could you confirm I have the right ones". There is no code on the main page and the coordinates were near where the question mark was placed. The cache however isn't.

 

These same people have blasted through claiming challenge caches, who's pages state, please book mark your proof or post your evidence to claim the find. Sadly they do not have time for all that they state "great cache I do qualify for it please see my cache finds for proof" placing the onus on the cache owner to trawl through thousands of logs. I think that shows a lack of pride in your behaviour.

 

But whatever that's why we hate throw downs. Cost first and formost. Time another. Though some smart arris will pipe up that "you shouldn't have caches if you can't maintain them." To whom I would say - idiotic - and people can maintain their own caches. It's these idiots that keep dropping more of the bleeding things I can't keep up with.

[+sbell111]

1) I do not understand your argument that the mere fact that the T&C exists means that every word in GC101 and the FAQ should be considered 'law'.

 

2) you might not like to hear it, but if your cache is requiring so many maintenance visits, then perhaps there is something inherently wrong with its design.

[4wheelin_fool]

So in order to have a *complete* discussion of this subject, we need to address when someone must mail an abandoned cache to the state to retain in its "escheated property" inventory!

Oh I already mentioned this in my post some pages before. As you say, this can get rather complicated. Mostly it's based on value. Which is a total confusing and subjective thing anyhow. But please don't mix that up with the intentional throwdown of a ziplock baggie and a paper. Despite folklore, law has connections to reality.

 

...just around the corner from the railroadtrack...(whistling)...

 

I fail to find the continuing point in this interminable thread, so I'm going to throw down a replacement topic.

 

Boy, I like Arlo, too.

 

As you may not be aware of, September is Thowdown Awareness month. Other possible topics may include "Are throwdowns legally considered litter?", "Throwdowns you may have enjoyed", and "Thowdown culture in foreign lands". Then we have October upon us, which is Throwdown History month, and we can trace the roots of throwdowns back to the book of Enoch and the fallen angels, who were throwdown from the heavens. It should be an exciting educational journey.

[+tozainamboku]

As I explained the terms and conditions specify that they cover the whole website. This means the support centre. It's in the name too. They say they do so they do. Anything on that site belongs to and is governed by the terms and conditions. There is no wiggle room. Probably deliberately on groundspeaks part.

The TOUs governs the use of Groundspeak services. It has a clause that indicates there may be other terms, policies or guidelines. This is fairly standard legal clause that indicates what terms take precedence when there are conflicts. Generally the TOUs take precedence. When there are agreements that cover use of specific components (such as using the data downloaded in a pocket query) then that agreement takes precedence.

 

The use of Groundspeak' services covers the various website and applications provide by Groundspeak as well as geocaching data accessible via the API.

 

While Groundspeak offers ways for individuals to exchange information about location-based outdoor play, Groundspeak does not provide any games or location-based activities itself and such games are not part of our services. As described below, Groundspeak is not responsible for game-related information available through our services and users are responsible for their own safety.

 

I've highlighted from the TOUs above some key phrases you may have missed.

 

Groundspeak does not make the rules for geocaching. They have suggested how the game might be played in the Geocaching 101 section and the help center. But these "rules" are not part of Groundspeak's terms, policies, or guidelines (per the TOUs). If anything the TOUs should make it clear that the information in the Help Center are not terms, policies, or guidelines. The help center may contain clarifications of terms, policies, or guidlines given elsewhere. It also contains recommendation to geocachers on how to play the game that are suggestions not related to any terms, policies, or guidelines.

 

Groundspeak may have policies regarding throwdowns. These policies have to do with use of the Groundspeak services to post logs or to delete logs, and with the agreement that cache owners make to physically maintain their cache while it is listed on the Groundspeak service. The help center article is only making recommendations and clarifying the existing policies regarding cache maintenance and log deletion. If you wish to read more into them than that, you don't understand the TOUs.

[+Ben0w]

As you may not be aware of, September is Thowdown Awareness month. Other possible topics may include "Are throwdowns legally considered litter?", "Throwdowns you may have enjoyed", and "Thowdown culture in foreign lands". Then we have October upon us, which is Throwdown History month, and we can trace the roots of throwdowns back to the book of Enoch and the fallen angels, who were throwdown from the heavens. It should be an exciting educational journey.

Is there a souvenir? Count me in!

[+Seaglass Pirates]

sigh - I'm kinda over it ... but count me in for a souvenir.

[+supertbone]

If a cache of mine is missing or is damaged, I gladly appreciate the gift of a throwdown. I don't make my caches overly hard and so if I start getting DNFs it is because they are truly missing. I have placed replacements for my friend's caches when theirs go missing as well.