When two caches collide, The follow up to Cache Wars.

[+Team OUTSID4EVR]

quote:

---

Originally posted by clps:

I own some acreage within the boundaries of a National Forest. The property is posted Private Property, No Trespassing, No Hunting, No Fishing, etc. at the gate. The 'gate' at the entrance to the property consists of two posts with a chain across, which can easily be stepped over or walked around (notwithstanding the aforementioned signs).

Does someone have a 'right' to post a 'virtual' cache of coordinates on my property? Do they have a 'right' to post a 'virtual' cache on the boundry of my property, or nearby in the National Forest, thereby increasing traffic and the ills that go along with the increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic?

 

To me as a property owner, the answer is a resounding _'NO'_ on both counts.

 

The correct thing to do would be to ask permission from the owner of the property beforehand ...virtual or not, so that the property owner can have input on the matter, and decide whether or not the increased traffic is to his/her benefit, and how to deal with said traffic.

 

Anyone who says differently is obviously not a property owner themself. How would you like it if I placed a 'virtual' cache on the street in front of your house? Would you like the increased traffic, trash, whatever, that would accumulate because of it? I sincerely doubt it.

 

Geocachers need to think first before they act, and permission should be encouraged, not punished. If the parties involved cannot agree on a solution after a 'good faith' dialogue, then the virtual cache without permission should be canned, and the one that followed the rules and obtained permission first should be enabled.

 

[This message was edited by clps on April 27, 2003 at 03:08 AM.]

---

 

I agree that permission is needed if it's private property. BUT The virtuals in this thread are on public property, visited by many people anyway. The additional impact of a handfull of geocachers will not be noticed.

 

Permission is important, but in this case, it is not relevant to the issue. It is not needed (IN THIS CASE).

 

 

MOPAR: I agree! As far as I'm concerned, there was a final determination made on this. These threads won't go away until Jeremy comes in and reiterates the reasons for the decision, so the initiator of the thread will not continue the discussion. This thread should then be locked.

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

I own some acreage within the boundaries of a National Forest. The property is posted Private Property, No Trespassing, No Hunting, No Fishing, etc. at the gate. The 'gate' at the entrance to the property consists of two posts with a chain across, which can easily be stepped over or walked around (notwithstanding the aforementioned signs).

Does someone have a 'right' to post a 'virtual' cache of coordinates on my property? Do they have a 'right' to post a 'virtual' cache on the boundry of my property, or nearby in the National Forest, thereby increasing traffic and the ills that go along with the increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic?

---

 

Yes people do have the right to post anything they want. If it's on your property, you also have the right to have anyone who enters your property arrested for trespassing.

 

If it's not on your property, then tough luck. What right do you have to decide how others use public land?

 

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln

[Jeremy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by clps:

Does someone have a 'right' to post a 'virtual' cache of coordinates on my property?

---

 

Unfortunately yes. However, in the case of the geocaching.com site, if we were made aware it was your private residence we would extend a courtesy and remove the listing from the site.

 

As part of living next to a park like you do, you both have to deal with the benefits and the drawbacks of living near an "attractive nuisance."

 

As for this thread, it seems to be settled - Mopar looks like he summarized it well. I think my actions of removing the second was pretty clear. First posting wins if neither geocacher can get along and agree nicely on an issue.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

[+Harrald]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:

<<SNIP>>

As for this thread, it seems to be settled - <<SNIP>>

---

 

Sure go and settle the problem!!!

 

I was just starting to enjoy this silly thread!

 

Buzz harsher

 

 

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

[clps]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

 

Yes people do have the right to post anything they want. If it's on your property, you also have the right to have anyone who enters your property arrested for trespassing.

 

If it's not on your property, then tough luck. What right do you have to decide how others use public land?

 

_"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues"_ -Abraham Lincoln

---

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:

 

quote:Originally posted by clps:

Does someone have a 'right' to post a 'virtual' cache of coordinates on my property?

 

Unfortunately yes. However, in the case of the geocaching.com site, if we were made aware it was your private residence we would extend a courtesy and remove the listing from the site.

 

As part of living next to a park like you do, you both have to deal with the benefits and the drawbacks of living near an "attractive nuisance."

 

As for this thread, it seems to be settled - Mopar looks like he summarized it well. I think my actions of removing the second was pretty clear. First posting wins if neither geocacher can get along and agree nicely on an issue.

---

 

It is this exact rationale that precludes me from even entertaining a notion of posting a cache, virtual or otherwise, on property that I own ...or anywhere else ...including the National Forest.

Until people get it thru their heads that use of Public lands is a priviledge, not a 'right', (like driving a car) then they will continue to see a crackdown on 'unauthorized' caches.

As the sport grows, the impact on public/private lands will grow too, and you can bet your bottom dollar that sooner or later, it will become illegal to post ANY type of cache on Public lands. All it takes is one virtual cache on a designated 'fragile' public lands to get the Forest Service's/BLM's attention, and then the game is over.

 

It's a shame that even this sites 'admin' doesn't seem to 'get it' when it comes to asking for cache permission on ALL property, public or private, for ALL caches.

 

As I said, anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously not a property owner.

 

(I stand corrected ...I was under the impression the Jeremy Irish was geocachings 'founder'.)

 

[This message was edited by clps on April 27, 2003 at 09:18 PM.]

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

Until people get it thru their heads that use of Public lands is a priviledge, not a 'right'...

---

 

Where do you get this from?

 

quote:

---

As the sport grows, the impact on public/private lands will grow too, and you can bet your bottom dollar that sooner or later, it will become illegal to post ANY type of cache on Public lands.

---

You are apparently not familiar with the Consitution of the United States of America, particularly Amendment #1. Here is a link. You might learn something.

 

quote:

---

All it takes is one virtual cache on a designated 'fragile' public lands to get the Forest Service's/BLM's attention, and then the game is over.

---

 

It's happened and we're still here. Because the owners of this website are as concerned about the environment, as they are about the image of our sport, the caches have been removed, or moved.

 

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on April 27, 2003 at 07:46 PM.]

[clps]

1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

I know the 1st amendment well. How in God's name you believe that the first amendment gives you the 'right' to geocache, or to post coordinates to property that does not belong to you, thereby making your actions an infringement on the rights of others ...is beyond me. Just as the 1st amendment does not give you the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, your right to 'free speech' ends when it infringes the rights of others ...i.e. property owners, whether they be public or private.

 

Likewise, if you do not comprehend that public land use is a privilege, and not a right ...either you obey the regulations of public land use or you are subject to civil penalties and/or jail ...then there is no sense trying to explain it to you.

 

Again, judging by your comments, you are not a property owner.

 

As for the lawsuit issue, you can bet that if someone posts coordinates that negatively impact public or private property (and without approval from the property owner), they may very well find themselves in court ...defending their actions.

 

I also liked the comment:

"Waaaa! this has been decided, and I don't like the direction this topic is taking ...lets lock this thread"

 

i.e. Monkey see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil.

 

[This message was edited by clps on April 27, 2003 at 10:45 PM.]

[+Searching_ut]

quote:

---

clps said:

 

As for the lawsuit issue, you can bet that if someone posts coordinates that negatively impact public or private property (and without approval from the property owner), they may very well find themselves in court ...defending their actions.

---

 

I wouldn't doubt someone could try to bring a lawsuit, this is after all America, land of the lawsuit. Provided the cache, or coordinates didn't expressly encourage trespassing, I'd guess any suit would quickly fall by the wayside, as so many other similar lawsuits have. In my area, I've seen several attempts to take action against those giving directions to, or posting coordinates for archeological sites, or areas considered ecologically sensitive. I’ve also seen attempts to sue magazines for posting stories about assorted wilderness areas, the argument being the stories encourage additional people, resulting in ecosystem damage. So far none of the attempts at legal action I’ve seen, or read about have gone anywhere. The first amendment being sited as one of the reasons. Being unable to make any headway with the coordinates, directions to, or descriptions of areas, there are groups that are now trying to ban GPS, or cell phones for that matter on federal lands. (Cell phones supposedly make those who wouldn’t venture into the woods otherwise brave enough to head out). So far, I haven’t seen any headway made in that arena, but who knows what the future will bring. A virtual cache being merely a way to provide directions to a site of interest, I would assume would be treated the same way as say giving directions to find pictographs on BLM land.

 

If the public already has the right to be on the land, owning a GPS, or learning about the area from someone else doesn't eliminate a persons right to be there. Currently, there are no laws that say you can't tell others about public places either. Do you honestly think that if I like the view from someplace like the top of Angels landing in Zion national park, that I have to ask permission from the park service to recommend that people go there? If they try and take that right away from me, I would think the suit against the goverment would go farther through the system than any attempts by them to deny me the right to give directions to the public, through any forum I choose.

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

I know the 1st amendment well. How in God's name you believe that the first amendment gives you the 'right' to geocache, or to post coordinates to property that does not belong to you, thereby making your actions an infringement on the rights of others ...is beyond me. Just as the 1st amendment does not give you the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, your right to 'free speech' ends when it infringes the rights of others ...i.e. property owners, whether they be public or private.

---

 

The 1st amendment doesn't give anyone the right to geocache. How did you infer that this was the point I was trying to make? The 1st amendment does however give you the right to publish pretty much anything you want (outside libel and a handful of other exceptions).

 

quote:

---

Again, judging by your comments, you are not a property owner.

---

Wrong.

 

quote:

---

As for the lawsuit issue, you can bet that if someone posts coordinates that negatively impact public or private property (and without approval from the property owner), they may very well find themselves in court ...defending their actions.

---

 

You are probably right, but they will most likely win. As Searching_ut said, people have been filing suits attempting to abridge the 1st amendment rights of others for a long time. They usually fail.

 

If someone posted coordinates to my property in a newspaper, book, or on a website, which in turned caused people to trespass, would I be angry? Sure. Could I have trespassers arrested?

Definitely. Could I sue the publisher? You bet. Would I win? Doubtful.

 

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on April 28, 2003 at 11:26 AM.]

[+WildcatRegi]

Hasn't this issue kinda been answered when the celebrities of Hollywood sued the publishers of the maps showing where they lived? (and lost)

 

I just did a goggle and found this site: Celebrity Home Address

 

If they can post this information, I hardly think there's any real legal issue to a "Hey, isn't this a great view?" posting.

 

"The hardest thing to find is something that's not there!"

 

[This message was edited by MuzzleBlast! on April 28, 2003 at 05:02 AM.]

[+Sissy-n-CR]

I suppose those who wish to not have coordinates on their land posted could also ask map makers to not publish the portions that include their land, aerial and satellite photos not be published, make it illegal to take pictures of their property, strike through any public records that detail their land, and sue anyone that gives out their address.

 

Land owners do not own the coordinates that happen to be on their land--they're just numbers. Posting coordinates are about as illegal as posting a phone number or street address.

 

CR

 

[+Mopar]

CLPS

For the most part, your comments are totally off base from what we are discussing here.

Would I be pissed if someone posted the coordinates to my house? NO. It's already been done in this big yellow thing called a phone book. It's already there on dozens of websites/search engines. Besides, we are not talking about trespassing on private property here. We are discussing 2 people making a virtual cache out of the same PUBLIC ATTRACTION located in a PUBLIC park. Do you REALLY believe you need to get written permission from the govt to post the GPS coordinates of a location that the owners of the property (US!) as well as the people who manage if for us (NPS) already want and encourage people to come visit?

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

[+Freelens&Mosie]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mopar:

_CLPS_

For the most part, your comments are totally off base from what we are discussing here.

Do you REALLY believe you need to get written permission from the govt to post the GPS coordinates of a location that the owners of the property (US!) as well as the people who manage if for us (NPS) already want and encourage people to come visit?

---

 

Zactly

 

I have my own little world. But it's OK...they know me here.

[+TEAM 360]

Fact is, I can put a virtual anywhere I like. I can also tell people to go jump off a cliff, but if they actually go and do it, that's up to them. Likewise, once a geocacher gets to the private property line, it is up to them to respect that boundary. Yes, you can put a virtual in the street out in front of my house. Last time I looked, that was a PUBLIC roadway. Put it on MY property, and just like Jeremy said, he would remove it at my request. The two cache issue that we began at? I personally say leave 'em both posted, but it looks like the issue has been solved. Next thread!

[+Web-ling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by OUTSID4EVR:

Arguing over a virtual is a waste of time. Jeremy, please make a final verdict on this.

---

I think he already did...

quote:

---

I would simply allow both of them, so both sides can walk away with what they wanted in the first place.

---

Two caches at the exact same place?

 

It really doesn't matter who "owns" a set of coordinates. Just leave it the way it is.

 

[+Thomas & Dingo]

dadgum and here I already wrote my brother in Texas that when they come up for the summer, he really needs to try climbing Mt. Rainier gave him directions and everything, Crap is that my door bell, Oh Sh*t its the feds, no officer this is not a GPS its a iPod. Yes Sir I told someone about a great location, no Sir I did not call you first to ask permission. Hey these cuffs are too tight.

 

Its on Public Land in a Public Park, does not matter that the coordinates are posted here or if Seth! had called everybody and told them to check this place out in person. Same thing to me. Mark the time getting permission and explaining things, as well spent in maybe getting a physical cache in this location someday.

 

Man this thread has been too funny reading.

 

"We never seek things for themselves - what we seek is the very seeking of things."

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

 

[+StarshipTrooper]

 

..........It is this exact rationale that precludes me from even entertaining a notion of posting a cache, virtual or otherwise, on property that I own ...or anywhere else ...including the National Forest.

Until people get it thru their heads that use of Public lands is a priviledge, not a 'right', (like driving a car) then they will continue to see a crackdown on 'unauthorized' caches............

 

clps, maybe you can tell me why folks who buy land adjacent to PUBLIC land are so prone to assume that they have a right to dictate or even expect a certain level of use on the PUBLIC land.

 

Apparently, your realtor forgot to tell you that YOU DON'T OWN THE VIEW!

 

A virtual is no different than a newspaper or magazine publishing the location of your favorite fishing hole. There ain't a thing you can do about it, and whining will only make you unpopular (and look foolish - which is exactly how the NPS guy in Arizona looks, BTW).

 

Fortunately for most of us, there is nothing on OUR property that is notable enough for it to be a virtual cache. For those like you, clps, who apparently own property on or next to a National Treasure - well, it goes with the territory.

 

In my own region there is a large area of public land that has been proposed for a national park (hope it never happens). If I were to buy some adjacent land (and I might), it would be foolish for me to expect that at some point the description and location of this place won't be published widely, and many visitors won't drive right by my property (or even on it, if I don't post it properly). It would be foolish not to expect those things even if it remained simply national forest and BLM land as it is now, because it is a special place. I would love to have it for myself - but this is the real world, so I expect to share it with others, and only ask that they RESPECT it while they are there.

 

You got a gem, now you get to gaurd it. But you don't get to add a "buffer zone" of public land. If you can't handle the reality of it, you should not be a land owner.

 

Sorry.

 

And BTW, if you would never hide any kind of cache anywhere - what the heck ARE you doing here?

[+David]

I guess I'll exercise my first amendment rights. Asking permission isn't necessary, but it certainly is admirable and helps our cause. While I enjoy virtuals since I'll hunt anything I can log, Seth!'s cache is the lamer of the two. Night Stalker's cache had a lot better info and questions to answer for credit. Purely based on the merits of each cache, I'd rather have NS's, but Seth! was there first.