Permission, Protection, And A Fading World

[+EraSeek]

Thanks to Criminal for the topic (in the general forums).

 

I joined Geocaching early on. In many ways I long for the 'old days'. It has grown so, and with that you get a real mix of people. Personally I have been very put off by people who try and sanitize the world for themselves and others to boot! Permission sounds like such a rightious thing. Making every cache safe and foolproof for every fool does as well. To me, the best geocaches are those that take you where no permission must be or could be sought, where no protection lies between me and the elemental world. Permission is given or revoked by weather wind and tide, and protection lies in my own abilities and judgement. Yes, permission sounds like such a rightious thing. The trend in the world today seems toward the 'politically correct', if I may use such a trite phrase; no-tolerance policies, where all indiviual judgement is circumvented, not allowed, overruled before given, these are the anthem of the new order. How will we ever learn judgement for the future if we never practice it here and now; every one of us? And this is the basis of my caching. I don't place caches where they shouldn't be. I don't look for caches when they are somewhere they shouldn't be. I turn around. I stress that each cacher is responsible for there own actions. No one else! I am responsible for mine own actions and safety as well. No one else is! I point out obvious and non-obvious hazards where I can, the rest is up to you.

 

Geocaching is changing, as is inevitable. Growth causes change. Some of my caches now may be considered borderline, where once they fell well within the perimeters. We are butting heads with the world. We butt heads with ourselves as well. Some have no sense. Some trample instead of meander. Some whack instead of finding a way where none is obvious. Yes growth causes changes. Where are we going and why? I don't want to go where permission is a prerequisite! Where all the dangers have been mitigated! Or where the good in this world has been trampled. The noose on such places is tightening.

The question is, do I want to come along?

 

----------------

edit for typo

Edited November 30, 2003 by EraSeek

[+EraSeek]

I must apologize for overstating part of my case. There have only been two cases (one long ago) where I have seen Geocachers wreak havoc on the landscape, and in both of those they complained to the cache owner as to what they themselves had done as if they were forced by the owner to do it. I have bushwack before and they are some of the funnest caches. That is not the problem. Understand there is a learning curve, but it can be done with minimal effect on the land. As long as you scar more of yourself than the land, you're in the learning curve.

 

Most all of the trampling that I have seen has been done by developers and the occasional ignorant tourist. Great swaths of good places have been ruined by developers THROUGH CHANNELS AND WITH PERMISSION! Some development I have seen has improved on a place. Saddly, not usually the case. Permission is not always a rightious thing. First, you must pass your judgement to another, and second, you must trust the others judgement or at least live with it. Understandably, there are cases where this is unavoidable. I'll live with those.

 

As for the occasional tourist, well let's just hope they are on a learning curve as well.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I understand where you're coming from. We are becoming more politicly correct with our caches. I've removed some of mine which I know wouldn't be approved today. Or if they were approved they would have been complained about.

 

Back in our area when there was just a handful of cachers and we would place caches in areas where we knew we'd get a nasty phonecall from a friend that same night. One of my caches was placed behind the targets at a gun range. Although the range is closed most of the time I knew I'd get a rise out of my friends by putting it there.

 

But now I've gotten nasty comments from cachers who've never placed a single cache but don't approve of my cache location because it was in a guard rail. They could have been hurt or something. It's getting silly, the darn thing isn't out in the middle of the road, it's off the road. Yet even those complaints are a consideration in this climate we're living in.

 

We've wondered how far we'll go with the hobby. I'm still having fun but not like I did. Sometimes I think about picking a number, say 1000, and stopping right there at that amount of finds.

 

But we do get nice friendly logs in our caches the majority of the times. Maybe it's just the gray skies out that have us thinking negative about our future with caching. We do enjoy our little geocaching pizza events ever few weeks.

[+Criminal]

Thanks for your wisdom Eraseek, your message is more refined and less verbose than mine.

 

EDIT: Typo

Edited November 30, 2003 by Criminal

[+EraSeek]

I like your's as well:

 

"Thus I will not seek approval for that for which there is no prohibition." ~Criminal

[+Right Wing Wacko]

I like your's as well:

 

"Thus I will not seek approval for that for which there is no prohibition." ~Criminal

Hmm, that just might make a decent sig line

[soup]

Heh, How very timely. I was in disagreement with many rules in general. In our little local portland caching page, I decided to post my little "Anarchy" cache.

 

ANARCHY CACHE

 

I had no idea some folks in the general GC.com community were having similar thoughts. Funny. I just believe I am capable of making wise decisions.

 

Oh, if your interested in visiting this cache, better hurry, as its removed tomorrow. But I do plan on placing another anarchy cache in the near future. -S

[martmann]

Another great "permission" thread, I agree with EraSeek and Criminal, but I understand why the official stance of Groundspeak is get permission. I think it’s the squeaky "must get permission no matter what" wheels, that make it difficult for all, and ultimately bring about the anti-permission (when appropriate), threads.

 

I hate the Political Correctness cancer, and the hyper-permission camp reeks of it.

[+travisl]

I still maintain, as I have for the last two years, that it's safer for landowners, from a liability standpoint, that we not ask permission. If they don't know, their liability is much more limited.

[+Boojum]

I still maintain, as I have for the last two years, that it's safer for landowners, from a liability standpoint, that we not ask permission. If they don't know, their liability is much more limited.

And it is even safer for landowners if you don't place caches on private property.

You don't really want to have strange people walking around in your back yard, do you?

[+Criminal]

I still maintain, as I have for the last two years, that it's safer for landowners, from a liability standpoint, that we not ask permission.  If they don't know, their liability is much more limited.

And it is even safer for landowners if you don't place caches on private property.

You don't really want to have strange people walking around in your back yard, do you?

…and safer still if you don’t park your car on top of your head. Although neither seems likely.

[+yumitori]

…and safer still if you don’t park your car on top of your head. Although neither seems likely.

I'd like to be able to agree with you, Criminal, but I've gone to caches that have turned out to be placed on private property without permission. So far this has only happened in the country, but farmers and ranchers often consider all of their land as much their 'backyard' as any urban dweller. This seems to be little understood by some folks, who simply see a big empty field.

 

Still, you would be correct that responsible geocachers are unlikely to do this. I think we just end up running into Sturgeon's Law...

[+Boojum]

And it is even safer for landowners if you don't place caches on private property.

You don't really want to have strange  people walking around in your back yard, do you?

…and safer still if you don’t park your car on top of your head. Although neither seems likely.

Actually, I think it would be safer for the landowners if you did park your car on your head. Not safer for you, but that's not who we were talking about. I don't want to force safety on others, but if legally I am held responsible for someone else's stupidity just because they use it on my property, then I rather not have them on my roof, climbing my tree, or looking under my boulder.

[+Criminal]

And it is even safer for landowners if you don't place caches on private property.

You don't really want to have strange  people walking around in your back yard, do you?

…and safer still if you don’t park your car on top of your head. Although neither seems likely.

Actually, I think it would be safer for the landowners if you did park your car on your head. Not safer for you, but that's not who we were talking about. I don't want to force safety on others, but if legally I am held responsible for someone else's stupidity just because they use it on my property, then I rather not have them on my roof, climbing my tree, or looking under my boulder.

Sorry, I think I didn't come across as I intened. The whole topic was about public land like a park or the like, not about private property at all. That's a whole different and less contoversial topic.

 

[+leatherman]

I've never posted to the "Permission Zealots" threads. I'm not one for asking. I think that I'm intelligent enough to realize if I'm on private land.

I can't believe that you, specifically Criminal, can bring up a topic like this without the permission freaks from jumping all over you.

 

In aw.

[+Criminal]

I've never posted to the "Permission Zealots" threads. I'm not one for asking. I think that I'm intelligent enough to realize if I'm on private land.

I can't believe that you, specifically Criminal, can bring up a topic like this without the permission freaks from jumping all over you.

 

In aw.

Oh, I done been jumped on:

 

[+leatherman]

From this thread?

[+Criminal]

No, for this:

 

multiple member complaints for use of offensive language and suggestive language.

 

Post: "Oh shut up you miserable F!"

signature line: "Sofa King Wee Todd it"

[+Boojum]

Sorry, I think I didn't come across as I intened. The whole topic was about public land like a park or the like, not about private property at all. That's a whole different and less contoversial topic.

 

AH! That is whole different can of worms.

In that case, if it isn't an environmentally sensitive area, go for it!

[+Renegade Knight]

Changing the subject and yet keeping it on topic. If the world is fading check for glacoma.

[+Navdog]

...Permission is given or revoked by weather wind and tide, and protection lies in my own abilities and judgement...

Great post Eraseek. With your permission, I'd like to use that phrase on a future cache page of mine.

[+EraSeek]

Use it as you will, Navdog. Glad you liked it.

[+Logscaler and Red]

Thanks EraSeek for putting this out.

 

Just because a Green light gives one permission to enter an intersection does not make it right to do so some times. Yet, at times sitting still at a Red light might not be a very smart idea either.

 

One must decide for themselves at any given time what is in their best interest. I have a couple caches out that some people have said where the best hunts they have ever been on, yet the next cacher wants those cache’s archived for being dangerous.

 

Most of the time, I think just getting to a cache on any highway is more dangerous then the cache hunt itself. But, it seems as very few people will hesitate to drive the highways and byways everyday.

 

logscaler.