Virtual Cache Policy

[+Renegade Knight]

This isn't about GC.com's policy. It's about the NPS, Petroglyph parks in AZ and other places rumored to ban virtuals.

 

It's my position that anywhere the public at large is invited to go is fair game for a virtual cache.

 

That means if there was something remotely more interesting than a light pole in a Wal Mart parking lot you could put one there. However in my private driveway you shouldn't. In a park if the public is invited fee or no fee it's ok. However off trail in an area marked "stay on the trail" wouldn't be. I'm not yet sure of the direction to take on some sites protected by secrecy that people know about anyway, but that can be polished over time.

 

The point is a virtual is nothing more than an invitation to see something that in someone elses opinion is worth a look. Advertising if you will. The same as if did a write up of a great location. and got it published in a magazine. Where the public is invited I don't even think these places have the right or legal standing to say 'no'.

 

There are two things I'm curious about. By what argument are some of these caches being archived? What does everyone think about holding a line like this as a matter of geocaching policy that spans all the sites and all the organizations?

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

We agree petroglyphs and pictographs should be fair game for virtuals. The only place where we would have to draw the line is with some nice 'ruins' we know about. They only get visited once or twice in a years time and have remained unchanged for ar least 7 or 8 years now.

 

If the area is open to the general public then it should be open to virtuals.

 

P.S. We're not much for doing virtuals but many folks here abouts do like them.

 

John

[+wildearth2001]

i have not herd anything about the NPS here in az banning petroglyph sites as virtuals, do you have a link the code forbidding it? I do know that they are very anal about these things becoming public knowledge (mostly the remote ones that know one noes about yet) and are willing to sacrifice some of the ones close the roads to save the others. I have been led to and givin directions to other sites that are on the list that the Freedom of Information act does not apply to but they made me swear not to tell anyone and I only was allowed because I had connections

 

the ones that are public knowlede and are often visited should be allowd as virts the others that are mostly secret should be protected, besides dosnt GC.com policy say that you are not allowed to use archeological sites anyway?

[+travisl]

IHMO...

 

1) If there's any possible way to place a physical cache in the area without violating regulations, it shouldn't be approved as a virt. If there's a spot within 0.1 mile that's legal to hide a physical, make it an offset. If you've seen some of the micros that I have, that just about eliminates all U.S. virts that aren't on NPS land. I suppose a few other propery managers will not allow physical caches, so those would be fair spots for virts, too.

 

2) "A virtual cache must be a physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates. That object should be semi-permanent to permanent."

 

3) "A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects."

 

4) If it meets the above requirements, and if it meets the other geocaching.com requirements (like the 0.1 mile rule), the virt should be allowed anywhere that a member of the general public can legally use a GPS. If the public shouldn't be there, fence it or regulate the general public out. Otherwise, we're not substandard citizens, and should be able to exercise the same legal rights as the next guy.

[+Renegade Knight]

i have not herd anything about the NPS here in az banning petroglyph sites as virtuals, do you have a link the code forbidding it?...

Awhile back a site in AZ threw a hissy fit over a virtual cache that was "placed" at their site. You had to pay to get in, but the area was open for anyone willing to pony up the entrance fee. They demanded the virtual be archived. It created quite an uproar.

 

travisl: The GC rules are quite clear but the angle of attack here isn't what GC would approve so much as where we shoul be allowed to place a virtual and expect it to be an acceptable location. The AZ site for example. I'll markwell if I find the link.

[+Renegade Knight]

A virtual in public space Banned:

[+TEAM 360]

1) If there's any possible way to place a physical cache in the area without violating regulations, it shouldn't be approved as a virt. If there's a spot within 0.1 mile that's legal to hide a physical, make it an offset.

Maybe they don't want to place an offset, or a physical cache. Let the hider place the type of cache they WANT to place, instead of railroading them away from Virts like that.

[+bons]

I think it's growing pains. For awhile there will be land managers who react badly just like there are geocachers who react badly when their cache is rejected. Why should land managers be any different?

 

Eventually geocaching will be more common, probably in about 2 years and a lot of these policies will be revisited quitely and without fuss and as long as the whole thing is allowed to be swept under the rug, no one will care.

 

Of course if a big fuss is made, then pride and proving that "I'm not wrong! You're wrong!" becomes more important than anything else and everything just goes to heck.

 

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

 

360 & travisl: I may be missing the point but I think RK is talking about how the land managers are reacting, not what geocaching.com's listing policy is. As far as saving virtuals, good luck doing that on a forum that has so many complaints about micros that micros are likely to go the way of the virtual soon enough.

Edited March 25, 2004 by bons

[+briansnat]

Here is a virtual that was pulled after the NPS demanded that it be archived. Sinc when did the NPS come down against our first amendment right to say "come and have a look at this cool spot" on the Internet? I don't know if the owner archived this, or GC.COM did, but either way it sets a terrible precedent.

[+Mopar]

Here is a virtual that was pulled after the NPS demanded that it be archived. Sinc when did the NPS come down against our first amendment right to say "come and have a look at this cool spot" on the Internet? I don't know if the owner archived this, or GC.COM did, but either way it sets a terrible precedent.

Ya just beat me to posting that one Brian. Looks to me like the newbie owner archived it (caved in). I'm pretty sure if it was my cache I would have fought it. As a matter of fact, I seriously considered resubmitting it as my own, but being as I'm 4000 miles away and have never even been to Alaska, let alone cache there, I didn't think it would get approved. I don't know just how many Alaskian cachers there are, but I would love to see someone with the balls to push this issue resubmit that virtual.

[+briansnat]

If this wasn't GC.COM's doing, perhaps we should suggest to the owner that he bring it back.

[CoyoteRed]

Odd indeed that anyone would have a park and demand that one not tell anyone about it. Yet, have a website devoted to it.

 

A virt would be fine there as long as it didn't encourage anyone to do something the park isn't already encouraging visitors to do.

[Jeremy]

Here is a virtual

 

I don't know if the owner archived this, or GC.COM did, but either way it sets a terrible precedent.

1. Read the logs.

2. Ask the owner.

[+Sparky-Watts]

Well, I think it's an odd oxymoron to have a national park preserved for people to see, then disallow certain ways of seeing it. On the other hand, if we are going to fight this, we shouldn't be "in their face" to do so. Given time, as bons suggested, these things may change on their own. I think it's just a matter of polite education of the NPS to get these places to once again allow virtuals. From what I've read on the subject, it just seems to me that they don't fully understand the concept of a virtual cache.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The point is a virtual is nothing more than an invitation to see something that in someone elses opinion is worth a look. Advertising if you will. The same as if did a write up of a great location. and got it published in a magazine. Where the public is invited I don't even think these places have the right or legal standing to say 'no'.

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.

Would freedom of the press cover publishing coordinates of items in a public park?

[+bons]

Would freedom of the press cover publishing coordinates of items in a public park?

You're ahead of me. I was still trying to figure out when the NPS became Congress.

 

From what I can see, these requests are being honored not because of any legal obligation but because we would like to work WITH these people, not against them.

 

Sometimes it's better to give in if you would like to receive.

[MOCKBA]

what first amendment?

GC.com itself would love to use every every pretext to deny or archive your virtual. If you don't "maintain" it, or if the answers become available on the Internet, an existing virt is dead meat.

Why then would you even expect GC.com to defend a virt if a landowner or a land policy agency or group wants it canned?

[+briansnat]

From what I can see, these requests are being honored not because of any legal obligation but because we would like to work WITH these people, not against them.

 

The NPS has been militantly anti geocaching from the beginning. People have tried working with them and its like beating your head against a wall. I even recall one local geocacher being forced by them to remove a cache from what amounted to little more than a dumping ground near LaGuardia Airport because it was within the boundry of the Gateway National Recreation Area. The cache is gone, but I'm sure the discarded refrigerators, matresses and tires are still there.

 

It's not like working with them is getting us anywhere, so why not stick up for ourselves and exercise our right to post virtuals on NPS lands.

Edited March 26, 2004 by briansnat

[+aka Monkey]

From what I can see, these requests are being honored not because of any legal obligation but because we would like to work WITH these people, not against them.

 

Sometimes it's better to give in if you would like to receive.

Normally, I would agree with you. But when dealing with a government agency, I'm not sure that anything other than public outrage (and sometimes civil disobedience) makes a whit of a difference.

 

I believe this is a case where someone is going to need to take it to court to have it changed. I would think that the court would see a virtual as a free speech issue, and would almost certainly overrule the government. Somebody is going to have to place a virtual in NPS land, and then refuse to remove it. Although I suppose the NPS is more likely to go after Groundspeak than the individual. Is that something Groundspeak is willing (and able) to fight for? Would the ACLU back it as a free speech issue?

[+briansnat]

I believe this is a case where someone is going to need to take it to court to have it changed. I would think that the court would see a virtual as a free speech issue, and would almost certainly overrule the government. Somebody is going to have to place a virtual in NPS land, and then refuse to remove it. Although I suppose the NPS is more likely to go after Groundspeak than the individual. Is that something Groundspeak is willing (and able) to fight for? Would the ACLU back it as a free speech issue?

 

I doubt this would even get to court. So far the NPS has been demanding we remove certain virtuals and we sheepishly comply. I'm sure the NPS knows that they have no right to force us to remove coordinates from this website, any more than they would have a right to stop someone from publishing a guide book to sites in national parks.

 

Part of it is their ignorance about geocaching in general and virtuals in particular. In the case of the cache in Alaska, they were concerned about "digging". Digging for a virtual cache?

[+aka Monkey]

I composed the following letter and emailed it to every National Park in my state. I encourage others to do the same (either write your own email or copy and use mine). If one person from every state contacted all their parks, it might help. I just used this link, selected my state, then clicked each park in turn and clicked on Contact Us. I put "Geocaching on NPS Land" as a subject.

 

Colorado has already been covered. Who's next?

 

---

 

To whom it may concern,

 

Let me start by thanking the 111,000 employees and volunteers of the National Park Service who are striving to preserve America's historical and environmental treasures. Their hard work and dedication is greatly admired.

 

I happen to be one of over 10,000 active Geocachers (www.geocaching.com). The basic idea behind Geocaching is to have individuals and organizations set up caches all over the world and share the locations of these caches on the internet. GPS (Global Positioning System) users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches.

 

The National Park Service has been banning Geocaching activities on its lands, due to concerns about damage to lands which are under their protection.

 

First, I feel it is important to note that the activities which have been the cause of concern are specifically forbidden by Geocaching rules (namely, burying a cache or hiding a cache off trail). The vast majority of Geocachers are into the activity because they have a love for the outdoors, and Geocaching helps them to see areas they otherwise might never have seen.

 

Second, I want to mention some of the positive aspects of Geocaching. The Cache In Trash Out policy (www.cacheintrashout.org) encourages geocachers to bring a trash bag with them when caching, and use it to remove trash from areas that they visit. This policy has helped helped to remove everything from cigarette butts to refrigerators off of public lands. Geocaching also helps to raise funds and awareness for many National Parks by encouraging more visitors within the park system.

 

I haven't written you to try and enourage you to allow all Geocaching activities within National Park Service lands. I understand the concerns some park managers have, and a few unfortunate incidents have occurred with players who felt obliged to break the rules. However there have been a few cases recently with banning of "virtual" caches, which I think needs to be addressed.

 

A virtual cache is nothing more than coordinates to a location. It's the equivalent of marking a spot on a map and saying "There's something special here you should see." A few virtual caches had been set up within National Park Service lands, from cachers who felt there was a particularly beautiful area within a park that they wanted to share with others. Recently, employees from the National Park Service have been contacting these people and asking them to remove the listings.

 

Obviously, this raises a few issues. First of all, it does nothing to improve the relationship the National Park Service has with the public. NPS employees have a very difficult task in balancing the needs of the public that own the lands with the care of the lands that have been entrusted to them, and this activity shouldn't interfere with that cause. Park employees telling people they must not recommend others come to the parks would seem counter to the park's goal of encouraging people to explore and learn about the history at the parks.

 

I encourage the National Park Service to amend the rules to allow virtual caches within the park system, or at worst not actively discourage their listing. If someone places a virtual cache listing and is asked by the National Park Service to remove it, it raises a question of first amendment rights, and I think it's quite clear the National Park Service would not come down on the winning side of this issue. I'm sure this would be the kind of publicity the National Park Service doesn't want.

 

If you have any questions, please contact the wonderful people at Geocaching.com. They could provide you with far better information than I can.

 

Thanks for your time,

 

NAME GOES HERE

STATE GOES HERE

Edited March 26, 2004 by Indiana Cojones

[+Sparky-Watts]

Very well written. You didn't sound like a geek or a boob at all! I'm impressed!

[+aka Monkey]

Yeah, I can hide it well when I need to.

[+Renegade Knight]

When it comes to the government where they have discression there are two things that play into decisions. The official political winds sweeping through the organization. These come from the top down and the employee has no control. The other thing is trust. If they trust our organizations or individuals within those organizations they will listen to them. Often there is no discression involved because they are bound by a process but even within a process that is dictated to them there is room for intrepretation.

[+briansnat]

I think the key issue is that they have NO RIGHT to ban virtuals. Period.

[Wintertime]

Part of it is their ignorance about geocaching in general and virtuals in particular. In the case of the cache in Alaska, they were concerned about "digging".  Digging for a virtual cache?

Brian (or anyone else), do you have any more information about this? The description of Totem Park is no longer on the page; only the notes about the Park Service asking to have it archived. I'm in Yosemite right now and planning to do a couple of (other people's) virtuals today, so I'm very curious to know what triggered the negative reaction in Alaska. (And I've read some of the background about the Arizona situation, too).

 

The ones I've visited here in Yosemite on previous trips involve going to interpretive signs, historic buildings, etc. If there was some concern in Alaska about the cache description causing people to want to dig (as you say, that doesn't make sense with a virtual), then that wouldn't seem to be a problem here. But I'd be interested in more details--and I'm sure that the others here who are concerned about caching on NPS lands would be, too.

[+briansnat]

Brian (or anyone else), do you have any more information about this?

I don't. I'm sure the owner would know. My bet is that the local park oficial has no clue about geocaching, other than what he's read in internal memos (some of which discuss the burying of geocaches).

[+aka Monkey]

I don't know what you're referring to, but I did find this in a National Park Service Morning Report:

 

02-056 - Lake Roosevelt NRA (WA) - Geocaching Incident Rangers recently conducted an investigation into geocaching in the park. Geocaching is a sport in which individuals or organizations cache materials at particular locations, then provide the GPS coordinates via the Internet so that other people can attempt to find them. Some times caching entails digging, which presents obvious problems in national parks. On February 27th, Patrick Hall asked permission to bury a geocache within the park's historic Fort Spokane Unit. During the conversation, Hall made several statements which revealed that he'd previously been investigated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for this same activity, and that other geocaches might already be buried within the park. Ranger Jaime Green investigated and found that two caches had already been buried near Fort Spokane by a geocache player known as "Fuzzybear." Additional investigation uncovered a connection between "Fuzzybear" and Hall. Hall was interviewed and admitted placing both caches. Parks concerned about this activity within their boundaries may go to http://www.geocaching.com and search for caches located in their areas. [Chris Rugel, DR, Fort Spokane District, LARO, 3/8]

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I think the key issue is that they have NO RIGHT to ban virtuals. Period.

well said

[+Sparky-Watts]

I don't know what you're referring to, but I did find this in a National Park Service Morning Report:

 

02-056 - Lake Roosevelt NRA (WA) - Geocaching Incident Rangers recently conducted an investigation into geocaching in the park. Geocaching is a sport in which individuals or organizations cache materials at particular locations, then provide the GPS coordinates via the Internet so that other people can attempt to find them. Some times caching entails digging, which presents obvious problems in national parks. On February 27th, Patrick Hall asked permission to bury a geocache within the park's historic Fort Spokane Unit. During the conversation, Hall made several statements which revealed that he'd previously been investigated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for this same activity, and that other geocaches might already be buried within the park. Ranger Jaime Green investigated and found that two caches had already been buried near Fort Spokane by a geocache player known as "Fuzzybear." Additional investigation uncovered a connection between "Fuzzybear" and Hall. Hall was interviewed and admitted placing both caches. Parks concerned about this activity within their boundaries may go to http://www.geocaching.com and search for caches located in their areas. [Chris Rugel, DR, Fort Spokane District, LARO, 3/8]

Profile for Fuzzybear

 

I'm looking at some of his archived caches to see if I can recognize those being referred to in that memo.

[+wildearth2001]

Would freedom of the press cover publishing coordinates of items in a public park?

Yes it should cover that. So should freedom of speach...

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.

...maybe we should all use this part of our rights??

[+JeepCachr]

Some times caching entails digging, which presents obvious problems in national parks. On February 27th, Patrick Hall asked permission to bury a geocache within the park's historic Fort Spokane Unit.

Did he actually dig a hole and bury it? or did he just bury it with brush and rocks?

 

I'm just a newbie but is digging common?

[+wildearth2001]

I'm just a newbie but is digging common?

digging is against the guidlines

[+Sparky-Watts]

Looks like this is one.

 

 

Probably another one.

 

 

Apparently one more.

[+Bull Moose]

I composed the following letter and emailed it to every National Park in my state...

Nice letter, very well written.

BUT...

Like any bureaucracy you will never get anywhere trying to change it from the bottom.

Send a similar letter to your congressmen, Sec. of the Interior, and the like. Hell, even send one to the President.

Sure, one letter won't mean much to those people (or rather the people who read those people's mail), but a bunch of them might.

 

I've been thinking about getting a group together to work on changing NPS's backcountry regulation regarding dogs. I've noticed a civilian trying to work up the chain-of-command in the NPS (or most other govt. bureaucracies) gets exactly nowhere. Just spinning your wheels.

 

EDIT: SPELLING

Edited March 26, 2004 by Bull Moose

[+briansnat]

Like any beauracracy you will never get anywhere trying to change it from the bottom.

Send a similar letter to your congressmen, Sec. of the Interior, and the like. Hell, even send one to the President.

Sure, one letter won't mean much to those people (or rather the people who read those people's mail), but a bunch of them might.

 

I don't see the point of this because listing virtual caches does not break any national park regulations. There is nothing to be changed other than the attitude of some power mad bureaucrats.

Edited March 26, 2004 by briansnat

[+Bull Moose]

I don't see the point of this because listing virtual caches does not break any national park regulations. There is nothing to be changed other than the attitude of some power mad bureaucrats.

Yes. I agree with you 100%.

I don't think they have any right to say, "You can go over there, but you cannot go over there with a GPS and write down the dates on a sign, e-mail the dates to someone, and then log that you were there on a website."

 

I just wanted to comment on the letter because... well... I just like to complain about bureaucracy.

[+bamageek]

Hi y'all,

 

I don't spend a lot of times here in the forums (mainly because I'm a slow reader) but I stopped by today for a visit. I saw this thread regarding Virtuals which caught my eye. I enjoyed reading the thread and the letter above is really well written.

 

I just have one question; Other than the letter back in November regarding geocaching in general, has there been any other contact with the NPS? Have they directly contacted the administration regarding a ban on virtual caches?

 

I did some searching on the NPS website & couldn't find any mention of virtual caching. This is the only thing I found:

(a)(1) Geocaching Games – Geocaches typically are hidden in natural areas

or archeological sites. The object of this game is to locate well-hidden

caches that may be buried. This game encourages participants to move off

trail that leads to vegetative damage and erosion problems. Digging

disturbs park resources and damages archeological sites. This activity

can be alarming to bystanders who misidentify the individuals when they

observe participants hiding or acting in a suspicious manner to avoid

detection. Organizers of this type of activity are known to hold events

in the park without prior approval or any attempt to obtain a Special Use

Permit.

 

If this is only an isolated incident with the one cache in Alaska I think we should make sure we have all the facts from the cache owner before we start writing letters and bringing attention to the other virtuals on NPS grounds?

 

Personally I can understand the concerns of the NPS regarding traditionals and any caches that require the searcher to leave trails. However, as long as a "cache" doesn't require the searcher to break any park rules and doesn't break any of the laws mentioned in the November letter I don't think the NPS could legally make a statement banning locationless caches.

 

Dave

[+briansnat]

.(a)(1) Geocaching Games – Geocaches typically are hidden in natural areas

or archeological sites. The object of this game is to locate well-hidden

caches that may be buried. This game encourages participants to move off

trail that leads to vegetative damage and erosion problems. Digging

disturbs park resources and damages archeological sites. This activity

can be alarming to bystanders who misidentify the individuals when they

observe participants hiding or acting in a suspicious manner to avoid

detection. Organizers of this type of activity are known to hold events

in the park without prior approval or any attempt to obtain a Special Use

Permit.,

 

 

This is exactly what I mean. They have this misconception that we're heading out in the woods with a pick and shovel to bury our caches and nothing is further from the truth.

 

just have one question; Other than the letter back in November regarding geocaching in general, has there been any other contact with the NPS? Have they directly contacted the administration regarding a ban on virtual caches?

There have been many conversations with the NPS regarding geocaching.

 

 

However, as long as a "cache" doesn't require the searcher to break any park rules and doesn't break any of the laws mentioned in the November letter I don't think the NPS could legally make a statement banning locationless caches.

 

That's our point.

Edited March 26, 2004 by briansnat

[MOCKBA]

They have this misconception that we're heading out in the woods with a pick and shovel

well it isn't entirely a misconception, I use a shovel and an ice ax very extensively to look for caches ... all winter long

Back to the topic - what interest may GC.com possibly have in arguing the virtual cache issue with the NPS when the intent of the TPTB is to promote trad caching? How does the "virt is better" argument advance these goals?

[+aka Monkey]

Geocaching is urging the placing of traditional caches, but considering that they aren't allowed on NPS land (which comprises a very large area and has some great stuff on it), virtuals are our only option there.

[+Renegade Knight]

Organizers of this type of activity are known to hold events

in the park without prior approval or any attempt to obtain a Special Use

Permit.,

 

The wording here says a lot. Geocaching doesn't require a special permit because individual activities don't require them. Placing a cache might just so the park has a record of where the container is at. A permit for a virtual is rather pointless. Now a CITO event or an Event cache might and that would be fair as it's the same as if the Dental institute wanted to rent the band stand to play Polkas. Mostly the wording tells me there was already a bias against geocaching going into whatever meeting set their policy. As fast as that policy was made it can be unmade. However that will take work until we find the right person who makes the right call. The odds are that person is a senator or congressman.

Edited March 27, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[Tahosa and Sons]

About a year ago I was told to pull this Cache off the WEB. Well its still there, we had a typical meeting with the officials and they agreed to leave it there. There was no way I was going to archive this Cache, mainly because of the freedom of speech.

 

And since then I have written about the trails on the park with Local Hikes and everything has been fine for over year.

 

Virtuals do no more harm than the mountain bikers or the horses that leave meadow muffins on the trail. But it is required to pick up dog poop, not horse dung, now is that fair when you see the difference in size.

Edited March 27, 2004 by Tahosa and Sons

[+briansnat]

bout a year ago I was told to pull this Cache off the WEB. Well its still there, we had a typical meeting with the officials and they agreed to leave it there. There was no way I was going to archive this Cache, mainly because of the freedom of speech.

 

Bravo for sticking up for your cache and your right to post it!

[+bons]

Organizers of this type of activity are known to hold events in the park without prior approval or any attempt to obtain a Special Use Permit.

I'm glad that was mentioned. I never thought of the need to have a Special Use Permit to pick up trash out of a city park, but I guess it makes sense.

 

That way they can have the extra trucks and heavy loader to haul out the trash bags and the occasional car engine.

Edited March 28, 2004 by bons

[+fly46]

Oy Vey.

 

My two (or more) cents worth.

 

First and foremost, I have to say thank you to the people who are chosing to handle this - and any other such - situation with well written letters that are intelligent and throuroughly thought out. Intelligence solves more than slander or a hot temper any day.

 

I fully agree that it is well within our rights to put virtual caches anywhere we so chose to without permission - so long as the location is not a danger to us and is on public property. If it is on private property, then yes, you must ask permission.

 

However, with that said, I must also ask this. If you didn't geocache and knew nothing of it, what would you think was going on if someone was walking around with something in their hand, staring at it intently... No, I don't believe we need to ask permission, but perhaps it is a good idea to go up to the director of these such places and explain what we are doing so that it doesn't cause problems like the ones mentioned.

 

It's not that hard to say, "Excuse me, Mr. Smith, my name is Mandi and I belong to a website called GeoCaching.com. I have submitted this wonderful weed-infested parking lot as a location of a virtual cache. In GeoCaching, people are given exact latitude and longitude coordinates of a specific location. In regular caches, something is hidden at the spot of the coordinates. However, since this cache is set up as a virtual, there will be nothing hidden at this site. The coordinates and the cache posting only serve as a high-tech invitation to visit this site. What I have done is the same as calling a friend on the phone and telling them that they have to check out the weed-infested parking lot at 123 Sesame Street. I assure you that these cachers will cause no harm to the property."

 

 

(edited to add something)

Edited March 27, 2004 by fly46

[+YukonWolf]

Caching Friends

 

I am the owner of the original Totem Park virtual cache. If any want more information on this cache and why it was pulled you may want to talk to me and I would be glad to fill you in.

 

Dave Lewis

Sitka, Alaska

[+briansnat]

I am the owner of the original Totem Park virtual cache. If any want more information on this cache and why it was pulled you may want to talk to me and I would be glad to fill you in.

 

Go ahead. We're all eyes.