Jump to content

imminent domain


jellis

Recommended Posts

I've assisted as reviwewer on 3 Florida GeoTours. The GeoTour hiders will have the same difficulties that many other hiders have, particularly not avoiding existing staged caches.

 

Generally, where those older caches have explicit permission, that permission will be honored and the GeoTour caches shifted, or there will be cache saturation exemptions. The owners of the older caches placed without permission are contacted about options to move their caches.

Sometimes they do, and sometimes they choose to archive.

 

At first cachers we're excited about it coming but they aren't now.

 

Some cache owners and some of their friends will complain and be less than thrilled, for sure. But the larger community will enjoy the tour very much.

 

I do have sympathy for those who have been placing caches on a "no permission needed" basis, and later find out that not having permission = no protection if the land manager wants to place.

Link to comment

Not sure what you mean by permission. These caches have been there for awhile and so to make room they claim now they don't have permission?

From the Guidelines:

 

In the case of public property, permission can often be obtained from the agency or association that manages the land.

 

Sometimes referred to "adequate permission" further up in the Guidelines, the Earthcache Guidelines offer some guidance:

 

The name, title, and contact details of the person that authorized the EarthCache must be included in a Reviewer Note.

 

In my local area, this came to a head in our local BLM area. Adequate permission was assumed for a local recreational area. After the BLM evaluated geocaching on their lands, they developed a policy that excluded geocaching from lands they manage, except in cases in which the local Project Manager specifically approved the cache placement. Permission can be a fluid thing. One day it's there, the next it can be gone.

Link to comment
Some cache owners and some of their friends will complain and be less than thrilled, for sure. But the larger community will enjoy the tour very much.
FWIW, it isn't just the cache owners or their friends who will be less than thrilled. I don't really know the owners of the caches archived for the new GeoTour, although I'm sure I've met some of them at area events. But some of these caches are older caches that had a lot of thought put into them, and that were some of the local favorites. Yes, the city's parks are pretty saturated; people have been hiding caches in these parks for more than a decade. But the city could have worked with local geocachers instead of taking the brute-force approach of demanding that the existing caches be archived to make room for their GeoTour.

 

In contrast, the MROSD worked with local geocachers when they created their Preserve Circuit Geo-Challenge. And local geocachers are helping and working with the MROSD to maintain the caches in their Preserve Circuit Geo-Challenge. Other agencies and cities should be encouraged to do the same.

 

Yes, it's their land. Yes, they have a legal right to demand that the existing caches be archived. But it would be a lot nicer if they learned to play well with others.

Link to comment

I think GS charges several thousand dollars to set up caches and register them as a GeoTours. Groundspeak is a company, and geocaching is their revenue. If they have to archive a few caches to cater to GeoTours, it make complete business sense to me that they would do so. :anibad:

 

I do understand that it would be upsetting to some CO's, and it is not easy being a CO here anymore. It's not about what is fair here, it's about business. :(

Link to comment

Since these appear to be a short term project it sounds entirely reasonable that existing caches could remain and the 0.1 mile/528 ft rule be placed in limbo for the duration of the project, so that caches for the GeoTour and existing caches could reside in the space. This rule of 0.1 mile/528 feet is Geocaching/Groundspeak's rule and if they are intent on offering communities these GeoTours the best way to maintain harmony is to "Grandfather" existing caches, rather than go though this exercise in the current method, which, from what I'm seeing is doing no small amount of harm to relations between community, geocachers and Geocaching/Groundspeak.

 

Brushing aside geocachers and waving rules around in their faces is not a good idea. It's not even a bad idea. It's a terrible one.

Link to comment

I know of one cache that was forcibly archived for the Milpitas GeoTour that certainly appears to not have been on Milpitas property. I suspect that 99%+ of all cache hides globally don't have permission for placement in the classic sense, so most caches are at risk of archiving to pave the way for "paying" cache hiders.

Link to comment

I agree land managers should work with existing COs when setting up new GeoTours. COs should in turn be reasonable.

 

However, let's remember this isn't behavior that started with GeoTours. Land managers have been sometimes requiring existing caches to be removed to place their own caches for a long time.

 

Even when explicit permission is granted it can be revoked whenever the land manager wants for any reason they want on any or all caches on their land.

Link to comment
However, let's remember this isn't behavior that started with GeoTours. Land managers have been sometimes requiring existing caches to be removed to place their own caches for a long time.

 

In this case, the main concern is that land managers demanded (and obtained) archival of caches that were not on their land.

Link to comment

Fizzy, I think there's some confusion about the dog park, which is a city park within a county park.

You'll find that info on both the county and city park pages.

 

I had nothing to do with these reviews; I don't what went on between cache owners and the GeoTour - what I do see is 4 cache owners who shifted hides to accommodate the tour, two instances where the tour shifted their own hides relative to existing caches, and 3 archived caches (all in city parks).

Link to comment

This discussion seems to be surrounding some circumstances that only Californian cachers know about. Maybe it should be moved to a more appropriate sub-forum?

No, let's keep it here. I believe the same thing has happened on other States as well, so let's not bury the subject when we can discuss it.

 

Thank you.

Are you able to provide some background then? It isn't clear exactly what's going on. jellis' post just jumps into the discussion assuming everyone knows what she's talking about, which is why I figured this would be better in a regional forum where the locals already have the necessary insider information. Something to do with an unspecified GeoTour and forcibly archiving caches?

Link to comment

Fizzy, I think there's some confusion about the dog park, which is a city park within a county park.

You'll find that info on both the county and city park pages.

 

That is not the cache in question. The cache to which I refer was not in any park and very clearly not on city property. Because it was a puzzle cache, there is no point in posting the GC number here; you'll just have to take my word for the location of the final.

 

As for moving this to a regional forum -- there is, in fact, no regional forum for it to move to.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment

This discussion seems to be surrounding some circumstances that only Californian cachers know about. Maybe it should be moved to a more appropriate sub-forum?

 

Actually, there are at least some California cachers who are not aware of the circumstances. Even some Northern California cachers, like me. So it could be moved to the West and Southwest forum but the present discussion seems to go beyond that.

 

Whatever happened seems less like eminent domain and more like an attempt to use adverse possession. If Palmetto is right and Groundspeak or reviewers will usually try to accommodate caches that have express permission, then is the complaint based upon a right to a location that was never granted? Of course, a land manager is always free to revoke permission, in which case permission is no longer there - to keep the cache there is still more like adverse possession than eminent domain.

 

But that is just semantics. If I was asked to move a cache because of a geotour, I would think that the purpose of my cache - to take people to that location - was no longer needed and that a new series might get people back there. I realize though that people get attached to their containers in different ways and that it could be annoying to be asked to move out of the way. Maybe if I felt that way I would compare it to a Vogon destroyer removing things (or planets) to create an intergalactic highway.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

This discussion seems to be surrounding some circumstances that only Californian cachers know about. Maybe it should be moved to a more appropriate sub-forum?

No, let's keep it here. I believe the same thing has happened on other States as well, so let's not bury the subject when we can discuss it.

 

Thank you.

Are you able to provide some background then? It isn't clear exactly what's going on. jellis' post just jumps into the discussion assuming everyone knows what she's talking about, which is why I figured this would be better in a regional forum where the locals already have the necessary insider information. Something to do with an unspecified GeoTour and forcibly archiving caches?

This particular Geotour will be located in Milpitas, CA, which is maybe an hour South of San Francisco. The idea appears to release the Geotour to coincide with the Super Bowl, and is getting publicized by the City of Milpitas through various social media outlets.

 

The conversation is interesting and relevant to the deployment of Geotours in general, so I think it would be a pity to move the topic to a sub forum, since it has a community wide appeal.

Link to comment

This discussion seems to be surrounding some circumstances that only Californian cachers know about. Maybe it should be moved to a more appropriate sub-forum?

No, let's keep it here. I believe the same thing has happened on other States as well, so let's not bury the subject when we can discuss it.

 

Thank you.

Are you able to provide some background then? It isn't clear exactly what's going on. jellis' post just jumps into the discussion assuming everyone knows what she's talking about, which is why I figured this would be better in a regional forum where the locals already have the necessary insider information. Something to do with an unspecified GeoTour and forcibly archiving caches?

 

I could but I wont. That would be like calling out another cacher. I just don't want to see this topic brushed aside and not discussed.

Link to comment

As for moving this to a regional forum -- there is, in fact, no regional forum for it to move to.

What about the West and Southwest subforum?

 

Are you able to provide some background then? It isn't clear exactly what's going on. jellis' post just jumps into the discussion assuming everyone knows what she's talking about, which is why I figured this would be better in a regional forum where the locals already have the necessary insider information. Something to do with an unspecified GeoTour and forcibly archiving caches?

I could but I wont. That would be like calling out another cacher. I just don't want to see this topic brushed aside and not discussed.

I just fail to see how a meaningful discussion can be had when the details of the discussion are known only to those in a section of one state.

 

This discussion just needs to start over by starting with a more generic premise, rather than surrounding some hush-hush GeoTour in a particular region. Are we discussing revoking permission to place new caches? That seems to be what the discussion has started to head toward.

Link to comment

 

This particular Geotour will be located in Milpitas, CA, which is maybe an hour South of San Francisco. The idea appears to release the Geotour to coincide with the Super Bowl, and is getting publicized by the City of Milpitas through various social media outlets.

 

The conversation is interesting and relevant to the deployment of Geotours in general, so I think it would be a pity to move the topic to a sub forum, since it has a community wide appeal.

 

Okay. That explains my ignorance. Out of my territory. But it is difficult to speak in general terms. I remember seeing a very heated discussion about something similar in a regional forum awhile back, but there were specific groups and issues that made it very personal. It was better discussed there. Without any context, however, the circumstances could vary from one area to another, from one tour to another. So my thoughts about a geotour moving into an area is that it depends. . . .

 

Anything more than that requires further information about the agency, the land policies, the permanence of the tour, any possible accommodations to existing caches, and a range of factors. Ultimately the land manager wins. Perhaps in specific situations there are ways to facilitate communication or to incorporate existing cachers or the COs into the planning process. And perhaps there are ways that it could be handled better in specific situations - although the bottom line is probably the same.

 

Without knowing more, the discussion involves any number of hypotheticals.

 

So I would stick with "it depends."

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

That hasn't been brought up but mostly about COs having been asked and forced to move or archive their caches to make room for a Geotour.

Thank for you clarifying.

 

In that regard, I agree with what niraD posted. Barging in and kicking out existing caches to place your own is a poor way to become involved in the geocaching community. I don't have any experience with a GeoTour being created in my area, but I've been a part of some mass-hiding for Mega events. In those cases, we worked around the existing caches and never dreamt of trying to get the existing caches archived to make room for ours. However, I can see how a marketing department who's paying money can feel entitled to kick out the caches hidden by people who aren't "paying for the privilege" in order to advance their agenda.

Link to comment

Without taking sides, here is the situation in terms of the issues presented.

 

A city wanted to build a geotour. Since the city parks were already pretty saturated with caches, it was clear that existing caches would have to move or be archived in order to make way for the tour.

 

The city asked Groundspeak to archive caches that would interfere with the geotour caches. Groundspeak sent messages to the affected cachers and offered to work with them to move their caches or to try to get them incorporated into the geotour. This notification happened on Tuesday, for a geotour set to premiere tomorrow (4 days of notice.)

 

The city did not notify any of the cachers; the first they heard was from Groundspeak on Tuesday (at least, as I understand it).

 

The city made no effort to work with the cachers, although it did offer a geocoin to them as compensation for their trouble.

 

Several of the caches were puzzles that had required a great deal of effort to create, and the COs were unhappy about the short notice and the way this was handled.

 

For at least two of the caches, the locations were not on city property, but the caches were within 500 feet of locations the city wanted to use.

 

For one of those locations, the cache was in a county park, owned and controlled by the county. However, the city claimed that it had a co-use agreement with the county for the portion of the park where the cache was located, and thus was the landowner.

 

For another of the locations, the cache was not on city property. The final was within 500 feet of a location that the city wanted to use, however, so the city demanded that it be archived.

 

I think this should bring some more clarity to the discussion. The issues seem to be:

  • The timeframe for the notifications for the existing caches
  • The fact that the city made no attempt to work with the cache owners
  • How the city was able to get at least one cache archived that was not on city property.

Link to comment

There are several mitigating factors that should be considered here This is opinion, that didn't belong in the previous post.

 

First, the city employees making the geotour are complete newbies. they genuinely had no idea that there would be a negative reaction from the geocaching community to the archiving of several well-loved caches. For whatever reason, it did not occur to them to contact the cache owners in question or to reach out to experienced members of the caching community.

 

Second, Groundspeak was sincere and concerned in their efforts to work with existing cache owners to mitigate the impact.

 

Third, I am of the distinct impression that Groundspeak was given no more notice than the cachers about when the caches needed to be archived. So the short timeframe is not Groundspeak's fault.

 

Finally, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Complaining too vociferously to the city is unlikely to make them more supportive of geocaching, while just swallowing the insult and letting them get away with the behavior seems counterproductive as well. I honestly don't know the best way to proceed.

 

But I think the lesson learned is that we need to figure out a way to educate landowners who want to create geotours about the existing caching culture and how to interact with it.

Link to comment

The city asked Groundspeak to archive caches that would interfere with the geotour caches. Groundspeak sent messages to the affected cachers and offered to work with them to move their caches or to try to get them incorporated into the geotour.

Thanks for providing the background behind the OP. Things are much more clear now.

 

Have any of the caches already been archived by Groundspeak, or is that part still pending? What was the response if an affected cacher objected and refused to move or incorporate their cache? Was it/will it be archived?

 

Going on the assumption that caches have already been or will be archived by Groundspeak, I lay the blame solely on Groundspeak. They need to grow a backbone and show some respect to their members by standing up to the GeoTour creators and telling them that isn't how it works. They need to explain to the GeoTour creators that forcing the archival of caches will cause harm to their reputation within the geocaching community, negating the intention of the GeoTour (which is presumably to favourably-market the entity/organization), and that they need to work with - not against - the local geocaching community.

Link to comment
Have any of the caches already been archived by Groundspeak, or is that part still pending? What was the response if an affected cacher objected and refused to move or incorporate their cache? Was it/will it be archived?

 

As far as I know, all of the caches were archived either by the owners or by Groundspeak HQ. I am unaware of any owners who refused. Several of the caches were not archived by the owners, but I have no idea whether they objected or not.

Link to comment

But I think the lesson learned is that we need to figure out a way to educate landowners who want to create geotours about the existing caching culture and how to interact with it.

The responsibility here lies with Groundspeak. They need to modify their GeoTour marketing material to make it clear that there's a large existing geocaching community that prospective GeoTour creators need to work with, and that bullying that community to meet your objectives is strongly discouraged and counter-productive.

Link to comment

 

I think this should bring some more clarity to the discussion. The issues seem to be:

  • The timeframe for the notifications for the existing caches
  • The fact that the city made no attempt to work with the cache owners
  • How the city was able to get at least one cache archived that was not on city property.

 

That helps a little. Context is everything. I might have additional questions about whether the city had any policy in place regarding the existing caches, if they had been placed with permission of city officials, or had just been left in accordance with the frisbee rule. The extent to which the city was aware of the game beforehand would be a factor -- if not as a practical matter, then in terms of a discussion about equities.

 

Timeframe: Should Groundspeak set guidelines for a geotour to require a certain time period before a tour is approved? This would seem reasonable. A few days notice makes it hard to develop alternatives, change a puzzle to reflect a new location, or do what is necessary so that cachers feel like they are part of the process.

 

Working with Existing Cachers: Groundspeak apparently offered to work with people or to help them get their caches incorporated into the tour or to find alternative locations. That probably goes back to the time frame. Without adequate time, it is difficult to accomplish this. The biggest problem would be with the puzzles.

 

Of course to the extent that the city manages the property, they could just impose a blanket ban on existing geocaches if they so choose -- the only power Groundspeak really has is its power to withhold publishing the geotour. But hopefully in most situations it is a give and take process. I would expect that geotour developers want to work with Groundspeak and the existing community so that their tour is an accepted part of the community and a success. I would expect that Groundspeak would want to work with geotours to make the game more of a part of civic planning.

 

To this end, Groundspeak needs to be particularly conscious about what it tells geotour developers and how it encourages developers to work with the community. It would be best if developers could be encouraged to meet with local cachers so they are part of the process.

 

Here, it seems that the superbowl is driving the speed of the process. Its probably driven a lot of things in the bay area -- including some of its own scavenger hunt type of activities. The geocoin might have been an attempt to buffer hurt feelings, but I could see where people would want to say "thanks but no thanks."

 

Archival of Cache: I suppose that is Groundspeak's decision. Was that existing cache placed with express permission? If so, it would be more problematic than if the cache had no particular permission. Certainly, a cache with existing permission from a different land manager should have priority. Groundspeak could certainly ask a CO if their cache could be removed, make an exception, or tell the geotour agency that their hands were tied. Or they could archive it -- but that would seem rude.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...