[Kai Team]

bigredmed, on Jan 2 2005, 10:32 PM, said:

Posted here from other discussion area.

Perhaps a required part of the cache description would be a breakdown of the two ratings.

This is (at least partially) covered by: "When creating a cache, describe any hidden dangers and, if possible, arrange the hunt to minimize these dangers". However, you raise a good point that we can't rely on people taking personal responsibility and knowing their limits unless they also know what they're getting into. Perhaps this should be tweaked to say:

"When creating a cache, describe any dangers and, if possible, arrange the hunt to minimize hidden dangers".

Anyone see a problem with this change? If not, I'll add it to the list of tweaks for the Code.

Quote

That coupled with the required basic data set for cache logs would be how I would implement the code. Teeth added that if you didn't want to follow these two, that perhaps you would be willing to list your caches elsewhere.

The Code was designed to be independent of geocaching.com or any other listing site - i.e. to have a consensus code of geocaching conduct developed by the larger geocaching community, for the larger geocaching community. We started on the gc.com forums because they are the most widely read, but the discussion has been picked up on a number of other sites, with people bringing issues back to this one, so I think it is truly broader than just gc.com.

It wouldn't work to say "list your caches elsewhere" because that implies that it's OK to violate the code (safe, legal and ethical) as long as you don't list your cache on gc.com. Not the message we're trying to send, since unsafe, illegal or unethical caching hurst us all, regardless of where the cache is listed.

This post has been edited by Kai Team: 03 January 2005 - 08:21 AM

[CoyoteRed]

Kai Team, on Jan 3 2005, 11:20 AM, said:

Anyone see a problem with this change?

I do.

Part of the idea of encouraging folks to be responsible for themselves is the hunt could change from the time the cache is placed and the time it is searched for.

That's not to mention a listing site would have to invest in a bunch of extra storage to keep a list of every danger a cache might have.

So, no, I don't think taking any responsibility off the searcher and placing the onus on the hider is a good idea in the least.

The responsibility for a cacher's safety rests squarely in hands of the cacher himself.

AISI, the first tenet means, partially, you don't purposefully place someone in a dangerous situation that could not be foreseen by them when they are alert and aware of their surroundings. Walking "fat, dumb, and happy" into a 5/5 is just wrong and if anything unfortunate does happen, the responsibility falls directly on the searcher's shoulders.

[BigHank]

" I think that's the value of the code, for newbies and experienced players - it gives you a sense of what the larger geocaching community agrees upon and makes you think about things that you otherwise could take for granted (i.e. assume that everyone feels the way you do). I believe it has the potential to make a difference. It also has the side benefit of communicating to outsiders what the majority of geocachers agree on, which is some pretty positive stuff for the sport as a whole! "

A few comments. First, re the above quote: how are you going to get the MAJORITY of geocachers to agree? The forums do not represent the majority. Most 'cachers I know do not even lurk on the forums as much as I do, in fact, they don't even read or care about the forums. So if you are going to say that this represents the "sense of what the larger geocaching community agrees" on, somehow you have to actually find out what that sense is. My personal opinion is that the folks who post on the forum do not represent all geocachers and may not even be a representative cross-section. That is not a slam against anyone who does post on the forums, it is strictly my opinion.

Second, I agree with whoever said that a name for it could be "Cacher's Creed".... I like that lots better than "code"..... "code" sounds too legalistic.

However, third, while I commend the effort put into this, I wonder if it is really needed? It seems to me that the more rules and regulations and "guidelines" that get added to 'caching, the less fun it becomes. At this point, if it ever came to some sort of vote of ALL geocachers, I would probably vote "no."

[CoyoteRed]

BigHank, on Jan 3 2005, 11:52 AM, said:

It seems to me that the more rules and regulations and "guidelines" that get added to 'caching, the less fun it becomes. At this point, if it ever came to some sort of vote of ALL geocachers, I would probably vote "no."

The Code is nothing more than a distillation of what has been acceptable for a while now. It is in a more digestable form and the examples are basically both expansions of the Code and distillations of what has already been hashed out by our fellow cachers. I've already seen "I didn't know that" comments on issues that if you ask in the forums you'd already get the same answers.

In other words, a "no" vote for this Code is a vote for keeping the accepted practices and caching decorum spread over a mulitude of places to search before you get a clearer picture of how one should act.

Could you vote "no" is any one of the tenets? Or is it just the fact someone put them all together in one place?

[Renegade Knight]

KISS:

...Not endanger myself or others. covers a lot of ground. Why add details that don't need to be added? The code can't describe every possible scenario about what dangers lurk. I'd not add more detail on having to describe hidden dangers on a cache hunt.

As for teeth, this should be a voluntary code. Not a mandatated code. This site has guidelines with teeth. Don't follow the rules, don't get your cache approved. The code should not be about increasing the regulatory requirments of this hobby. We have enough. Anyone who likes it should feel free to follow it, and at worst listing sites should 'encourage' others to follow it. But never put teeth in it to where we swear on a stack of bibles and by the TOS of our listing site that we have read, understood, follow and pledge our alegence to the code to get a cache approve.

Just some comments based on a few posts scattered around on the code.

[BigHank]

CR,

After reading your reply to my post, I stopped and thought about it for a minute... and I can see what you are saying on this. Perhaps what is the turn off to me is the word "code." The more I think about it, the more that is not something I could support.... I do like the word "creed" though, because to me, rather than being somethng imposed externally, a creed is something I voluntarily try to adhere to..... yep, I like that idea better. Okay, so change it to Creed and I would vote yes.... thanks for your reply and the impetus for the added thought.

Hank

[Jeremy]

BigHank, on Jan 3 2005, 09:32 AM, said:

I do like the word "creed" though, because to me, rather than being somethng imposed externally, a creed is something I voluntarily try to adhere to..... yep, I like that idea better.

I also like the word "creed" over "code"

[CoyoteRed]

Yeah, I looked up "code" and "creed," and do have to agree that "creed" fits much better. I've always thought "code" and "creed" was pretty much interchangable, but it's not. "Creed" is much better in describing what I think the tenets represent.

[Kai Team]

CoyoteRed, on Jan 3 2005, 11:51 AM, said:

Kai Team, on Jan 3 2005, 11:20 AM, said:

Anyone see a problem with this change?

I do.

Walking "fat, dumb, and happy" into a 5/5 is just wrong and if anything unfortunate does happen, the responsibility falls directly on the searcher's shoulders.

CR,

I think it depends on how you define "hidden" dangers - are they hidden from someone on the scene (your defintion, and I agree with you in that context) or hidden from someone looking at the cache description and considering whether to take the kids (the other concern, which I also agree with).

One can argue that the terrain and difficulty ratings suffice to address the latter situation, but as others have pointed out, there is a lot of variability in how people use the ratings (one person's "4" is another person's "2").

The intent is to be clear that there are dangers, not to exhaustively list all dangers that might be present, e.g. a simple statement that the terrain would be inappropriate for children would suffice in my view. I can't think of a good way to word this in the Creed, so I'll leave it as is unless someone comes up with wording that captures both concerns without adding too many new words!

[Kai Team]

Time for an update showing tweaks discussed thus far:

The "Geocachers' Creed" was created using open forums that were viewed over 4400 times and involved over 50 geocachers in a long discussion. This is a voluntary code - it describes how geocachers in general act. It's designed to orient new players to the ethos of the geocaching community and to guide experienced players in questionable situations so that everyone can enjoy geocaching. The Creed is not owned by any site or listing service. The Creed itself follows...

The Geocachers’ Creed
Safe · Legal · Ethical

When placing or seeking geocaches, I will:

• Not endanger myself or others.
  
• Observe all laws and rules of the area.
  
• Respect property rights and seek permission where appropriate.
  
• Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm.
  
• Minimize my and others' impact on the environment
  
• Be considerate of others.
  
• Protect the integrity of the game pieces.

Following are examples of how to apply the creed and further explanation. These are only examples and not part of the creed - not every contingency can be spelled out. If something is not specifically listed in the examples, refer back to the "intent" by looking at the main tenets above. The items in the Creed are in order of importance - an earlier one will take precedence over a later one.

...Not endanger myself or others.

• Like any outdoor activity, geocaching involves some inherent risk and many geocachers enjoy manageable risks. Minimize inordinate risks.
  
• When creating a cache, describe any hidden dangers and, if possible, arrange the hunt to minimize these dangers.
  
• When seeking a cache, know your limitations and be aware of your surroundings. Don't attempt anything beyond your abilities.
  
• A cache you own, or one you're trading out of, could be found by children or even a prisoner work crew - consider the location of the cache and those likely to find it when deciding what to leave as a trade item.

...Observe all laws and rules of the area.

• Don’t break the law or rules of an area, or encourage others to do so, when placing or seeking a cache.
  
• Don't leave illegal items in a cache.

...Respect property rights and seek permission where appropriate.

• Seek permission on all private property that's not generally open to public access.
  
• Check if public land has a geocaching policy and respect existing policies.
  
• Promptly remove your cache if the land manager or steward asks.
  
• Do not damage, or interfere with the function of, buildings, structures, or signage.

...Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm.

• Don’t place a cache near schools or government buildings unless the administration and staff are fully aware of the placement.
  
• Use caution where children play. Parents are understandably concerned when strangers are near their children.
  
• Don’t place a cache near critical infrastructure that might be considered a terrorist target, or create a cache that could be mistaken for a terrorist device (e.g. a pipe bomb).

...Minimize my and others' impact on the environment.

• Follow Leave No Trace ethics whenever possible.
  
• When seeking a cache, practice "Lift, Look, Replace" - put all stones or logs back where you found them. Leave the area as you found it or better (e.g. pick up litter)
  
• Obtain the best possible coordinates for your cache to reduce unwarranted wear on the area. Recheck and correct your coordinates if finders report significant errors.
  
• Do not abandon a cache.
  • If you stop maintaining a cache, remove the container, archive its listing and explain the disposition of the cache in your archive note, or put it up for adoption or rescue.
    
  • If you de-list a cache on one host, but keep it on another, make sure you mention this in the archive note to prevent rescues of active caches.

...be considerate of others.

• Treat other geocachers civilly - in the field, in the forums, or wherever your paths may cross.
  
• Don't spoil the hunt for others - allow them to experience the cache as its owner intended.
  • Avoid leaving tracks to the cache. Do not disrupt the cache area or mark the hiding spot.
    
  • Minimize giving unsolicited clues that reveal the cache (i.e. "spoilers")
    
  • Don't provide any hints if the cache description asks you not to. In all other cases, be cryptic or encrypt any hints or spoilers you enter in online logs.
    
  • Edit your log if the cache owner requests that you remove spoilers.
  
  
• Promptly alert the owner of any issues with their cache. Make minor repairs if you can, it will save the owner a trip.
  
• Cache owners appreciate feedback - write an online log, send an email, or otherwise let the owner know about your experience with their cache.
  
• Only place caches you can maintain and respond promptly to problem reports.
  
• If you exchange trade items, trade kindly: Consider what future finders would like and leave something equal to or better than what you take.
  
• If you place a traveling item into the game, attach a tag that describes its goal, so that others can help it along. If you pick up a traveling item with a tag describing its goal, move the item toward its goal if possible. Contact the owner if you hold a traveling item for more than a couple of weeks or so.
  
• Obtain permission from the originator before copying unique themes and techniques, adding to an existing series of caches, or placing a cache close to another.

...Protect the integrity of the game pieces.

• The owner entrusts you to not damage or jeopardize the cache. Try to ensure the cache is ready for the next finder and is as good as or better than you found it.
  
• Make sure the container is properly closed to prevent the contents from getting wet or destroyed.
  
• Be inconspicuous in retrieving, signing in, and replacing a cache to avoid vandalism.
  
• Put the cache back where you found it and hide it well. Don’t move a cache - if you suspect the cache is not in the intended spot, hide it the best you can and alert the owner as soon as possible.
  
• Don’t collect traveling items meant to stay in the game. This is tantamount to stealing.
  
• Don’t tamper with or involve a game piece in "alternate" games without the owner’s permission.

LAST CHANGE: January 3, 2005.

This post has been edited by Kai Team: 03 January 2005 - 10:50 AM

[BigHank]

Looks good to me now....so you would have a "yes" vote from me.
Thanks.

Hank

[GeoVet]

Basically, I don't like rules, regulations, limits and boundaries. Codes quickly become oaths. Oaths become law. Law implies crime and punishment.
On the surface, it seems to be harmless enough. But if there's a code, there will be code-breakers. That's life. The founding fathers refused to sign the Constitution at first because there was no Bill of Rights. Others argued that these rights were common, given to all Englishmen at birth, unalienable. Even so, the rebuttal went, we should write them down so they can't be taken away. The now famous Bill of Rights was simply a list of assumed rights that were generally accepted and agreed upon as an Englishmen's birthright. Our code may be similar. It's common sense. But unless, or if, someone writes it out in plain English, stuff happens (Jim Crow, internment camps, Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board, Patriot Act) some governing body must intercede. What do you propose for that?
Codes are more than guidelines. They replace common sense. It demonstrates a mistrust of the wisdom of the people. Codes become dogmatic, codification leads to fascism and blind allegiance.
One of the early attractions of geocaching for me was the free-form, boundless enthusiasm and carefree abandon with which members enjoyed this new activity. It was raw and new and full of the sprirt of democracy and discovery. It still is, to a degree, I suppose.
But MY! haven't we gotten oh so grown-up?

[CoyoteRed]

GeoVet, on Jan 4 2005, 06:39 AM, said:

But MY! haven't we gotten oh so grown-up?

In the beginning, everyone knew each other at least through reputation. The word got out and new folks started joining the fun.

Now, folks can join up, go out and find caches, and never know they making some faux pas. Many don't read much beyond the basics or read the forums. There is very little in the way of mentoring like when it was very new.

If you'd notice, newbies will come into forums all bright-eyed and make up rules to situations that are contrary to what has already been established because they fail to find the answers they seek. Then the veterans have to argue with them to tell them they are wrong, and then there is back and forth. Seen it at least a couple of times that I was paying attention to.

Due to the lack of a mentoring mechanism, The Creed is an attempt to get everyone on the same page. It's not an attempt to make everyone play the game the same, only espouse a similar philosophy. Just like it was in the beginning.

This post has been edited by CoyoteRed: 04 January 2005 - 04:46 AM

[Kai Team]

GeoVet, on Jan 4 2005, 06:39 AM, said:

Our code may be similar.  It's common sense.  But unless, or if, someone writes it out in plain English, stuff happens... some governing body must intercede.  What do you propose for that?

Nothing. We have consistently rejected the notion of an enforcement mechanism for the Creed. It's voluntary - follow it or not, as you see fit.

Is there something specific in the Creed that you disagree with, or would not follow, and would like to see changed?

[Jeremy]

There's no such thing as common sense.

[SFABobby03]

GeoVet, on Jan 4 2005, 03:39 AM, said:

Basically, I don't like rules, regulations, limits and boundaries. Codes quickly become oaths. Oaths become law. Law implies crime and punishment.
On the surface, it seems to be harmless enough. But if there's a code, there will be code-breakers. That's life. The founding fathers refused to sign the Constitution at first because there was no Bill of Rights. Others argued that these rights were common, given to all Englishmen at birth, unalienable. Even so, the rebuttal went, we should write them down so they can't be taken away. The now famous Bill of Rights was simply a list of assumed rights that were generally accepted and agreed upon as an Englishmen's birthright. Our code may be similar. It's common sense. But unless, or if, someone writes it out in plain English, stuff happens (Jim Crow, internment camps, Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board, Patriot Act) some governing body must intercede. What do you propose for that?
Codes are more than guidelines. They replace common sense. It demonstrates a mistrust of the wisdom of the people. Codes become dogmatic, codification leads to fascism and blind allegiance.
One of the early attractions of geocaching for me was the free-form, boundless enthusiasm and carefree abandon with which members enjoyed this new activity. It was raw and new and full of the sprirt of democracy and discovery. It still is, to a degree, I suppose.
But MY! haven't we gotten oh so grown-up?

I think you pretty much put it perfectly as to why I don't think this code should be. I realize a lot of work has gone into it and I respect that. Maybe its because I don't like being told what to do and for the most part don't like rules that tell me how I will do something. Sure we have laws and those are fine for the most part. I like the freedom of this game. I personally don't think we need it.

[Renegade Knight]

GeoVet, on Jan 4 2005, 04:39 AM, said:

Basically, I don't like rules, regulations, limits and boundaries.  Codes quickly become oaths.  Oaths become law.  Law implies crime and punishment....

There are a few steps missing in what you present.

Codes are how your clan lives together.
Oaths are to your chieftan.
Laws are made by kings, dictators and republics.

Now unless you all are going to force a crown on Kai Teams head, and then become his elite army sworn to enforce the creed on all subjects, voluntary or otherwise you are stretching a bit.

For the code to be a rule someone has to enforce it, GC.com has all it can handle with it's own guidelines. Same with every other listing site.

Were someone to try to turn it into something more than a voluntary creed to adopt or not as you see fit, I would be first in line to hoist the jolly roger and run the creed out on a rail. However that's not what it is, and I truly doubt it's heading there. So long as it is a voluntary creed I'll back it and defend it.

This post has been edited by Renegade Knight: 04 January 2005 - 07:02 PM

[GeoVet]

Kai Team, on Jan 4 2005, 04:48 PM, said:

Is there something specific in the Creed that you disagree with, or would not follow, and would like to see changed?

No, of course not. It's all very right and proper. I guess it's just the idea that we NEED a creed is disturbing. I'm a simple man. I believe in "Less is more." It's all propbably part of the natural evolution of the game, and I should just keep my trap shut. When the social contract that binds a group is codified, it takes some of the shine off and the yoke of propiety bears heavy.

[Stuey]

Renegade Knight, on Jan 5 2005, 03:02 AM, said:

Were someone to try to turn it into something more than a voluntary creed to adopt or not as you see fit, I would be first in line to hoist the jolly roger and run the creed out on a rail.

Not if I get to it first

It's been said over in the UK forums that one advantage of this code is when approaching land owners for permission to place a cache. It'd be quite good to be able to say "cachers follow these guidelines when hunting the cache that will be placed on your land", even if they choose not to!

[Markwell]

GeoVet, on Jan 5 2005, 04:11 PM, said:

I guess it's just the idea that we NEED a creed is disturbing.

Read the heavy sarcasm here, folks


<grumpy old man voice>
Back in the olden days, we never had to do no namby-pamby code of ethics or creed of behavior. If someone wanted to place a cache on the railroad tracks and someone else was silly enough to go hunt it, they'd be listening to the rail and get their ear sliced off. And then we'd all go around pointing at the guy and saying "Boo-Hoo. Look at the guy with no ear. He musta looked for a cache on the tracks."

If your hitch hiker went to China and back, you were glad it was still around. You read the log saying that someone took your Travel Bug hostage, and you LIKED it! We LOVED it! We be singing GLORY HALLELUJAH - My Travel Bug was STOLEN!
</grumpy old man voice>

I really liked Dana Carvey's grumpy old man segments.

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

Seriously, though - it would be nice if we didn't have to lay everything out for everyone to see, or suggest creeds that we should all live by. Unfortunately, with the growth, we're getting the lower of the bell curve with people trading Morgan Dollars for old Snickers wrappers, and people "moving" a cache because they thought it was too hard to find.

These instances of deplorable caching behavior were rare when I started, but (from what I read here) have become all too common. I think therefore the statement of this creed is a necessary reminder for the old-timers and a good guide for "proper" behavior to the newbies.

This post has been edited by Markwell: 05 January 2005 - 03:08 PM

[Lemon Fresh Dog]

I like the way it reads. Seems to give people something to follow as they enter the game. Of course, one always has to worry that it could become a crutch or a bat, but I think most reasonable folks could live by such a open, yet functional creed. I suspect many follow the practices outlined within it already.

I like it. Maybe don't need it, but I like it.

edited for spelink

This post has been edited by Lemon Fresh Dog: 05 January 2005 - 03:08 PM

[Kai Team]

By codifying the social contract that binds the geocaching community (nice turn of phrase, GeoVet), we may forestall the need for more rigid rules as the sport continues to grow. Someone once said, "the purpose of a written contract is to prevent misunderstandings". Codifying our social contract may prevent misunderstandings and reduce conflict among geocachers and between geocachers and others (e.g. landowners).

Earlier in the thread, people complained there was nothing about "having fun" in the Creed. They had a point - the purpose of the Creed is to enhance the fun of geocaching for everyone involved. So I put a phrase in the introduction of the last update.

By putting our social contract in writing, and widely distributing it, we reduce misunderstandings and thoughtlessness (in the literal sense), and make the game more fun (no more battles over travel bug etiquette, or moving of cahces, etc). At least that's why I'm investing my time and energy in it (although I do like the sound of "King Kai Team" ).

Edit: typos and spelling

This post has been edited by Kai Team: 05 January 2005 - 04:02 PM

[Jeremy]

So add to the creed:

* And most importantly, have fun!

[GeoVet]

Kai Team, on Jan 5 2005, 03:58 PM, said:

By codifying the social contract that binds the geocaching community (nice turn of  phrase, GeoVet),  we may forestall the need for more rigid rules as the sport continues to grow.  Someone once said, "the purpose of a written contract is to prevent misunderstandings".  Codifying our social contract may prevent misunderstandings and reduce conflict among geocachers and between geocachers and others (e.g. landowners).

Robert Frost, in "The Mending Wall", said "Good fences make good neighbors." I guess this is like forestalling the need for more rigid rules. The bell curve's lower end and thoughtless newbie behaviors notwithstanding, I mourn the loss of the Open Range and regret the need for a creed. I am a grumpy old man (Yikes! did I really say that?) and there's enough of The Merry Prankster and Monkey Wrench Gang left in me to miss simpler times. You're right, of course, it should be fun after all. I better go caching before I'm completely covered in cobwebs.

This post has been edited by GeoVet: 06 January 2005 - 02:50 AM

[RichardMoore]

Quote

...Respect property rights and seek permission where appropriate.
Seek permission on all private property that's not generally open to public access.

Wrong!
Private property is just that, privately owned. The public is granted limited access, but that doesn't give them any right to do what they want there.
Walk in to just about any store and you will see "No Solicitation" signs on the doors. "Freedom of Speech" doesn't count on private property.
Shopping centers often have signs prohibiting skateboarding and bike riding.
If a shoplifter is caught in a store, standard procedure is to ban that person from the store. If they enter the store again, they will be arrested and charged with trespassing. It's private property so the store management can legally do that.
I recently had a long discussion with the employees of a cemetery who were upset at a cache being placed there. The cemetery, as many are, was privately owned. The employees, at the direction of the cemetery manager, removed the cache and gave it to their security people. Another "black mark" against geocaching.

[CoyoteRed]

RichardMoore, on Jan 6 2005, 08:32 AM, said:

Quote

...Respect property rights and seek permission where appropriate.
Seek permission on all private property that's not generally open to public access.

Wrong!...

Um, how in the World in that wrong?

You think we're insinuating the negative of that example is true? "Don't seek permission on all private property that's generally open to public access." Where do you see that? I don't.

If you're going to rail on something, rail on something that is there.

This post has been edited by CoyoteRed: 06 January 2005 - 06:24 AM

[RichardMoore]

CoyoteRed, on Jan 6 2005, 09:23 AM, said:

RichardMoore, on Jan 6 2005, 08:32 AM, said:

Quote

...Respect property rights and seek permission where appropriate.
Seek permission on all private property that's not generally open to public access.

Wrong!...

Um, how in the World in that wrong?

You think we're insinuating the negative of that example is true? "Don't seek permission on all private property that's generally open to public access." Where do you see that? I don't.

If you're going to rail on something, rail on something that is there.

Read the rest of my post.
The exception "that's not generally open to public access" should be removed. It's private property, so you should seek permission whether there is public access or not.

[CoyoteRed]

RichardMoore, on Jan 6 2005, 09:40 AM, said:

Read the rest of my post.
The exception "that's not generally open to public access" should be removed. It's private property, so you should seek permission whether there is public access or not.

I read your whole post.

I don't think you're getting what that statement says.

The statement says basically that if the land is not generally open to the public, make sure you get permission. Get it? Don't place a cache where the land owner doesn't want people going. But it does leave open the possibility of getting permission and allowing a select few access, namely cachers.

The statement says nothing about land generally open to public access. So, it doesn't say anything about whether to get permission or to not get permission.

You are arguing on an issue that doesn't exist.

Yes, I know it leaves open whether to get permission on private land that is open to public access. There are plenty of private land where express permission is not needed. No need to force someone to do something that is not needed. The permission debate has raged for a while now. This is not the place to argue it, either.

[Icenians]

CoyoteRed, on Jan 6 2005, 07:19 AM, said:

The statement says basically that if the land is not generally open to the public, make sure you get permission. Get it? Don't place a cache where the land owner doesn't want people going. But it does leave open the possibility of getting permission and allowing a select few access, namely cachers.

The statement says nothing about land generally open to public access. So, it doesn't say anything about whether to get permission or to not get permission.

You are arguing on an issue that doesn't exist.

Yes, I know it leaves open whether to get permission on private land that is open to public access. There are plenty of private land where express permission is not needed. No need to force someone to do something that is not needed. The permission debate has raged for a while now. This is not the place to argue it, either.

If you want a global code you need to think global. In the UK every inch is owned and is private. Public access doesn't mean you can place a cache without permission.

A public footpath only gives you the right to walk on the land not place caches, etc.

[RichardMoore]

CoyoteRed, on Jan 6 2005, 10:19 AM, said:

RichardMoore, on Jan 6 2005, 09:40 AM, said:

Read the rest of my post.
The exception "that's not generally open to public access" should be removed.  It's private property, so you should seek permission whether there is public access or not.

I read your whole post.

I don't think you're getting what that statement says.

The statement says basically that if the land is not generally open to the public, make sure you get permission. Get it? Don't place a cache where the land owner doesn't want people going. But it does leave open the possibility of getting permission and allowing a select few access, namely cachers.

The statement says nothing about land generally open to public access. So, it doesn't say anything about whether to get permission or to not get permission.

You are arguing on an issue that doesn't exist.

Yes, I know it leaves open whether to get permission on private land that is open to public access. There are plenty of private land where express permission is not needed. No need to force someone to do something that is not needed. The permission debate has raged for a while now. This is not the place to argue it, either.

That's not the way that I'm reading it.
And if I'm reading the implication that permission is not needed on private property that has public access, others will read it the same way.
But I don't expect the statement to be changed.

[CoyoteRed]

Icenians, on Jan 6 2005, 10:42 AM, said:

If you want a global code you need to think global.

That's right. You do need to think global.

What's the law about crossing private land in the UK? You don't need permission as long as you stay on the path? Not so in the US. If a land owner wants you to stay off his property, then you stay off.

[CoyoteRed]

RichardMoore, on Jan 6 2005, 10:43 AM, said:

That's not the way that I'm reading it.
And if I'm reading the implication that permission is not needed on private property that has public access, others will read it the same way.

Then you're not reading it correctly.

If you, or anyone else, gets something out of it that it's not saying, then there's reading comprehension problem.

Is it taught somewhere the negative of a statement is automatically true? I must have missed that class.

[SFABobby03]

CoyoteRed, on Jan 6 2005, 08:06 AM, said:

RichardMoore, on Jan 6 2005, 10:43 AM, said:

That's not the way that I'm reading it.
And if I'm reading the implication that permission is not needed on private property that has public access, others will read it the same way.

Then you're not reading it correctly.

If you, or anyone else, gets something out of it that it's not saying, then there's reading comprehension problem.

Is it taught somewhere the negative of a statement is automatically true? I must have missed that class.

So what you are saying is that if I interpret this as saying something else I am wrong? Wouldn't it be best to put it in a clearer fashon so that there aren't any misunderstandings as to what is meant? Obviously if someone has seen it a different way it should be looked at so that there isn't any confusion in the future. I see where he is coming from and recommend that it is changed or at least discussed. Don't shrug off someones suggestion just because you don't like it, let everyone discuss it if you want this code to be something that is a general view of most cachers or whatever.

[Icenians]

CoyoteRed, on Jan 6 2005, 07:56 AM, said:

Icenians, on Jan 6 2005, 10:42 AM, said:

If you want a global code you need to think global.

That's right. You do need to think global.

What's the law about crossing private land in the UK? You don't need permission as long as you stay on the path? Not so in the US. If a land owner wants you to stay off his property, then you stay off.

Crossing the land on a right of way is not placing a cache. You don't have permission for that without asking.

[CoyoteRed]

SFABobby03, on Jan 6 2005, 03:49 PM, said:

I see where he is coming from and recommend that it is changed or at least discussed.

Certainly, make a suggestion, I don't mind in the least.

My problem is the rant and no suggestion on how it can be made better.

I could make a suggestion, but I don't see where the confusion is coming from so I'd just be grasping at straws. Most likely the effort on my part would be a waste.

If you have a problem with it, suggest a change. Just don't change the meaning of it.

(Yes, I see the Catch-22.)

[SFABobby03]

CoyoteRed, on Jan 6 2005, 01:23 PM, said:

SFABobby03, on Jan 6 2005, 03:49 PM, said:

I see where he is coming from and recommend that it is changed or at least discussed.

Certainly, make a suggestion, I don't mind in the least.

My problem is the rant and no suggestion on how it can be made better.

I could make a suggestion, but I don't see where the confusion is coming from so I'd just be grasping at straws. Most likely the effort on my part would be a waste.

If you have a problem with it, suggest a change. Just don't change the meaning of it.

(Yes, I see the Catch-22.)

In my opinion, one should always seek permission before placeing a cache on private property or entering private property to play this game so by saying when appropriate instead of always, makes me disagree with it. I see where he was coming from and agree. There is your suggetion. You did say if he didn't read it how you meant for it to be read that there was a reading comprehension problem. That sounds kinda like a slam towards him from you in my book. Just because people don't interpret things the same way you do doesn't mean they are wrong. Sometimes people see things from different perspectives and you should respect that, not attack it.

[CoyoteRed]

SFABobby03, on Jan 6 2005, 04:29 PM, said:

In my opinion, one should always seek permission before placeing a cache on private property or entering private property to play this game so by saying when appropriate instead of always, makes me disagree with it.

Been around a whole month and a half, 9 finds which 3 were virts, and already telling everyone how to act.

Get out there and actually start seeing some real world situations before spouting opinions if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Damn, you people are making me cranky.

I think I need another break.

[Mushtang]

CoyoteRed, on Jan 6 2005, 05:35 PM, said:

SFABobby03, on Jan 6 2005, 04:29 PM, said:

In my opinion, one should always seek permission before placeing a cache on private property or entering private property to play this game so by saying when appropriate instead of always, makes me disagree with it.

Been around a whole month and a half, 9 finds which 3 were virts, and already telling everyone how to act.

Get out there and actually start seeing some real world situations before spouting opinions if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Damn, you people are making me cranky.

I think I need another break.

So you need to be around for over two years and have almost 600 non-virtual finds before you can tell people how to act?

Yes, please take another break!!

[SFABobby03]

CoyoteRed, on Jan 6 2005, 02:35 PM, said:

SFABobby03, on Jan 6 2005, 04:29 PM, said:

In my opinion, one should always seek permission before placeing a cache on private property or entering private property to play this game so by saying when appropriate instead of always, makes me disagree with it.

Been around a whole month and a half, 9 finds which 3 were virts, and already telling everyone how to act.

Get out there and actually start seeing some real world situations before spouting opinions if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Damn, you people are making me cranky.

I think I need another break.

So until someone has as many finds as say you they aren't allowed to have an opinion or say in this code. Good. Thats kinda what I figured. You said give examples or what you would change it to but now you don't want to hear that. I will continue to voice my opinion against this code since it is obviously not the voice of most geocachers out there and it is only that of an elite few. Thanks for showing the true colors of this code.

[Kai Team]

SFABobby03, on Jan 6 2005, 04:29 PM, said:

In my opinion, one should always seek permission before placeing a cache on private property or entering private property to play this game so by saying when appropriate instead of always, makes me disagree with it. I see where he was coming from and agree. There is your suggetion.

Let's refrain from making absolute statements on either side of the argument - they are rarely true, they invite hyperbolic responses, and neither leads to reasonable discourse.

I see how the example quoted could be misinterpreted and agree that it needs to be clarified, and I also think the absolute "you must have permission before entering all private property for any purpose" argument is absurd. There is a common law presumption of access to private land for legal purposes unless it is fenced or posted with restrictive signs (e.g. "no trespassing"). Otherwise every deliveryman, charitable solicitor, or other visitor would be subject to arrest without warning just for setting foot on private property. The presumption of access is the reason people post signs or erect fences!

Now, I don't believe that this presumed access includes placing geocaches, and I would agree that you should seek permission before placing a geocache on private property. However, by granting permission to place a geocache, the landowner has also granted permission to seek the cache, assuming they understand what a geocache is. It is therefore not necessary to ask permission to look for a cache on private property, and doing so in every case would probably annoy the landowner!

Here's my suggestion for tweaking this example, for your consideration and comment:

"Obtain permission before placing a cache on private property".

[CoyoteRed]

Kai Team, on Jan 6 2005, 07:25 PM, said:

Here's my suggestion for tweaking this example, for your consideration and comment:

"Obtain permission before placing a cache on private property".

No.

I would rather the whole statement be removed than put the onus on a placer to determine an open park is public or privately held, and then determine the owners said park, when all along we've been making the determination of "adequate permission" without this unnecessary burden. Bad choice, bad idea.

The whole tenet deals with property rights.

When you've seen enough caches, and been to enough places, you will realize there are plenty of places where seeking express permission is simply not warranted or needed.

If you really want to walk that path, not many will follow.

Until one does start placing caches and has talked to property owners and stewards I consider their opinion less than informed and has absolutely no weight.

I don't just talk the talk, I walk the walk.

I've got caches on both public and private areas. I've sought permission from various places. I have the experience to know there are times where you simply will not get permission but the steward doesn't care if there is a cache there or not. I've been told, "Well, the area's whole purpose is for recreation, but our lawyers advise that we don't want to know if there is this activity on our lands." I've not once had a problem with a cache be it with permission or without.

No, this example for this tenet is a bad idea in the extreme.

Unless, someone can come up with a foolproof way to word the one that is already there so everyone will understand it, I say it stands.

(I'm glad I checked in!)

This post has been edited by CoyoteRed: 06 January 2005 - 04:59 PM

[SFABobby03]

CoyoteRed, on Jan 6 2005, 04:58 PM, said:

Kai Team, on Jan 6 2005, 07:25 PM, said:

Here's my suggestion for tweaking this example, for your consideration and comment:

"Obtain permission before placing a cache on private property".

No.

I would rather the whole statement be removed than put the onus on a placer to determine an open park is public or privately held, and then determine the owners said park, when all along we've been making the determination of "adequate permission" without this unnecessary burden. Bad choice, bad idea.

The whole tenet deals with property rights.

When you've seen enough caches, and been to enough places, you will realize there are plenty of places where seeking express permission is simply not warranted or needed.

If you really want to walk that path, not many will follow.

Until one does start placing caches and has talked to property owners and stewards I consider their opinion less than informed and has absolutely no weight.

I don't just talk the talk, I walk the walk.

I've got caches on both public and private areas. I've sought permission from various places. I have the experience to know there are times where you simply will not get permission but the steward doesn't care if there is a cache there or not. I've been told, "Well, the area's whole purpose is for recreation, but our lawyers advise that we don't want to know if there is this activity on our lands." I've not once had a problem with a cache be it with permission or without.

No, this example for this tenet is a bad idea in the extreme.

Unless, someone can come up with a foolproof way to word the one that is already there so everyone will understand it, I say it stands.

(I'm glad I checked in!)

Ok. Let me give you some information on me before you assume that I haven't ever talked to a landowner. Now, #1 Fact here, I have never talked to a land owner involving geocaching. #2, I have in fact talked to many land owners for permission to hunt, fish, camp, hike, and other things on private property. You should open your mind a little. You are showing how close minded you are about this code. Its your way or the highway. Believe it or not, my opinion is valid. I have talked to many many landowners for access rights, they just weren't geocaching related. Might wanna find out some things about people before you completely discount their opinion.

[CoyoteRed]

And yet you still haven't offered the first suggested rewording.

A whole lot of talking and nothing getting said.

Put up or shut up. Can I make any more clear? Here, I'll even type slow for you. You write your version of what it should say. We will then discuss it.

BTW, the "you should open your mind" comment is funny. You say that then rail on me about finding out some things about others. Cute. I may very well have a closed mind on some subjects. Why? Because you are not presenting anything new that has not already been considered and decided on, that's why! You want me to consider something, bring up something new.

Oh, and I didn't come to my opinions in a vacuum, either. There has been much discussion here in the forums and offline. Maybe you should do more reading and less posting and you would have found that out.

[SFABobby03]

CoyoteRed, on Jan 6 2005, 05:25 PM, said:

And yet you still haven't offered the first suggested rewording.

A whole lot of talking and nothing getting said.

Put up or shut up. Can I make any more clear? Here, I'll even type slow for you. You write your version of what it should say. We will then discuss it.

BTW, the "you should open your mind" comment is funny. You say that then rail on me about finding out some things about others. Cute. I may very well have a closed mind on some subjects. Why? Because you are not presenting anything new that has not already been considered and decided on, that's why! You want me to consider something, bring up something new.

Oh, and I didn't come to my opinions in a vacuum, either. There has been much discussion here in the forums and offline. Maybe you should do more reading and less posting and you would have found that out.

Ahh yes, another very arrogant response. I told you already the basics of what I thought should be said regarding that subject and said it should be open for discussion. It could easily be misinterpreted as it is currently written. Now you can say I am stupid or uninformed or whatever. That is fine. The way you have attacked me and the person who brought this up shows that you aren't even willing to discuss it. This is fine. I have urged the sites (besides this one) that I frequent to not post it. It is obvious that it is owned by the elite few, such as yourself. Have fun with it though. I'm glad I can play the game anyway I want and I will observe your code as irrelevant.

[Kai Team]

CoyoteRed, on Jan 6 2005, 07:58 PM, said:

...there are times where you simply will not get permission but the steward doesn't care if there is a cache there or not.  I've been told, "Well, the area's whole purpose is for recreation, but our lawyers advise that we don't want to know if there is this activity on our lands."  I've not once had a problem with a cache be it with permission or without.

Unless, someone can come up with a foolproof way to word the one that is already there so everyone will understand it, I say it stands.

CR,

We expect that people will "Check if public land has a geocaching policy and respect existing policies" - why would we have a lower standard for private property?

Let me share an experience that leads me to worry about the current wording, and suggest another alternative that parallels the wording we used for public property:

We have a local, private, not for profit agency called the "Save the County" land trust (See my STC #2 cache for more information). They buy land for conservation purposes and make it available for certain public uses (e.g. hiking, bird watching, etc). They develop and maintain trails on some of their properties, and all of their land is "generally open to public access", although hunting is prohibited.

Syrwin and I were negotiating to place caches on their lands (they have 37 separate natural areas totalling over 2000 acres). We obtained permission to place two caches on a trial basis, with the caveat that we not place caches in certain environmentally sensitive properties or parts of properties.

We had just placed the first two caches and someone came along and plunked a cache down right in the most environmentally sensitive area that they asked us not to put a cache in. Syrwin and I scambled to contact that cacher, explain the situation, ask him to remove his cache, and offered to let him place the next cache in the series in an approved location. Fortunately, he agreed to remove his cache. We then scrambled to explain to the STC board that this was a mistake and to make amends. It all worked out in the end, and we now have five caches on their properties and a good relationship with them. However, if we hadn't happened to have been right on top of the situation (pure luck), they would have a very negative view of geocaching and would have banned caches on all of their properties (they were close).

I understand what you're saying about situations where they don't care but don't want to officially sanction a cache, and my previous suggestion went too far in the other direction (I was trying to keep it short and simple). But there is a legitimate concern here. Leaving the example out is counter to the purpose of having examples - i.e. to clarify the Creed and avoid misunderstandings and missteps like we had locally. How about:

"Check if permission is required before placing a cache on private property, and respect the landowner's wishes".

This wording doesn't prevent you from placing a cache if the landowner has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and establishes the same standard for private property that the Creed has for public property.

[CoyoteRed]

SFABobby03, on Jan 6 2005, 09:01 PM, said:

I have urged the sites (besides this one) that I frequent to not post it.

So, I'm the one closed minded when you walked in here basically looking for a fight. You already had your mind made up. You never had any intention of supporting the Creed and no desire to change it for the better. You simply wanted to argue.

All talk. No action. You've been nothing, but a waste of time.

Quote

I'm glad I can play the game anyway I want and I will observe your code as irrelevant.

Go right ahead and start going counter to the tenets and see how much support you get from the community. This proves you don't read much. I've said, more than once I believe, that the tenets aren't anything new, just distillation of what the community has already accepted. But, no, you go right on ahead. Do as you wish. Be my guest. Good luck with that.

[CO Admin]

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

Foul Language and obscene images will not be tolerated. This site is family friendly, and all posts and posters must respect the integrity of the site.

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.



This thread should not suffer because a few are being foolish. Instead of closing this thread I will start handing out warnings if the above guidelines are not followed.

Its your choice.

[Kai Team]

SFABobby03, on Jan 6 2005, 09:01 PM, said:

Ahh yes, another very arrogant response. I told you already the basics of what I thought should be said regarding that subject and said it should be open for discussion. It could easily be misinterpreted as it is currently written. Now you can say I am stupid or uninformed or whatever. That is fine. The way you have attacked me and the person who brought this up shows that you aren't even willing to discuss it. This is fine. I have urged the sites (besides this one) that I frequent to not post it. It is obvious that it is owned by the elite few, such as yourself. Have fun with it though. I'm glad I can play the game anyway I want and I will observe your code as irrelevant.

I guess you didn't notice that I'm editing the code now and that I'm supporting your request for a discussion and trying to find a wording that everyone can agree with.

I really hate to join the flame war you and CR seem to be enjoying so much (at the expense of the Creed), but I don't have much respect for someone who would sabotage the Creed ("I have urged the sites...that I frequent to not post it") and insult everyone involved with it ("It is obvious that it is owned by the elite few, such as yourself.") because one person reacted emotionally to your posts.

Your reaction seems a bit....arrogant? You might want to take a deep breath and let the discussion you requested play out before you attack everything and everyone.

[Kai Team]

CO Admin, on Jan 6 2005, 09:29 PM, said:

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

This thread should not suffer because a few are being foolish. Instead of closing this thread I will start handing out warnings if the above guidelines are not followed.

Its your choice.

Not to mention:

...be considerate of others.
Treat other geocachers civilly - in the field, in the forums, or wherever your paths may cross.

I too need to take a deep breath. Thanks for the warning CO!

[CoyoteRed]

You know what, Kai, do with it as you will.

Life is too short.