What would you do if caching was ILLEGAL?

[PopUpPirate]

And Groundspeak was closed down overnight? Not likely to happen, just a topic of convo

Would you find a new pasttime, or not?

I'd start proper trigging

[gazooks]

And Groundspeak was closed down overnight? Not likely to happen, just a topic of convo

Would you find a new pasttime, or not?

I'd start proper trigging

Ditto

I started caching because I got bored just walking with no purpose. So Trigging it would be.

[agentmancuso]

And Groundspeak was closed down overnight? Not likely to happen, just a topic of convo

Would you find a new pasttime, or not?

I'd start proper trigging

Very wise.

[Happy Humphrey]

I'd do some more waymarking, unless that was closed down at the same time (although it would be a bit difficult to see how that would be deemed illegal). Or perhaps use a different listing site for caches?

[sTeamTraen]

I doubt if the two things mentioned in the original post would happen simultaneously, unless geocaching became a federal offence in the US, but the two halves make for interesting thought:

1. What would you do if caching were made illegal in the UK (for some obscure reason like "permanent foot&mouth outbreak" or "permanent war on terror" - oh wait, you've already got that - or "paedophile found with GPSr, Garmin UK closed down") but still went on in the rest of the world? Would there be "geospeakeasies"? Would the GAGB become the GLF? Would the Americans send Red Cross parcels full of geocoins?

2. What would the caching world do if Jeremy & Co sold up and took their ball home?

My bet, in the second case, would be on Opencaching. I think they're the only people with a sufficiently "scalable" concept. Of course, there would be one or two minor inconveniences, such as the absence of reviewers (which could end up getting caching banned after all), or having the major decisions being taken by a team of German people with ideology, which would have some "marketing issues".

[Alan White]

If Groundspeak were closed down for whatever reason then perhaps that would result in a UK listing site run by UK cachers for the benefit of UK cachers .

Of course, there would be one or two minor inconveniences, such as the absence of reviewers (which could end up getting caching banned after all)

I don't see the absence of reviewers as being a problem . Letterboxing has been around for a tad longer than caching and it doesn't seem to either have a problem without reviewers or to have been made illegal.

Of course, it could be argued that caching (and letterboxing) are already illegal in some areas because, as dino-irl once said, geocaching can be described as just organised littering.

[Happy Humphrey]

Of course, it could be argued that caching (and letterboxing) are already illegal in some areas because, as dino-irl once said, geocaching can be described as just organised littering.

Good point: does anyone know whether leaving caches is strictly "legal" right now?

[agentmancuso]

Good point: does anyone know whether leaving caches is strictly "legal" right now?

Everything is legal, unless specifically banned.

[Happy Humphrey]

The placing of caches as an action in itself might not be specifically banned: but is it legal to deliberately abandon items in public areas? In other words, if littering is illegal then what's the difference between that and leaving caches lying around? Where does "fly tipping" end and cache placing begin?

[agentmancuso]

The placing of caches as an action in itself might not be specifically banned: but is it legal to deliberately abandon items in public areas? In other words, if littering is illegal then what's the difference between that and leaving caches lying around? Where does "fly tipping" end and cache placing begin?

The difference is in the intent. Caches are not abandoned, but deliberately placed for future finders. At least in theory...

[Alan White]

I would never suggest that something found on the Internet is accurate or complete, but as this is intended to be a light-hearted thread....

From http://www.encams.org/uploads/public.../LitterLaw.pdf

Litter can be as small as a sweet wrapper, as large as a bag
of rubbish, or it can mean lots of items scattered about.
The legislation also specifically clarifies that discarded gum
products, cigarette ends and matches are types of litter.

The offence of leaving litter (section 87 of the
Environmental Protection Act [EPA] 1990) applies where a
person throws down, drops or otherwise deposits any litter
in any place in the open air in the area of a principal litter
authority to which the public has access with or without
payment, and leaves it. There are some exemptions to this
offence, including littering that is authorised by law or done
by or with the consent of the person having control of the
land: for full details please consult the legislation.
....
A person is guilty of an offence if they throw down, drop
or otherwise deposit any litter in any place in the area
of a principal litter authority which is open to the air on at
least one side, and leave it. It is immaterial whether the
litter is deposited on land or in water.

So there you are. A cache is litter unless placed with the permission of the landowner or inside a building .

[Alan White]

The difference is in the intent. Caches are not abandoned, but deliberately placed for future finders. At least in theory...

And not a very good one .

A person is guilty of an offence if they throw down, drop
or otherwise deposit any litter in any place in the area
of a principal litter authority which is open to the air on at
least one side, and leave it.

Nothing there about a defence of "It's OK. My friend will be along later to pick it up. He won't collect it either, but someone else will be along later...".

[agentmancuso]

And not a very good one .



Nothing there about a defence of "It's OK. My friend will be along later to pick it up. He won't collect it either, but someone else will be along later...".

Yes, but that only applies to litter. Litter is, by definition, something thrown away or abandoned with no intention of being reclaimed or revisited. Caches aren't litter, so the above paragraph doesn't apply.

[studlyone]

Yes, but that only applies to litter. Litter is, by definition, something thrown away or abandoned with no intention of being reclaimed or revisited. Caches aren't litter, so the above paragraph doesn't apply.

Absolutely, caches remain the property of the placer and are not discarded, the placer (if they follow cache placement guidelines) should maintain the cache and (in a perfect world) remove it if the cache gets archived.

Just a quick thought, does this mean that geocoin theives are infact just practicers of the stealthier side of CITO?

[Happy Humphrey]

I was wondering what to do with my old fridge. Now I know to just drop it in a layby after writing on the side "not discarded: to be visited from time to time". Then it's all legal. :socool:

[agentmancuso]

I was wondering what to do with my old fridge. Now I know to just drop it in a layby after writing on the side "not discarded: to be visited from time to time". Then it's all legal. :socool:

Don't think so, because the intention remains the same, despite the cunning attempt to disguise it.

[Alan White]

Yes, but that only applies to litter. Litter is, by definition, something thrown away or abandoned with no intention of being reclaimed or revisited. Caches aren't litter, so the above paragraph doesn't apply.

That's your definition, which unfortunately doesn't agree with legislation .

From EPA 1990:

87 Offence of leaving litter
(1) If any person throws down, drops or otherwise deposits in, into or from any place to which this section applies, and leaves, any thing whatsoever in such circumstances as to cause, or contribute to, or tend to lead to, the defacement by litter of any place to which this section applies, he shall, subject to subsection (2) below, be guilty of an offence.
(2) No offence is committed under this section where the depositing and leaving of the thing was—
(a) authorised by law, or
(b) done with the consent of the owner, occupier or other person or authority having control of the place in or into which that thing was deposited.

The offence is placing and leaving any thing whatsoever so as to cause defacement by litter. As soon as the cache owner walks away from the box the offence has been committed. There simply is no defence of "I'm coming back for it later". For obvious reasons, as otherwise everyone would say that .

There might be a defence that the cache did not cause defacement by litter. Best of luck with that one .

[Mrs Blorenge]

And Groundspeak was closed down overnight? Not likely to happen, just a topic of convo

Would you find a new pasttime, or not?

I'd start proper trigging

As we try to be responsible cache owners, I suppose the first thing we would do is to spend a few weekends collecting in our 30+ caches

Then I guess we'd go back to what we did B.C. - Go out for walks in the countryside, enjoy the views, buy pasties, have picnics in nice places...
and sit there munching and slurping our mugs of tea and saying things like, "Wouldn't this have been a great place to put a geocache? I wonder if anyone has left one lying around here?..."

[jacobite]

And Groundspeak was closed down overnight?

Think that God was quick in answering prayers.

[studlyone]

There might be a defence that the cache did not cause defacement by litter. Best of luck with that one .

The defense is in Para 87(2)(b)

87 Offence of leaving litter
(2) No offence is committed under this section where the depositing and leaving of the thing was—
(a) authorised by law, or
(b) done with the consent of the owner, occupier or other person or authority having control of the place in or into which that thing was deposited.

As caches should be placed on land with the land owners permission no offence is committed.

The Defense rests.

Getting back on topic if geocaching was outlawed in the UK I guess I'd have to form the geocaching resistance movement in the UK.

[studlyone]

Think that God was quick in answering prayers.

LOL

[agentmancuso]

That's your definition, which unfortunately doesn't agree with legislation

It certainly doesn't contradict the legislation quoted in any way, as no attempt is there made to define litter at all.

The Encarta beside me defines litter primarily as: pieces of rubbish that have been carelessly left on the ground. I doubt that selecting a specific site with the aid of satellite technology counts as 'carelessly'.

There might be a defence that the cache did not cause defacement by litter. Best of luck with that one .

I think the onus would be on the prosecutor to identify the cache in question as litter. Arguable in some cases obviously, but only if the cacher has failed to follow the guidelines.

[Alan White]

The Defense rests.

Not quite. I said a few posts back that caches placed with permission are not litter.

That has nothing to do with the agentmancuso defence which, if I understand correctly, is that a cache is not litter because the owner plans to visit it from time to time. In that sense a cache is no different from HH's fridge, and for obvious reasons there is no such defence .

Oh, and this is on topic because all caches placed without permission are, broadly speaking, litter and therefore already illegal .

[studlyone]

Absolutely - if a cacher obtains landowners permission then there's nowt to worry about but if they don't then you are absolutely right they are basically fly tipping or littering. The excuse that its still mine and I will be back for it isn't really an argument.

Now if that fridge was fully stocked with beer...............:cheers:

[Mrs Blorenge]

The defense is in Para 87(2)(b)
...Getting back on topic if geocaching was outlawed in the UK I guess I'd have to form the geocaching resistance movement in the UK.

(Yeah, me too... )

Could I join up? Can we all wear camo combat gear and stuff bracken in our hats?

MrsB

[Alan White]

It certainly doesn't contradict the legislation quoted in any way, as no attempt is there made to define litter at all.

You're obviously not reading the same words as I. The offence is defined as leaving any thing whatsoever in such circumstances as to cause defacement by litter.

IOW anything is litter for the purposes of the Act. The question is really "does it cause defacement"?

[Alan White]

The Encarta beside me defines litter primarily as: pieces of rubbish that have been carelessly left on the ground.

Oh, and you surely need to get a better reference source . Litter=rubbish is a circular and unhelpful definition.

So a sweet wrapper wedged in a tree or on a railing isn't litter? Somehow I don't think so :wacko:.

And if I carefully position my sweet wrapper on the ground then it's not litter. I doubt it .

Now you see why the Act is phrased the way it is.

[studlyone]

(Yeah, me too... )

Could I join up? Can we all wear camo combat gear and stuff bracken in our hats?

MrsB

You'd be most welcome (thats the tea sorted out, just need a baker now for the cakes)

[agentmancuso]

The offence is defined as leaving any thing whatsoever in such circumstances as to cause defacement by litter.

The above statement is not logically acceptable as a definition of litter, as it contains the word 'litter'.

Litter=rubbish is a circular and unhelpful definition.

I disagree. Litter is rubbish. Caches aren't rubbish (or shouldn't be) and so are not litter.

Now you see why the Act is phrased the way it is.

The Act is phrased that way because it is not concerned with the definition of litter, but with the offence of littering. It is therefore of little or no use when deciding whether or not caches are litter. What could be of use are the working definitions of litter supplied by myself and then by Encarta. Clearly, an element of randomness, carelessness or lack of concern for consequences is a fundamental feature of any meaningful definition of litter. As this stands in evident contradistinction to the deliberateness of site selection and overwhelming concern with subsequent developments that characterise geocaching, it stands to reason that caches cannot be described as litter, except as a deliberate attempt to besmirch the activity.

[Alan White]

The Act is phrased that way because it is not concerned with the definition of litter, but with the offence of littering.

Exactly so. Which is why any thing whatsoever may be litter. I don't think it could be much clearer .

Caches aren't rubbish

In your opinion which, as a cacher, is somewhat biased . I have little doubt that many non-cachers, particularly those charged with preventing or removing litter, would think that caches are litter.

But it's unlikely that we'll ever know, unless a cacher is arrested or given a FPN for littering and doesn't challenge it.

[Lost in Space]

But it's unlikely that we'll ever know, unless a cacher is arrested or given a FPN for littering and doesn't challenge it.

Given the number of caches that have been inadvertently discovered by our men in blue, who have signed the log book in a lighthearted manner, I doubt we will ever know.

Neil

[The Cache Hoppers]

Could we have a separate thread please about the whys and wherefores of whether caches are litter? This thread was about what we would do instead of caching if caching was to become illegal. Thank you

[agentmancuso]

Exactly so. Which is why any thing whatsoever may be litter. I don't think it could be much clearer .

Sure, any thing could be considered litter, if it was left lying around carelessly, or deposited with no thought for consequences. Certainly, a plastic tub full of cheap toys could rightly be thought of as litter if it was treated in that way. But if the very same plastic tub was placed deliberately and maintained in accordance with the guidelines then it can't be litter, because litter, howeve else it is defined, is most definitely not tracked by satellite, or regularly maintained or visited for pleasure. The plastic tub would in this case be something else altogether: a cache.

I have little doubt that many non-cachers, particularly those charged with preventing or removing litter, would think that caches are litter.

Maybe so, but that doesn't make it any truer. Ignorance is a terrible thing

But it's unlikely that we'll ever know, unless a cacher is arrested or given a FPN for littering and doesn't challenge it.

Could be interesting.

[Mrs Blorenge]

Could we have a separate thread please about the whys and wherefores of whether caches are litter? This thread was about what we would do instead of caching if caching was to become illegal. Thank you

See posts #20 and #25 ... We tried, we tried

We'd be sad to see Geocaching disappear as a hobby but, as we both enjoyed outdoor activities before we ever discovered Geocaching back in 2002, I don't think we'd be too upset.

I got quite interested in the Geograph site and we've put photographs up there. Maybe it would be good fun to go out a find those elusive un-photographed square and bag them.

[agentmancuso]

Could we have a separate thread please about the whys and wherefores of whether caches are litter? This thread was about what we would do instead of caching if caching was to become illegal. Thank you

Sorry, I'd responded before seeing this request. I'm sure that if caching became illegal we'd find something else to bicker about. :coffee:

[The Cache Hoppers]

Ahhh I had forgotten about Geograph! Are there any squares left?

[Mrs Blorenge]

Ahhh I had forgotten about Geograph! Are there any squares left?

There are, especially in west and central Wales, but there are others in "well populated" areas that for some reason haven't had their piccy taken - Have a look on the map in the link I gave and zoom in to find the green ones... Those poor, neglected squares must have something within in their boundaries worthy of a snapshot, surely?

[The Cache Hoppers]

Pffft! Nearest one to me is on MOD land - thats why it hasnt been done yet I guess.

[keehotee]

Can we not ask Paul to rehash it to take the grid down to 100m....???

[Simply Paul]

I might go trigging (I've logged the UK's most remote two) or night caching. You can get away with a lot under the cover of darkness... There's also Pylon Spotting and Public Art Bagging. Geograph is also a fun project.

Reading Alan's quoted definitions of litter, it seems parking your car and walking away from it could be defined as littering. If it's not, it's only because you don't intend to abandon your car there, you retain ownership etc; all of which also apply to caches. Therefore, if a parked car isn't litter, nor is a cache. That's what I'd tell the judge, anyway

[Happy Humphrey]

There are, especially in west and central Wales, but there are others in "well populated" areas that for some reason haven't had their piccy taken - Have a look on the map in the link I gave and zoom in to find the green ones... Those poor, neglected squares must have something within in their boundaries worthy of a snapshot, surely?

There's a handful still left on the IOM: this summer seems to be nothing but cold and/or wet whenever I venture towards the hills so I haven't been up to those last few remote spots yet. But thanks for the reminder!

[PopUpPirate]

I might go trigging (I've logged the UK's most remote two) or night caching. You can get away with a lot under the cover of darkness... There's also Pylon Spotting and Public Art Bagging. Geograph is also a fun project.

Reading Alan's quoted definitions of litter, it seems parking your car and walking away from it could be defined as littering. If it's not, it's only because you don't intend to abandon your car there, you retain ownership etc; all of which also apply to caches. Therefore, if a parked car isn't litter, nor is a cache. That's what I'd tell the judge, anyway

I normally say if it's edible it's not litter. Any excuse to leave food in a cache!

[Wadders]

I for one could live without groundspeak, and i am sure i could fill my days with something.
I know i would get to where i was meant to be going a lot quicker, save fuel and money on keeping up with the latest gadgets:socool:

[nobbynobbs]

We could always go back to virtuals!!


The littering aspect... it's a very broad definition so that it can catch everything, up and including a car that's been dumped. The idea being that it is up to the person who has left the object to prove that it is not litter. ie. prove that they have permission to leave it there.
The person would only get prosecuted if a complaint was made to the police. The complaint wouldn't be made if permission was given.

So if you leave anything it can be littering.

Oh and if mrs B is providing the tea I'm sure I can provide a couple of cakes.

[Simply Paul]

I just thought of another one: Degree Confluence Project. Only a handfull in the UK though, so more of an international sport

[sTeamTraen]

I just thought of another one: Degree Confluence Project. Only a handfull in the UK though, so more of an international sport

Well, if you do it in France, prepare to stumble over a cache at nearly half of the confluence points in the country. http://nicolas.bertin.club.fr/yagps/...hp?s=appDCPmap (Best viewed with IE, or at least, not with my copy of Firefox.)

[fraggle69]

******** sheep is illegal, need I say more? baaa

[The Hornet]

I just thought of another one: Degree Confluence Project. Only a handfull in the UK though, so more of an international sport

You could always combine a Confluence Project and a Virtual Geocache

[Happy Humphrey]

Web-ling should have set this one as a Virtual instead of a Locationless, then it still might be loggable. Might be a good one to waymark.

At least there are "Coordinate Palindromes" and "Confluence Spots" to seek out, and various other games.

[paul.blitz]

I was wondering what to do with my old fridge. Now I know to just drop it in a layby after writing on the side "not discarded: to be visited from time to time". Then it's all legal. :socool:

The solution there is even simpler: just make the fridge into a cache :-)