Attention Wal-mart Cachers

January 1, 2006

This area cache was just posted on a local board. I don't know if this is the trend around the country...but if it is...I plan to step out of the way when it hits the fan. :unsure:

2.5k · January 1, 2006

I just bought a Lock & Lock at my local Wally world today. Maybe if someone could negotiate with then to allow them in the middle of the parking lot, and away from the store building itself.

Oh well, it was going to happen sooner or later, I'm not particularly fond of those caches, but have been to several. Guess we'll see what happens.

:unsure:

January 1, 2006

Apparently, whoever at the store gave the hider permission to place the cache neglected to inform their security people.

The hider did get permission, didn't he?

January 1, 2006

Apparently, whoever at the store gave the hider permission to place the cache neglected to inform their security people.
The hider did get permission, didn't he?

good question.

and I noticed, the way I linked the cache page, it doesn't show all the logs. Looks like it was placed in a fairly sensitive area, anyway...

not a good thing...not good at all.

I am sure it was an oversight on the placers part, but it's still the kind of attention we just don't need.

2.5k · January 1, 2006

I looked over all the logs, no one found it. I believe just about everyone who stopped had some kind of trouble, some even getting spoken to by the cops.

January 1, 2006

There are a lot of these parking lot caches around here. I doubt that very many cachers bother to get permission to place them there.

The reason?

I honestly don't think many people understand that the Walmart parking lot is PRIVATE PROPERTY. It seems like a public area because people come and go freely, so people just place caches there without thinking about it too much.

Most of the "Walmart" caches around here are placed by geocaching newbies. Newbies are less familiar with the rules and are more likely to want to place a cache quickly (and lazily) so they end up in these parking lots.

Edited January 1, 2006 by GrnXnham

5.2k · January 1, 2006

There are a lot of these parking lot caches around here.

This one's not really a parking lot cache. Look at the Google aerial photo. It's right up against the building and according to a log, its in the delivery area monitored by security cameras. It was just asking for trouble IMNSHO :unsure:

January 1, 2006

Not too good of an idea to place in an employee only section. :unsure:

2.1k · January 1, 2006

This may be a silly question (and I'm not one to question the archival, I'm just wondering). Has anyone confirmed that this is in fact "Walmart Security" that opened the account, and not someone pulling a prank the cache owner?

2.5k · January 1, 2006

<snip>

Look at that, right on the dot timing.

First post of 2006 for Airmapper.

6.7k · January 1, 2006

Has anyone confirmed that this is in fact "Walmart Security" that opened the account, and not someone pulling a prank the cache owner?

LOL - that was (and is) my first question! Sound very much like a hoax.

Still, permission IS required, and the cacher must certify that he has it with a clicky at the bottom of every new cache listing - so the archive decision is sound even if the SBA was a hoax.

Ed

January 1, 2006

Wal-mart is agreeable to allowing RVs to park in their lots overnight and carpools to meet there. It makes me think that permission may be given to caches that are not in secured areas next to the building.

January 1, 2006

This may be a silly question (and I'm not one to question the archival, I'm just wondering). Has anyone confirmed that this is in fact "Walmart Security" that opened the account, and not someone pulling a prank the cache owner?

To be honest, I don't think it is a prank. If you read all the logs, nearly every person who has gone to search for it, was stopped or at least looked upon in some suspicious manner. I know the people who have doen the searching, and there is no reason to believe that anyone would have made up the scenerio of telling the security guard about the site, and explaining to them that if in fact it is such an issue, they needed to post an SBA.

I see it as two fold. Yes, the placer should have asked permission, and prolly rethought the hider so as not to put searchers in such an awkward position by placing them so close to the building.

But...as a long time "non-fan" of the security at places like this, I also think we could have a case of self importance at work. I think it will be interesting to follow it, and see if Wal-Mart follows through with soem sort of rules, or if it is simply dropped.

Alas...time will tell, I suppose...

January 1, 2006

as an aside...how does one make a post to a cache without being a validated member?

January 1, 2006

So, they won't allow geocaching, but they'll allow people to stick flyers on your windshield, collect donations, etc????

January 1, 2006

So, they won't allow geocaching, but they'll allow people to stick flyers on your windshield, collect donations, etc????

Yes, they will allow people to stick flyers on your windshield and they will allow people to set up tables and beg you to death for donations for their good cause. Yes, they allow the boy scouts and girls scouts to sell their wares at their times of the year. The secret? Permission. My old Sunday School teacher is a Wal*Mart store manager. When I complain to him about getting the flyers on my car, he stated that they had gotten permission from him and his corporate office to do so. Wal*Mart will allow just about any activity as long as you seek their permission. I have seen gospel concerts held in their parking lots along with rummage sales to help the local homeless shelter. The whole secret is getting permission - that and not hiding the stupid thing in front of a security camera in an employee only section.

Baptist Deacon

Edited January 1, 2006 by Baptist Deacon

6.4k · January 1, 2006

as an aside...how does one make a post to a cache without being a validated member?

When I looked at the profile last night, it did not say that.

Also it shows the person last logged in today.

Me thinks "Walmart Security" was getting a bunch of unwanted emails from cachers, so they changed/removed their email addy and didn't bother to revalidate.

For the foil hat crowd: It might also mean it's a sockpuppet account trying to cover his tracks by removing an incriminating email addy from the database since people here are on to him. :unsure:

6.7k · January 1, 2006

So, they won't allow geocaching, but they'll allow people to stick flyers on your windshield, collect donations, etc???

He who has the gold makes the rules, right? They own the place and can pretty much do as they wish!

What we geocachers don't want to do is appear aggressive, insinuating some sort of "right" to hide caches on private property without permission, such that we start a waterfall effect where every business owner has to enact a geocaching policy - Believe me, from a manager's perspective it's a lot easier to say no and move on with their busy day than it is to consider the merits of our game...which they are more likely to see as pure liability anyway!

Ed

20.7k · January 1, 2006

I think the problem with the cache was where in the lot it was hidden, not that it was hidden in the lot. Its not a very good idea to hide one by the loading dock.

1.5k · January 1, 2006

Guess the hider wanted to be different and not just do a lamp post or guard rail cache and did not think the hide through in terms of the area first. I have done Wal-Mart caches before and never had any problems, but the locations were all areas that the general public are allowed to be in. The best one is in JX Fl....hehehe...now that is just pure wrong...funny....but wrong :-)

January 1, 2006

Okay, say it's true. Wal-Mart Security now has gone high-tech, camera's, satellite imagery, stakeouts, spooks, whatever - Their onto us. And caching is prohibited in those parking lots. Move on.

Aside: If you don't like their reaction and wanna show your displeasure, don't buy from them. Don't shop there.

January 1, 2006

Gotta have permission to use private property. All business properties are private property (owned by an entity) even though the public is allowed.

January 1, 2006

If you ... wanna show your displeasure, don't buy from them. Don't shop there.

Very good advice!

I'm kind of leery of these "parking lot" caches, especially since I tried (and failed) to locate one yesterday. From what I could tell, the actual find was going to entail digging under rocks used to fill an "island" among several others dotted around the parking lot of a very busy shopping complex. I felt very exposed and "funny" about being there, especially moving someone else's rocks while a literally non-stop progression of cars went by just a few yards away. I moved only a few rocks and then gave it up as just too weird and uncomfortable-feeling.

What do other people feel about these kinds of caches? Not for the newbie until one grows a thicker skin about the whole thing?

20.7k · January 1, 2006

...Their onto us. And caching is prohibited in those parking lots. Move on.
...

That's not how I read it. They were upset because it was in a semi-sensitive location, not because it was in the lot. I'm not aware of any blanket policy that WalMart has or doesn't have.

January 1, 2006

I was told this area is for vendors and employees, not the general public.

The quote is from the second last cacher and says it all. Not only was this on private property but was in an area that Walmart does not consider public access. cachers would look thieves trying to break in.

Get permission on private property!! The unfortunate thing is that we are likely to loose another caching area like we lost Disney, not because of caching itself but someone doing something without thinking it out fully.

JDandDD

4.2k · January 1, 2006

Personally it would have been on my ignore list anyway.

There's nothing about a cache in a parking lot that would interest me anyway.

Your opinion may vary.

January 1, 2006

Looks like it was placed in a fairly sensitive area, anyway...

not a good thing...not good at all.

I am sure it was an oversight on the placers part, but it's still the kind of attention we just don't need.

This is the problem. Placed near gas lines???

I did a micro in Ohio, placed ON a transformer at a Staples store. All I kept thinkung was, I hope I don't complete the circuit. 20 feet away was a guardrail, that it could have been attached to.

Approvers need to ask questions about exactly where the cache sits. If near a railroad track is not allowed, neither are gas lines, electrical connections or other inherently dangerous locations.

Just one accident discussed on CNN or Fox news, regardless of whos fault it is, and we all lose.

20.7k · January 1, 2006

...Get permission on private property!! The unfortunate thing is that we are likely to loose another caching area like we lost Disney, not because of caching itself but someone doing something without thinking it out fully.

I contacted some people I know at Disney after that all went down. Permission was not the issue.

5.3k · January 1, 2006

There are a lot of these parking lot caches around here.

This one's not really a parking lot cache. Look at the Google aerial photo. It's right up against the building and according to a log, its in the delivery area monitored by security cameras. It was just asking for trouble IMNSHO

Oh kind of like this cacahe at the Galleria mall in Roseville. One of these day I will find it.

20.7k · January 1, 2006

...Approvers need to ask questions about exactly where the cache sits. ...

I disagree. It's not the responsibility of the approvers to ask everyone twenty questions about their caches. If you beliefe that the cache on a transformer was inappropriate, you shoud have decided not to make the find and logged a 'SBA'.

2.7k · January 1, 2006

Be kind.

I have not found it but I have inside information. This cache is NOT your typical film can under the light-pole-skirt cache. It is a serious example of right-under-your-nose (feet) camouflage. Ironically the cache was PURCHASED at WAL-MART.

Actually this cache is not in a place reserved or marked for employees only. It is not on the wall or at the loading dock. It is in a place where the public is allowed, but not where the public frequently is.

I think the biggest issue is that there is a gas meter and pipes close by and cachers are looking there for the cache. That is the hider's mistake. But it is also a mistake on the part of the seekers.

A cache hider needs to think as much as possible like a searcher who does not know where the cache is and who has about a 150 foot location error. This is a very difficult challenge, especially in an urban setting.

The seekers also have a responsibility to do their seeking with as little suspicious behaviour as possible. In some cases that means calling off a search when it can't be done without arousing undue fear in onlookers. (Like looking at night when a store is closed) It also means a little common sense in where you look and what you fool with, for example, a seeker should a**-U-Me that the hider would not place something on a gas meter or inside an electrical box (even though obviously some cache hiders HAVE done so).

My attitude (recently developed), when the coords put me in a place where I feel I really shouldn't be, is to abort the search and post a note (or SBA if really serious) on the cache page. If the cache really IS hidden in the electrical box, I figure it is one that I don't NEED to find.

I agree the archiving of this cache is correct because people were fooling around the gas lines. Is that the hider's fault? Not entirely.

Re Permission:

Darn few cachers get permission, period!

Perhaps written permission should be a requirement for cache approval. It CAN be done, but about 90% of the existing caches will be archived.

This issue will blow over if we let it. if people are emailing Wal-Mart, they should probably not be doing that.

9.1k · January 1, 2006

Approvers need to ask questions about exactly where the cache sits. If near a railroad track is not allowed, neither are gas lines, electrical connections or other inherently dangerous locations.

Please point me to the section of the listing guidelines where "gas lines, electrical connections or other inherently dangerous locations" are listed as prohibited places for a cache. Because then we would know whether hiders and reviewers were doing a good job of following that guideline.

If there is no such section, then the reviewers would get flamed if they dared to impose their own "rule" to deny a fine electrical transformer cache.

(BTW, I agree with you, and would support the addition of "utility equipment" to the list of off-limits locations.)

1.5k · January 1, 2006

Gives new meaning to blue light speical :-D

January 1, 2006

I contacted some people I know at Disney after that all went down. Permission was not the issue.

I know it wasn't a permission issue but what I've heard is an inappropriate container that caused concern with customers. At least that was the new reports. Is that accurate?

2.5k · January 1, 2006

I've done some caches near electric meters and gas meters. Some can be done okay, and others stick you in a very suspicious position. It depends on the area. My 100th cache was next to a pipeline, but I was comfortable hunting it because it was in an out of the way location on a walking trail, and in no way would I question it after visiting.

IMO, it all depends on the placement. And since the volunteer reviews can't go out there and check each one, we have to depend on other cachers to say, wait, this cache doesn't need to be here, and save later hunters some trouble. But thats a whole new topic.

January 1, 2006

Approvers need to ask questions about exactly where the cache sits. If near a railroad track is not allowed, neither are gas lines, electrical connections or other inherently dangerous locations.

Please point me to the section of the listing guidelines where "gas lines, electrical connections or other inherently dangerous locations" are listed as prohibited places for a cache. Because then we would know whether hiders and reviewers were doing a good job of following that guideline.

If there is no such section, then the reviewers would get flamed if they dared to impose their own "rule" to deny a fine electrical transformer cache.

(BTW, I agree with you, and would support the addition of "utility equipment" to the list of off-limits locations.)

Well isn't there a rule about getting permission from the owner when a cache is placed on private property?

20.7k · January 1, 2006

I know it wasn't a permission issue but what I've heard is an inappropriate container that caused concern with customers. At least that was the new reports. Is that accurate?

No, it was really about not wanting outside organizations to play in their pool.

20.7k · January 1, 2006

Well isn't there a rule about getting permission from the owner when a cache is placed on private property?

Sure, but that doesn't speak to the 'dangerous, don't play here!' argument that was posed. Obviously, the same dangers could exist on public property or on one's own property.

2.7k · January 1, 2006

the "dangerous, don't play here" issue is only a small part of the urban cahing pitfalls that we can get into with caches like this one. It is a concern of mine that we are encouraging seekers to fool with things that should not be fooled with at all because of our newer, more creative, cache containers.

This cache could very well have been a fake bolt apparently holding the gas meter in place (or whatever structure is in the area that might be less obviously dangerous- like your typical picnic shelter fer-instance).

The only way to make certain a bolt is not the cache is to REMOVE it. The hider could have left the bolt deliberately loose so it would come off easily and obviously reveal the cache, but the last finder might have had strong fingers. Therefore a seeker might justify using a wrench. How far can we go?

Even with permission, there can come a point, especially on a 4 or 5 star cache, where unintended trouble can come from over-zealous hiding AND seeking.

Bottom line is, with urban caching especially, we must be VERY careful both in hiding and seeking. And despite our best efforts, sometimes we are gonna go awry.

20.7k · January 1, 2006

Its not really an urban issue, either. I've been in many more dangerous situations looking for a cache well away from civilization, than those in urban areas. Its all about using one's brain and not relying solely on the GPSr's arrow.

January 1, 2006

Looks like it was placed in a fairly sensitive area, anyway...

not a good thing...not good at all.

I am sure it was an oversight on the placers part, but it's still the kind of attention we just don't need.

This is the problem. Placed near gas lines???

I did a micro in Ohio, placed ON a transformer at a Staples store. All I kept thinkung was, I hope I don't complete the circuit. 20 feet away was a guardrail, that it could have been attached to.

Approvers need to ask questions about exactly where the cache sits. If near a railroad track is not allowed, neither are gas lines, electrical connections or other inherently dangerous locations.

Craig, don't even go there, man. The issue of "inherently dangerous locations" has been kicked around ad nauseum in the past, and the overwhelming consensus is usually one that I like to call "caveat cachetor". Personally, I think a cache surrounded by poison ivy and bees is significantly more hazardous than one in the ballast of a train track, but apparently while it is my own responsibility to look out for poison, it is someone else's to protect me from getting hit by a train.

*shrug* - I guess there's no way to please everyone.

20.7k · January 1, 2006

The train track issue wasn't even about safety. It was about trespassing.

January 1, 2006

I promised myself that I would not be lured into this forum and invite the flaming that is sure to follow.In all fairness to the sport I decided to post ONE and only one reply.First let me say that the cache was not on, in any way , the gaspipes or any other sensitive equipment (But we all have seen them,right!). The cache was not attached to the building, and there is no loading dock by the cache. In fact, the immediate area has public parking 50' from the cache and picnic tables 30' away. That being said, I guess I am still guilty of poor judgement and have extended an apology to them, so please refrain from your urge to backlash. We do not want to appear to be self-righteous.Before I close, allow me to pose rhetorical questions to each and all of you, that means you don't need to reply to me directly, only reflect on them:

Have you ever placed a cache in or near a sensitive area or have you gotten written permission for each and every one of your own hides that are not on your own personal property.This includes all caches hidden in public parks,playgrounds, boatramps,guardrails,gazebos,picnic shelters, etc...Of course not! Have you ever hidden a cache in such a way, that it MAY encourage climbing picnic shelter rafters, turning over garbage cans, or going off trails against park rules, put them in places with posted times, or knew it might encourage disassembly activity, just to name a few.

Finally, I will just say this.If you can answer NO to all of the above, it still really doesn't matter because we all are guilty of parking in the wrong spot and grabbing it anyway from questionable angles,lifting the skirting on parking lot lampposts,rumaging through landscaping, messing around headstones,or simply parking illegally, etc...

Actually,admit it, when you look around, right before you grab the cache, it is for two reasons.

1) To maintain the integrity of the cache against muggles

2) And also because in the majority of your finds, that little voice inside you is saying " I shouldn't be here or be doing this! "

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the cache placement.Quite the opposite, I regret it. But to be honest, I think they are fairly common, and if you knew the exact spot, you would actually laugh. This incident is not though, a laughing matter and as I mentioned, I have apologized to them and would also like to extend my apologies to each of you for my poor judgement.

Please remember, as I should have, that after all it is their property and they have the right to address and enforce potential security issues.Please don't blast me too bad, I have a headache. (Not from a New Years Eve party)

Snowfrog Out!

Edited January 1, 2006 by snowfrog

January 1, 2006

The train track issue wasn't even about safety. It was about trespassing.

Perhaps, but then:

1) Why do the guidelines specifically reference active railroad tracks? As if inactive railroad tracks are not someone's private property as well?

2) Why mention it at all? Would it not be covered under the generality of any private property? As an occasional rail commuter, I assure you there is plenty of public land and privately-owned NON-railroad right-of-way within 150 feet of active railroad tracks, yet railroads are specifically mentioned. I wonder why that is?

20.7k · January 1, 2006

As I recall, it was because railroads got pissed and people got arrested.

January 1, 2006

snowfrog...

first off, please know that by posting this, I was in no way trying to flame you or your placement. I was looking at it from the point of view that one more "area" common for cache placements just might end up regulated as a result of this security guard.

I think probably, yes, you might have wanted to ask permission, but that being said...how many of us actually follow through on that? As for the nature of the hide, what was involved in searching for it, etc... again, not every one always think it through. My very first hide is in a cemetery that puts the searcher 6 feet from the road in order to find the cache. Not well thought out...I know.

I just kind of wanted to show people that in fact the public areas that we thought were okay to be using, might be coming under closer scrutiny from now on....

January 1, 2006

As I recall, it was because railroads got pissed and people got arrested.

Fair 'nuff. Especially if that's applied consistently to other places where folks run afoul of the law.

January 1, 2006

hey guys...just a reminder..this isn't about railroad caches...

January 1, 2006

hey guys...just a reminder..this isn't about railroad caches...

Thank you. It's also not about placing caches on transformers, which has also been discussed.

But it IS about caches in potentially hazardous or inappropriate places, and it's all related. That's why it's called a "discussion".

January 1, 2006

But it IS about caches in potentially hazardous or inappropriate places, and it's all related. That's why it's called a "discussion".

And I agree with that estimation and it gives me heart to dip my newbie toe in here and try again. This is the comment I made a little while ago, that I feel got lost in the intensity of things:

I'm kind of leery of these "parking lot" caches, especially since I tried (and failed) to locate one yesterday. From what I could tell, the actual find was going to entail digging under rocks used to fill an "island" among several others dotted around the parking lot of a very busy shopping complex. I felt very exposed and "funny" about being there, especially moving someone else's rocks while a literally non-stop progression of cars went by just a few yards away. I moved only a few rocks and then gave it up as just too weird and uncomfortable-feeling.

What do other people feel about these kinds of caches? Not for the newbie until one grows a thicker skin about the whole thing?

Now, maybe I'm the only newbie with these kinds of feelings who's reading this thread and going, "Uh, oh, I was RIGHT!" but given the numbers of new people signed up since Xmas, I doubt it. So, given there's a seeming font of collective wisdom gathering here to chew on this incident, could some of you wise heads steer things towards what should be going in with these kinds of caches, both in their very existance and in how seekers should approach them? For example, how can the context of "stealth" even exist in close proximity to thousands of shoppers, unless one visits in the dead of night?

TIA.

Attention Wal-mart Cachers

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment