Cache Permission

[+Confucius' Cat]

I know when I hunt for caches in "questionable" areas, but am not sure the cache was placed there with permission, I'll usually just leave. So in order to let folks know that yes, I DID ask permission and we're ALLOWED to be here, I use this on my cache page:

 

 

I too, will quickly abort a hunt in a "questionable" area- many times without even getting out of the car.

 

I think this is a great idea. Furthermore, I would like to see an "attributes" icon for this so that the filter could be put on in pocket queries.

 

Better yet would be a check box that could be filtered with PQ. The owner, when submitting the cache, either checks it or not. The seeker can make a decision as he will.

 

I do not mean by this that specific permission would be mandatory, just tell the community yes or no.

 

example:

(box) specific permission has been obtained for this cache

 

I think everyone is aware that MANY caches are placed without specific permission and that specific permission is not necessary in all cases.

 

However, it is really nice to know that permission has been obtained in cases where the typical activities of one searching for a cache could cause "problems" (even if those "problems" are no more than paranoid feelings). Not that this would result in less stealth, but that the seeker would know that if "caught" there is nothing much to be concerned about.

[CoyoteRed]

I'm not sure I agree with this.

 

While we would know what you mean by "This cache has explicit permission," an outsider may not. In fact, they may see some caches with a designation of permission and some without, and assume the ones without are without even adequate permission. Worse, they think the placement goes against steward policy.

 

I don't think you will find a more staunch supporter of aquiring adequate permission for your placements, I understand the pitfalls of requiring explicit permission and I understand the pitfalls of highlighting caches without explicit permission by the absence of the designation.

 

Don't get me wrong, I support placing a note on the cache page when you do get permission, especially when permission is required, but to start making it commonplace may have a negative impact on the hobby.

 

...unless you want to go down the road of every cache being required to have explicit permission.

[+Elde]

...unless you want to go down the road of every cache being required to have explicit permission.

Why would you not?

[+I.R. Geonut]

This is gonna get heavy.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

...unless you want to go down the road of every cache being required to have explicit permission.

Why would you not?

Do you have to ask for permission to play frisbee in the park? Why/Why not? I'm sure the sign at the entrance doesn't say you can or can't. Does it make it ok if the sign doesn't say? The sign doesn't say you can breathe the air there either, do you need explicit permission for that too?

[Voigt54601]

paranoid

 

Most people put them in public places as far as I can tell, cachers living on farms may place one on the back 9, and it feels strange to be there as a cacher, but it must be ok. If permission was an issue and you were 'caught', the worst that would happen would be someone would enquire what you were up to, and more than likely not have an issue with it. If you were on my land taking morel mushrooms, then there may be an issue, but for this, nah. (unless the coordinates lead you to someones frontyard or something, that may be strange, even at that, I'd just contact the cache placer and enquire)

[+Pablo Mac]

I've watched this movie before...

 

 

...it's just about to get to the good part!

[+welch]

I know when I hunt for caches in "questionable" areas, but am not sure the cache was placed there with permission, I'll usually just leave. So in order to let folks know that yes, I DID ask permission and we're ALLOWED to be here, I use this on my cache page:

 

...

I do not mean by this that specific permission would be mandatory, just tell the community yes or no.

...

Since I didn't follow whatever thread this came out, can you tell me what 'specific permission' is?

Filed paperwork? causual phones calls? emails? letters saying yes from the park management on cache by cache basis? Verbal permission from the ranger? an ok because you know the campground host? Non-responses from geocache location request? There's probably caches that fall into every one of those, (and more), which get to use this nice icon??

[+jon & miki]

As I see it, recreational land managers allow the use of the land for specific activities - for example, they may permit hiking, but that does not automatically mean they want you riding horses or ATV's on the land even if they haven't issued a written policy to the contrary Or maybe they allow swimming, but not fishing.

 

A lot of times they post rules for more common activities, but a lot of land managers haven't heard of geocaching yet, so they haven't even thought about a policy. My experience is that the reaction is far more negative when they discover they've got 10 or 15 caches on their land through a news article or a problem cache than if they were contacted by geocachers in the first place.

 

I think it mostly comes down to knowing the intention of the land manager and the only way I see to find that out (assuming they don't have a posted policy) is to ask them about geocaching and explain it as much as necessary. A "no" at that point is far less damaging to the sport than waiting until the land manager finds out about the caches by other means.

[+jon & miki]

paranoid

 

Most people put them in public places as far as I can tell, cachers living on farms may place one on the back 9, and it feels strange to be there as a cacher, but it must be ok. If permission was an issue and you were 'caught', the worst that would happen would be someone would enquire what you were up to, and more than likely not have an issue with it. If you were on my land taking morel mushrooms, then there may be an issue, but for this, nah. (unless the coordinates lead you to someones frontyard or something, that may be strange, even at that, I'd just contact the cache placer and enquire)

I'm not sure this qualifies as a public place since I haven't cached in the area, but some folks do more than inquire about what you're doing - see this thread.

[+sbell111]

[+RockyRaab]

I think the logo is a great idea.

 

One, we're already required to obtain permission (IF on private land) when we apply for cache approval.

 

Two, I'd be a bit more reassured if I saw that on the cache description.

 

Three, for caches where it isn't required, there'd be no need to put it there. No confusion.

 

Four, it'd be a courtesy thing, not mandatory. Giving the cache size is such a courtesy, as is the difficulty, all those other helpful icons such as wheelchair accessible, and hints. None are required, most are appreciated, no angst need be generated.

[+sbell111]

God help me, I agree with CR on this one.

 

The problem with the logo is that from the perspective of an outsider (who might want to make trouble) it could look like those caches without the logo were placed without permission.

[+RockyRaab]

Not arguing, shell, but maybe you're overthinking it. That's a whopping large "what if" as far as I can see. Just the concept of hiding what might be considered suspicious packages in public places MIGHT cause outsiders to make trouble, no?

 

I see it as a courtesy only.

[+StarBrand]

God help me, I agree with CR on this one.

 

The problem with the logo is that from the perspective of an outsider (who might want to make trouble) it could look like those caches without the logo were placed without permission.

I agree with this line of thinking too.

[+sbell111]

Not arguing, shell, but maybe you're overthinking it. That's a whopping large "what if" as far as I can see. Just the concept of hiding what might be considered suspicious packages in public places MIGHT cause outsiders to make trouble, no?

 

I see it as a courtesy only.

Don't make me refer you to a SC thread. I swear, I'll do it!

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

 

cachers living on farms may place one on the back 9, and it feels strange to be there as a cacher, but it must be ok. 

I'm still considering placing one here on my farm, and if/when I do I bought some of the Geocaching.com stickers to place at the parking area, so all cachers will (hopefully) be able to tell they are in the right area and do indeed have permission to hunt there.

 

(But the Morel Mushrooms are ALL MINE!!)

[+briansnat]

...unless you want to go down the road of every cache being required to have explicit permission.

Why would you not?

Because I have fundimental problem with begging my government for permission to do something that is virtually harmless and legal.

Edited February 4, 2006 by briansnat

[Voigt54601]

I'm not sure this qualifies as a public place since I haven't cached in the area, but some folks do more than inquire about what you're doing - see this thread.

ouch, that's a pretty extreme case really, and it seems to me that maybe that guy is just embarassed to say he forgot he had meth in his wallet while out caching ... seems too odd to be fact. As well, the person that placed that cache I think would be the one at fault if that were the TRUE issue in that scenario.

[Voigt54601]

 

cachers living on farms may place one on the back 9, and it feels strange to be there as a cacher, but it must be ok. 

I'm still considering placing one here on my farm, and if/when I do I bought some of the Geocaching.com stickers to place at the parking area, so all cachers will (hopefully) be able to tell they are in the right area and do indeed have permission to hunt there.

 

(But the Morel Mushrooms are ALL MINE!!)

I kinda figured that was what was going on with some in my area that aren't in parks or the such. Growing up being a hunter, I realized early on to respect a landowners land and not take anything he may want without permission. Most farmers do not mind if you go pick up hickory nutts off the forest floor, some may even let you take some precious morels, AFTER you ask.

 

I think the little icon idea is fruitless though, and would cause more trouble than its worth. The caches without that then look like they are in a place you're going to get into trouble in, nah.

[+Elde]

...unless you want to go down the road of every cache being required to have explicit permission.

Why would you not?

Because I have fundimental problem with begging my government for permission to do something that is virtually harmless and legal.

Who said anything about begging? I did not. Niether did anyone else in the thread.

 

I'll also point out that there are many activities that are legal - that are prohibited or limited in public places and/or parks. For example, on the paths in a park near my home, you are quite welcome to bicycle, but motorcycles are right out.

[+Criminal]

This is fast becoming my favorite picture:

 

[+Clan X-Man]

Not arguing, shell, but maybe you're overthinking it.  That's a whopping large "what if" as far as I can see.  Just the concept of hiding what might be considered suspicious packages in public places MIGHT cause outsiders to make trouble, no? 

 

I see it as a courtesy only.

Don't make me refer you to a SC thread. I swear, I'll do it!

Might as well. All questions as to this specific thread can probaly be answered in the threads you are refering to.

 

X

[+Robespierre]

We have always had caches with special notes, like, "Permission is granted by the owner if you have this printed page with you, and your gpsr." That says nothing about any other cache, it just covers a special arena. What's the problem? Also there's this: if a cache owner wants to put some emblem on his page............ he may.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Out of 342 caches found, I've had exactly one "problem" cache regarding permission, and even on that one the land owner was cool. I know others can probably speak of bad incidents, but this really seems like some molehills transforming into mountains.

 

Is there empirical evidence that such an icon is needed due to rampant inappropriate hides? I can't believe East Texas hiders are just that much better than other areas. (okay, maybe we are )

 

I liked this statement:

 

Because I have fundimental problem with begging my government for permission to do something that is virtually harmless and legal.

 

and this one

 

The problem with the logo is that from the perspective of an outsider (who might want to make trouble) it could look like those caches without the logo were placed without permission.

 

I realize the good intentions of the OP, and that it would be optional, but it does seem to infer that your cache is seedy if it doesn't have the "mark".

 

Again I ask, is the root cause of this thread a REAL problem that happens at a regular rate, or a PERCEIVED problem that happens very infrequently?

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

We have always had caches with special notes, like, "Permission is granted by the owner if you have this printed page with you, and your gpsr." That says nothing about any other cache, it just covers a special arena. What's the problem? Also there's this: if a cache owner wants to put some emblem on his page............ he may.

 

As you've said, people have always been able to post their own disclaimers or emblems.

That's a lot different than making an official icon in the Attributes section. Or to require checking a box. (I mean to not check such a box is to say NO, I did NOT ask permission. Nevermind that it is public property)

 

Why have more legislation?

Edited February 4, 2006 by Googling Hrpty Hrrs

[+Confucius' Cat]

in a nutxhell:

 

the reason for the proposal is to facilitate filtering- mostly for paperless purposes, which are perhaps selfish, but i bet im not the only one that PQs and maps their entire territory.

 

i in no way implied it should be mandatory

 

true the check box might give some a "placed in defiance of land owner's wishes- hah hah he don't even know it's here" impression so perhaps that is a bad idea

 

one of the "attributes" icons that says "I have explicit permission" would work better. If you don't believe in the cause, don't check that one. When i run my PQ, your cache will not come out, or will be shown on my map with a different icon. No sweat for anyone.

 

No it is not a common problem, but an ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure- or a hundred miles of wasted driving.

 

OH, and "explicit permission" is common sense. Basically "ANY of the above" if a cacher wants to lie- about anything- we are all taken in and cannot prevent or correct that. Why would anyone assume a cache owner would "fudge" the icon?

Edited February 5, 2006 by Confuse-A-Cat

[+sbell111]

If it wasn't mandatory, I don't think it would be useful, anyway. All the old caches wouldn't have it and only some of the new caches wouldn't have it. You'd basically be filtering out tons of caches that totally meet the guidelines.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Very true

but u gotta start somewhere.

As time goes on, the filtering would be more accurate. In the mean time, simply using a different icon on the map would tell me what to expect.

 

If I drive up to the area and find private property or muggle heaven, the displayed permission status could be a determinig factor as to whether or not to proceed and when to call it.

 

If the cache is in a park or the equivalent, the icon is irrelevant- permission to HUNT for the cache is assumed by virtue of it being public property- even if permission to PLACE it was specifically DENIED by the land manager.

 

My issue is really permission to HUNT, the right to be there and obviously looking for something, if the cache owner has obtained permission to PLACE, then permission to HUNT is a given.

 

Public land is prima-facie permission to walk around looking for something (assuming the immediate area is not otherwise posted- like "maintenance use only" or "STAY ON TRAIL!"). The cache HUNTER is in no legal or moral danger.

[+sbell111]

I disagree. A cacher who places a cache in the wrong place without permission and checks the authorization box will also check the box for this icon. This will be even more likely if the icon is in mainstream use.

 

I just don't see what the icon does for us. We already have a requirement that permission be obtained if it is required. This icon is only going to make it appear that some caches are placed inappropriately when, in fact, they are legit.

[+Confucius' Cat]

An abusable icon, with which we trust each other, is better than rejecting the idea, leaving us with nothing, because some will abuse it.

 

I do not assume that a cache does NOT require a long hike because the "long hike" icon is not checked.

 

I do not assume that a cache can NOT be completed in under an hour because the "takes less than an hour" icon is not checked.

 

I do not assume that dogs ARE allowed because the "dogs allowed" box is not negated.

 

The icons are a new feature anyway. The argument is easily made that they are useless, since they are not implemented on all cache pages and caching survived perfectly well for several years without them.

 

Still, I believe they are useful, especially in PQs, and do not agree that there would be anything detrimental about offering an "explicit permission" icon. However the negative of that icon would be rather poor and probably should not be offered.

 

i guess i have more (perhaps naieve) trust for cache placers.

 

I cannot bring myself to believe that many would deliberately lie about obtaining permission.

 

If this is common, our sport is doomed.

 

There is no way we can have positive verification of permission that unscrupulous persons cannot circumvent.

 

I sincerely hope unscrupulous = geocacher is most often a FALSE statement.

[+sbell111]

An abusable icon, with which we trust each other, is better than rejecting the idea, leaving us with nothing, because some will abuse it.

But we don't have 'nothing'. With each submission, the cache owners attest that they have received all adequate permission.

Still, I believe they are useful, especially in PQs, and do not agree that there would be anything detrimental about offering an "explicit permission" icon. However the negative of that icon would be rather poor and probably should not be offered.

However, those with an axe to grind will use the absense of such icon to show that permission was not obtained.

i guess i have more (perhaps naieve) trust for cache placers.

It doesn't sound like you do. You apparently believe that this icon is necessary because you think that some would attest to having adequate permission that they did not obtain. After all, what good is the icon otherwise?

Edited February 6, 2006 by sbell111

[+Confucius' Cat]

 

But we don't have 'nothing'. With each submission, the cache owners attest that they have received all adequate permission.

 

It doesn't sound like you do. You apparently believe that this icon is necessary because you think that some would attest to having adequate permission that they did not obtain. After all, what good is the icon otherwise?

 

You got me there.

I DON'T trust the present permission system at least to the extent that specific permission has been obtained. Specific permission has never been required, just "adequate" permission. The checkbox on the cache submission page only states that the cache placer hads read and the cache complies with the guidelines.

 

Specific permission is NOT one of the guidelines.

 

That is what this thread is about... making a way to differintiate between the two- by PQ preferably. I am not advocating redefining "adequate" permission in any way.

 

Presently we have "nothing" to differintiate those caches that hacve specific permission from all the others which we *assume* have adequate permission.

[+sbell111]

Certainly, you agree that some caches don't require specific permision. For those that do require specific permission, if you didn't get it, adequate permission wasn't obtained and you shouldn't click that it was. The icon would not help anything in this instance. Those that click that they have obtained adequate permission would be nearly as likely to use the proposed icon as anyone else, if the icon was in regular use.

 

Then people would just be clamoring for verification. It would solve nothing.

[+Confucius' Cat]

It would solve nothing.

 

It is not meant to "solve" anything. None of the icons solve anything, they just provide a convenience for cachers to evaluate whether they want to attempt a particular cache. As presently implemented thay are ALL optional and no assumptions past the obvious ones generated by their presence are valid.

 

Absence of an icon is irrelevant and any conclusions drawn therefrom are specious at best.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

I'm assuming new icons are added because of an intrinsic need.

 

No it is not a common problem, but an ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure- or a hundred miles of wasted driving.

 

It's admitted that this is not a current issue, even for the OP. There has been no real-life example of a hundred mile wasted drive.

 

What is the inherrent need to change anything given the fact that owners can ALREADY place whatever icon or disclaimer they would like regarding permission?

 

This idea is red tape for the sake of red tape.

[+sbell111]

Absence of an icon is irrelevant and any conclusions drawn therefrom are specious at best.

It doesn't matter how solid the logic is, the absense of the icon would make it appear to outsiders that many caches were placed in violation of the guidelines, simply because the icon wasn't used.

Edited February 6, 2006 by sbell111

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Absence of an icon is irrelevant and any conclusions drawn therefrom are specious at best.

 

Exactly. If absence is irrelevant, than the PRESENCE of them would be just as irrelevant.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Absence of an icon is irrelevant and any conclusions drawn therefrom are specious at best.

 

Exactly. If absence is irrelevant, than the PRESENCE of them would be just as irrelevant.

 

So let's dump ALL the icons

 

The more ways a person can filter (automatically) the caches he/she WANTS to look for the better.

 

The sport is BOOMING. In my area there are dozens of new caches EVERY DAY. Picking the ones I am interested in and printing them out is becoming more and more of a job. The more time I spend filtering, the less time I have to hunt. And it is definitely a BUMMER to make a hundred mile drive and encounter a no trespassing sign or find that the cache is in the middle of a highway. Been there, done that, got lotsa tee shirts.

 

Extra filtering options will not necessarily SOLVE the problem, but will HELP. Is it wrong to improve things just a little even though it won't make a perfect world?

[+sbell111]

I see more downside than upside.

 

Pass.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

n my area there are dozens of new caches EVERY DAY. Picking the ones I am interested in and printing them out is becoming more and more of a job. The more time I spend filtering, the less time I have to hunt. And it is definitely a BUMMER to make a hundred mile drive and encounter a no trespassing sign or find that the cache is in the middle of a highway.

 

I don't understand. If there's dozens of new caches everyday in your area, why would you need to drive a hundred miles to look for a cache?

[+Confucius' Cat]

My "area" is the state of Indiana... about 300 miles long by 150 miles wide.

 

Not all new caches interest me.

 

In less than a year i have driven the equivalent of nearly 3 times around the world.

 

The closest new caches are typically now only 5-10 miles away since TVnewsbiz has begun placing a lot of them, but previously most new ones were 30 -50 miles away. 50 miles = hundred mile trip. (I like to come home at night)

 

In fairness and to diminish my whining, most of the time I am out for other reasons and caching is incidental- thus few hundred mile drives are truly wasted. Still, even an incidental abort because of poor filtering of my map icons is a bummer.

Edited February 6, 2006 by Confuse-A-Cat

[+Mastifflover]

I have to agree that I don't see the need for this. I think we'd be making an issue out of a non-issue.

[+DocDiTTo]

I used the graphic the OP displayed on a cache (actually 2) that I hid in a cemetery, because I wanted to convey to anyone who cared to look for those caches that yes, I asked permission from the cemetery staff to places the caches, and they gave their OK.

 

If there was an attribute stating that the hider sought and was granted permission from someone in authority, that would convey the same message.

 

I have, numerous times, walked away from cache hunts because I felt I was somewhere where I didn't belong, and was not comfortable hunting there. On numerous occasions, I found out after the fact that the hider did ask for permission to place the cache, and it would have been OK for me to continue my search. Unfortunately that was never mentioned in the cache writeup.

 

I don't know that a specific attribute is necessary, but mentioning in the writeup that you obtained specific permission does let folks know it's OK for them to hunt the cache. The graphic just conveys that message in a flashy, easy to read fashion.

 

I think the attribute is a good idea, however there's no guarantee it wouldn't be abused. And of course specific permission isn't always required to hide a cache. But where private property is concerned, it should be obtained, and cachers should be made aware that it's ok, they are allowed to hunt for that cache.

 

For those folks who have obtained specific permission for a cache, I think that they should communicate that to others in some way, whether it be by a graphic, attribute, or just a sentence in the writeup. This doesn't imply that other caches were not placed with permission, it only states that this particular cache had specific permission.

[+JDandDD]

I don't know how you would be able to properly define permission. There are some areas that publish their permitted usage online. If you meet their requirements for usage then you don't need written permission.

 

I'm with Sbell111 there appears to be more downside than upside.

 

JDandDD

[+DocDiTTo]

I don't know how you would be able to properly define permission. There are some areas that publish their permitted usage online. If you meet their requirements for usage then you don't need written permission.

 

I'm with Sbell111 there appears to be more downside than upside.

 

I think it's pretty obvious - either you asked whoever's in charge of the area if you could place the cache, or you didn't. If they gave their permission, you have it. What's not to understand?

 

We're not writing contractual language here. If you can't figure out whether you asked permission or you didn't, then you simply shouldn't use the graphic/attribute/whatever. Next we'll be fighting over the definition of "is".

[+JDandDD]

I don't know how you would be able to properly define permission. There are some areas that publish their permitted usage online. If you meet their requirements for usage then you don't need written permission.

 

I'm with Sbell111 there appears to be more downside than upside.

 

I think it's pretty obvious - either you asked whoever's in charge of the area if you could place the cache, or you didn't. If they gave their permission, you have it. What's not to understand?

 

We're not writing contractual language here. If you can't figure out whether you asked permission or you didn't, then you simply shouldn't use the graphic/attribute/whatever. Next we'll be fighting over the definition of "is".

 

It seems that every rule on this site has been debated in these forums. Writing definitions looks to be pretty hard from all that discussion. You say "asked permission" but if you read my note in some cases you don't have to ask at all, just read the online notice. Would that meet the definition of "asking"? Think about that debate that would start.

 

My point wasn't about obtaining permission, I know when I've done that, but about the ability to define it and that there are more ways to do obtain it than just asking and that's where the fights would start about definition. Who needs them if the proposal will lead to the problems noted in this thread.

 

JDandDD

[+DocDiTTo]

It seems that every rule on this site has been debated in these forums. Writing definitions looks to be pretty hard from all that discussion. You say "asked permission" but if you read my note in some cases you don't have to ask at all, just read the online notice. Would that meet the definition of "asking"? Think about that debate that would start.

 

My point wasn't about obtaining permission, I know when I've done that, but about the ability to define it and that there are more ways to do obtain it than just asking and that's where the fights would start about definition. Who needs them if the proposal will lead to the problems noted in this thread.

 

JDandDD

 

Perhaps "Placed with land manager's knowledge and consent" rather than "Placed with permission" would be a better definition. However, like with all the other attributes, the final decision as to whether it appears on a cache page is up to the hider, so a strict definition doesn't mean anything anyway. But I still think it's good to convey the message to others that "Yes, I have asked someone in charge of this area if I could hide a cache here, and they gave their consent". However you convey that message, it's important because it puts the seeker's mind at ease.

[+sbell111]

How about "Placed with appropriate permission'?

 

EDIT: Please don't take this post to mean that I think the icon is a good idea at all.

Edited February 6, 2006 by sbell111

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

From the guidelines:

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.

 

Saying that we need this icon would be the same as adding a "Cache has log inside" icon. A physical log is required, just as adequate permission is.

 

Are mistakes made? I'm sure. As I've already said, 1 out of the 342 caches I've found had an issue. I'm sure I'll eventually find a cache with no log, though I haven't yet.

 

I still ask those on the other side of this fence- is this REALLY a problem in your area? Is there some specific incident that leads you to believe that adequate permission has not been granted by numerous cachers? And lastly, are a lot of these caches in such questionable areas (someones front yard, for example) that would make you even give permission a second thought?