Cache Permission

[+DocDiTTo]

 

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?

 

Have you ever been confronted by a convenience store clerk threatening to call the police because they saw you hunting for a cache? I have. That cache was clearly in a place where permission should have been obtained, but wasn't. Lead to a face-to-face I really didn't care for. So I've learned to stay away from caches like that. I've found out after the fact that I've aborted a few hunts where permission HAD actually been obtained, but that message wasn't conveyed in the writeup. Clearly not everyone gets explicit permission to hide their caches, nor do they always need to. But for those that do (and they are far fewer in number than those that don't) they should have a means to convey that message to cachers, to let them know that the cache is here with the knowledge and consent of the land manager or owner, and you can hunt here without fear of being introduced to Officer Friendly.

[+sbell111]

I still don't see how the positives of this implementation would outweigh the negatives.

[+DocDiTTo]

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.

 

Actually no, because "appropriate" is too subjective to actually mean anything, where as "explicit knowledge and consent" means quite a lot.

 

What's appropriate permission to one person may not be to another. However, it's pretty easy to define explicit permission - you asked, you got the OK, you hid the cache. Regardless of appropriateness or necessity, that's what you did, and you're letting us know.

[+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.

 

Actually no, because "appropriate" is too subjective to actually mean anything, where as "explicit knowledge and consent" means quite a lot.

...

Based on that, I think it would be better to leave everything as is.

[+Mastifflover]

This kinda reminds me of the Geocachers Creed saga from a while ago.

[+DocDiTTo]

I still don't see how the positives of this implementation would outweigh the negatives.

 

I don't see that there are any negatives. What is the negative impact of informing potential finders that the cache they're seeking was placed with the explicit knowledge and consent of the land manager? There's nothing wrong with telling people that, is there?

 

One positive aspect is that I (and others who cache like I do) might actually stick around and hunt for your questionably placed cache because we know for sure that permission has been given and we're allowed to hunt for it. As it is now, I walk away from those questionably placed caches, because 99 times out of 100 the hider hasn't asked for permission and my being there is a police/security incident waiting to happen.

[+sbell111]

I still don't see how the positives of this implementation would outweigh the negatives.

I don't see that there are any negatives. ...

Please reread the thread.

[+DocDiTTo]

I still don't see how the positives of this implementation would outweigh the negatives.

I don't see that there are any negatives. ...

Please reread the thread.

 

I have, and the only "negative" I've seen is the fear of mistaken assumptions about caches not displaying this attribute. Right now, the common assumption on questionable caches is "it probably wasn't placed with permission, so I probably shouldn't be here hunting it". At least with an attribute stating that explicit consent was given, a cache could remove all doubt about permission issues.

 

The existing attributes set on existing caches don't imply anything about any other caches. Why would an "explicit permission granted" attribute be any different?

[+sbell111]

I have, and the only "negative" I've seen is the fear of mistaken assumptions about caches not displaying this attribute. Right now, the common assumption on questionable caches is "it probably wasn't placed with permission, so I probably shouldn't be here hunting it". At least with an attribute stating that explicit consent was given, a cache could remove all doubt about permission issues.

 

The existing attributes set on existing caches don't imply anything about any other caches. Why would an "explicit permission granted" attribute be any different?

You're still looking at it like a geocacher, not like an outside detractor.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

they should have a means to convey that message to cachers

 

They do, and always have had the means. Some have created cool looking graphics. Others mention it somewhere in the cache description. Nothing is stopping them.

 

Thorns, snakes, poison ivy, RESTROOMS, etc have icons because it has been proven that there is an inherrent need for them on a regular basis. If there were alligators near by, I'd appreciate the cache owner to warn me about it, but because it's not a common occurence I don't suggest a new alligator icon.

 

You also still haven't addressed the fact that icons are for variables. Appropriate permission, like having a logbook or accurate coordinates, are required already. To provide an icon assumes that it is optional.

[+DocDiTTo]

 

You also still haven't addressed the fact that icons are for variables. Appropriate permission, like having a logbook or accurate coordinates, are required already. To provide an icon assumes that it is optional.

 

"Appropriate" permission is required. Explicit permission is often not. In fact, someone obtaining explicit permission is usually a rare occurence around here. That's why it's nice to note it when it was obtained. Having an attribute would be an easy way to make it known, however there are certainly other ways. My point, whether it's in attribute form, pretty graphic form, or note on the cache page form is just to *make it known*. If you've taken the time and gone to the trouble of seeking explicit permission for your hide, let people know it, ESPECIALLY if the hide is on private property or in an area of questionable placement. I think an attribute would help make it known, but it's certainly not required. I think the arguements that an attribute would somehow affect other caches is a bit far-fetched, but since I'm looking at this from a geocacher's point of view rather than an "outside detractor's" point of view, I guess my thinking is clouded.

 

I'm sure I've provided enough entertainment for one day, so I'll just kick back and relax.

[+JimmyEv]

It is always beneficial to know from the cache write-up in questionable areas if permission has been obtained. But I don't get the point of an attribute . Why would you use this for screening in pqs? I can think of only two reasons:

 

1. You only want to do caches on private property.

2. You only want to do caches in parks that regulate geocaching.

 

Caches placed on public property that don't regulate geocaching wouldn't have the icon and would be filtered out. Would this be useful to most geocachers?

[+Harry Dolphin]

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.

 

Now, I'm confused. Dozens of new caches every day in your area and you're driving a hundred miles to find a cache? There are over two thousand caches within fifty miles of me. In New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. It'll be years, or maybe decades, before I need to drive a hundred miles to find one cache.

 

What you are actually proposing, without actually coming right out and saying it, is that all cache hiders should provide written proof of permission with every hide. That might be a good idea (it would eliminate almost all guard rail hides), but it ain't going to happen, for a long, long time.

[+Confucius' Cat]

 

You're still looking at it like a geocacher, not like an outside detractor.

 

So, can I think like an outside detractor without being one? I wonder what an outside detractor thinks about the majority of caches that are NOT placed with ANY KIND OF permission?

 

 

Thorns, snakes, poison ivy, RESTROOMS, etc have icons because it has been proven that there is an inherrent need for them on a regular basis.

Really? I seem to recall we got along without these icons for years. None of them have an "inherrent need", they are ALL only there for the convenieince of cachers that might find the information useful.

 

What the icons do very nicely is allow PQs to sort attributes that an individual cacher might find important.

 

Whats the big deal about snakes, thorns, poison ivy? If it is a WOODED area, can't you just ASSUME those things---- kinda like the posters opposing this idea want me to ASSUME explicit permission?

 

I am beginning to think the caching community takes pride in not knowing for sure if a cache is placed with permission- like its some kind of "sneaky pete" thing that we have to do to be cool. Is it somehow WRONG or Un-manly to want to be a little more sure before I venture however stealthily into a place that is obviously NOT public property?

 

It is always beneficial to know from the cache write-up in questionable areas if permission has been obtained. But I don't get the point of an attribute . Why would you use this for screening in pqs? I can think of only two reasons:

 

1. You only want to do caches on private property.

2. You only want to do caches in parks that regulate geocaching.

 

Would this be useful to most geocachers?

3. I can use this filter to place a special icon on my map

Yes, it would be useful to those who are concerned. Is that "most"? I doubt it, but neither is the "handicapped access" icon useful to "most" cachers.

 

I do not want to look for ONLY caches placed with explicit permission, I only want to know for those that are in "uncomfortable" places as DocDitto has so well expressed.

 

 

I thought about this a lot last night and I think perhaps I should redefine this issue. I will do so in a new topic and perhaps close this one shortly thereafter. I think perhaps the real question I want to ask is: Is the cache on private property? If so, then I will assume you have permission because that would be the rule. If it is on PUBLIC property then I can "cache with confidence" anyway.

[+sbell111]

 

You're still looking at it like a geocacher, not like an outside detractor.

 

So, can I think like an outside detractor without being one? I wonder what an outside detractor thinks about the majority of caches that are NOT placed with ANY KIND OF permission?

I don't know that that is true. I assume that the vast majority of caches that would require specific permission have it. In fact, of all the caches that I have looked for in the last five years or so, I can only think of two that I don't think had permission and might have required it. Certainly, without the proposed icon, these outside detractors would have a harder time pointing to caches that did not receive permission, in their opinion.

 

The system, as it stands, works. If a cache was placed inappropriately, there is a procedure in place to have it delisted.

Edited February 7, 2006 by sbell111

[+Confucius' Cat]

 

The system, as it stands, works. If a cache was placed inappropriately, there is a procedure in place to have it delisted.

 

True.

 

My only desire is to perhaps make it work a little better or perhaps easier, for me anyway. I know this is selfish, but in 50 yrs i have discovered that anything I like is perhaps liked by a few others too. The world is full of different people with different desires that all seem to be about the same in the long run. Whereas you cannot please everyone, we can strive to benefit some, whether majority or minority is irrelevant. It is all a cost-benefit analysis, ultimately.

 

I see a small benefit and very little cost. Nothing earth-shattering either way.

 

Re: delisting: Not me anymore. People who point out cache problems are attacked as if by wolves. To L with it, the next guy can initiate the "procedure". (sorry to respond off topic)

[+sbell111]

You asked for opinions, you got them.

[+Confucius' Cat]

yep, i'll leave it open for a while in case there are more. Basically I have only heard from half a dozen people.

 

Not as it matters or that I would, but what does it take to start a poll? It has been a long time, but the last sevral times I tried it I got error messages.

[SAWKS]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+altosaxplayer]

I have one question. How can we ensure that if we get permission, that whomever we got it from can let other people know? I mean, suppose. You ask the manager of the store. He okays it. What if a month later the manager changes and they have no idea what the heck your talking about (assuming something happened i.e: cops or something)? How do we help that. That is the question that needs to be answered sometime.

[+sbell111]

If you are concerned about that, you should get permission in writing. That being said, it really doesn't matter. If the new manager (or the old one, for that matter) wants the cache gone, it should be removed.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I have seen the error of my ways. (this is not a sarcastic comment)

 

I see how the illusion of permission this icon would give could actually result in a worsened situation as a poster in another thread pointed out.

 

i.e. If a cacher assumes permission for a private property cache (based on the assumed permission of EVERY cache and bolstered by the icon on the page) and then ends up on the wrong property by mistake, it could yield an ugly scene indeed.

 

Farmer: Whatcha doin on my land here boy? *strokes shotgun*

Cacher: I have permission... it says so right here.

Farmer: Not on MY land ya don't *sucks hayseed*

 

.... you fill in the rest...

 

Of course, it could happen with or without an icon.

[+5¢]

I have seen the error of my ways. (this is not a sarcastic comment)

 

I see how the illusion of permission this icon would give could actually result in a worsened situation as a poster in another thread pointed out.

 

i.e. If a cacher assumes permission for a private property cache (based on the assumed permission of EVERY cache and bolstered by the icon on the page) and then ends up on the wrong property by mistake, it could yield an ugly scene indeed.

 

Farmer: Whatcha doin on my land here boy? *strokes shotgun*

Cacher: I have permission... it says so right here.

Farmer: Not on MY land ya don't *sucks hayseed*

 

.... you fill in the rest...

 

Of course, it could happen with or without an icon.

 

This subject kinda got brought up in my thread and I have waffled over where to post my idea, but in the end I picked here. Here's my thought. What if on the cache page, there was contact information from who gave permission for caches not on public land? I hide a cache on a friends land, or business, whatever and there is a box to fill in that says permission to hide cache given by: (Joe Blow). Then, if you are hunting a cache and you get questioned, you can say Joe Blow gave me permission. This would solve two things. One, it would get rid of some fear people have for hunting caches on private land because if they get stopped they could say the guy who gave permission. If it is a business, then most people know who the boss is (Joe Blow) and would let you on your merry way. The other thing this solves is if you are on a neighbors land by accident. Most people know who their neares neighbors are. If you happen to get a hair off track, then the guy atleast knows you aren't a complete whack job and could tell you, I think you need to be at the neighbors property. I see no harm in this solution since everyone hides their caches on private property with permission right?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Most people know who their neares neighbors are. If you happen to get a hair off track, then the guy atleast knows you aren't a complete whack job and could tell you, I think you need to be at the neighbors property. I see no harm in this solution since everyone hides their caches on private property with permission right?

 

Dang. I must be antisocial. I know four people on my block. Of course, I do not speak the same language as most of my neighbors... Oh, well.

But this does bring to mind one of our local cache hiders who sometimes confuses himself. One of his caches was 4 minutes off. That's 3.5 miles. On another, he confused his math on a multi, resulting in the second stage being four or five blocks off. Instead of seeking permission to search their living room (Joe Schmo gave us permission!), we decided to pass on that opportunity. Your solution might have convinced us that we had permission to search their flower garden.

[salmoned]

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.

AS per the guidelines:

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

 

It says nothing about permission for private property only. I realize most caches have no permission whatsoever - often gc.com endorses these caches even after the lack of permission is pointed out. So apparently, this requirement is lip-service only. If caches are permitted by policy, that's permission. If there is no policy, that is not permission and something more must be sought. Most non-policy areas lump caches into abandoned property or trash categories - they are not permitted, it's that simple. If gc.com (and hiders) were to abide by this rule prior to being contacted by land managers, it would alleviate this entire issue.

Edited February 8, 2006 by edchen

[+5¢]

Most people know who their neares neighbors are. If you happen to get a hair off track, then the guy atleast knows you aren't a complete whack job and could tell you, I think you need to be at the neighbors property. I see no harm in this solution since everyone hides their caches on private property with permission right?

 

Dang. I must be antisocial. I know four people on my block. Of course, I do not speak the same language as most of my neighbors... Oh, well.

But this does bring to mind one of our local cache hiders who sometimes confuses himself. One of his caches was 4 minutes off. That's 3.5 miles. On another, he confused his math on a multi, resulting in the second stage being four or five blocks off. Instead of seeking permission to search their living room (Joe Schmo gave us permission!), we decided to pass on that opportunity. Your solution might have convinced us that we had permission to search their flower garden.

 

Granted this won't work in all circumstances. Off topic a bit..........How long did it take you to come up with the most abstract arguement to what my idea was?

[+sbell111]

Two things:

 

1) What if Joe Shmoe doesn't want every Tom, Dick and Geocacher following up with him. From recent threads, no one can convince me that several people aren't going to call Mr. Shmoe to verify permission. This is going to drive Mr. Shmoe nutty and he's going ot want the cache (that he did originally approve of) removed.

 

2) Why is it not imaginable to let this dead horse of a topic fall off the page?

[+Confucius' Cat]

What if on the cache page, there was contact information from who gave permission for caches not on public land?

 

It would be a laudable effort, as are pretty much ALL methods of verifying permission. Unfortunately, like everything else, it is still subject to error and abuse.

 

Even if you have solid permission, it means nothing if you are searching the wrong location. This could be as simple as transposing numbers in the coords. Then when you end up on private property, you assume you must be in the right place and you have permission. When asked, you give Joe Blow's name and they respond "Joe who?"

 

And there are no doubt some that would fill in a name so it looks like they really got permission, but we won't go there... anyone can deceive, anything can be abused.

 

There really is NO WAY to be sure. The only sure thing is to only hunt caches that are clearly on land where YOU have permission to be by virtue of the nature of the land use (public or quasi-public land).

 

When a cache is on private land that is not generally available for any public use or purpose, cachers cache at their own risk.

 

That is why I proposed the public/ private icon- you cacn filter to avoid snakes, which you are unlikely to see anyway unless you are really careful, but you cannot filter to avoid private property. (but that's another thread)

[+Confucius' Cat]

RE: Dead horse

 

closing topic in 10 minutes

1910 EST

*mark*

[+Confucius' Cat]

Thanks to all,

GDAE