How Many Caches Have Approval Of The Landowners?

[+Pieman]

The rules are that all cache placements should have approval of the landowner. I guess all cachers realise that this rule is not met all of the time. I notice it when I have been in contact with the landowner who wants to do an in depth review, yet caches appear regularly on their land (I guess) without approval. My gut feel is that I would be surprised if more than 30% of new caches have landowner approval. Any other thoughts?

[+Pengy&Tigger]

The actual wording is 'you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location'

 

I'm not arguing for or against permission for all caches, just pointing out that the inclusion of the word 'adequate' leaves it open to interpretation.

 

T

[+The Spokes]

Being cynical I would think that it would be around just 1 in 100 or less that have permission

But how many are holding up their hands to say mine did not get permission.

All of mine have permission.

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

To me personaly without going into the full definition of the word, Adequate" means just enough. But Permission means either the owner or someone acting with their consent has given (dictionary defination) agreement, approval, assent, authority, authorization, consent, or dispensation. which means one of two things, either there is already a agreement in place or contact has been made and permission has been recieved either by word of mouth, email or in writing for a cache to have "Adequate Permission". History has shown us what happens regarding caches placed without "Adequate Permission", the New Forrest is just one example. The situation is even more critical since the London bombings.

 

Dave

[+wildlifewriter]

If you go about it the right way, having permission can bring all sorts of other benefits with it.

 

For example: one of my caches is more than 70 miles from home. It was placed with permission, and the landowner (a farmer) was genuinely interested in the concept of caching.

 

Now, I don't have to worry about the cache, or check regularly to see if it's still there and properly hidden...

 

... the farmer does that, every morning.

 

-Wlw

[+John Stead]

I am with the cynics here and agree that the majority of caches probably do not have proper approval.

I have to admit that most of my earlier caches did not have the approval of landowners but there were relatively few then (some are now over 4 years old) and some of the issues which are now apparent did not arise.

However I do now seek approval for the few new caches I hide and, as has been said, this brings unexpected advantages - for example, one wildlife trust manager who has one of my caches on his reserve suggested suitable locations on other reserves in the area where he was keen to encourage visitors.

[+Pieman]

The actual wording is 'you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location'

 

I hadn't noticed the word adequate until you mentioned it. It is rather an odd choice- would anyone think that inadequate permission was enough? But then what is adequate- I would have thought you either have permission or you don't.

 

On the general question, there are areas where no-one knows who owns the land and it seems reasonable that a cache could be placed there provided it complied with all the other guidelines. It does seem courteous to me, though, that where the ownership is very obvious, say NT, Woodland Trust, etc that permission should be sought. As an example I spent about a year speaking with British Waterways seeking permission for a cache during which time I spoke to their HQ and the local office near me. As far as they (or at least the many people I spoke with) are concerned they don't currently have any caches on their property- something that we all know is a long way from the truth.

[+Malpas Wanderer]

Currently I'm midst negotiations for cache placement on a largish Estate in Berkshire.

 

So far two good reasons for seeking permisson have come to notice.

 

A major concern of the land owner was that Geocaching was not linked to anything sinister. Having given permission to another group with seemingly innocent intent the land owner found out the sites they had given permission were being used for paedophile related activities.

 

Having been given the land owner's permission to investigate the areas for suitability before formal documents issued, the Warden for the woodlands was soon enquiring what exactly I was doing trawling every crevice I could find.

 

Both of these events I was able to defend in the interests of geocaching by a) stating that we are self policing via the logs and forums and any illicit activity would be immediately terminated in the unlikely event if it arose.

I had verbal permission to be doing what I was doing.

 

Whilst I enjoy those caches which I realise do not have explicit permission is it not better for the future of Geocaching to seek permission in the majority not the minority of cases. I must admit I particularly want to set a good example with this Estate both because I have other connections here and that the land owning family are past and present Members of Parliament.

 

Please all Geocachers promote the best image of Geocaching that you can in the hope that our sport never falls into disrepute.

 

 

Good Luck with all cache seeking and placements.

 

 

 

Colin

[+HazelS]

Hi Paul

 

As you know, in Cheshire there is the blanket agreement for caches that are placed on CCC land - all have permission providing the cache owner informs CCC and ensures that the cache IS on CCC land.

 

All my caches in and around Northwich were placed with either permission of CCC or the land owner.

 

However, when I was at the Chester event a few weeks ago, I spoke about this with a few cachers who stated that their caches never had any permission as they were plaed in public places, on "public land" - obviously I will name no names!!!

Edited February 5, 2006 by HazelS

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

Public land is still owned and managed by some one, which means unless they own the land or a blanket permission aggrement is in place the caches have been placed without permission. Finding out who actualy owns the land and then obtaining permission off them is all part of the placement proccess. I've been trying to confirm who owns a plot off land for nearly 18 months. I believe I've tracked down the Landowners and have been trying to make contact with their appointed Landmanager for nearly 9 months, the next stage is to send by recorded delivery copys of the Introduction to Geocaching Document to both the Landowners and the landmanager. I'll keep trying to I either get a refusal or permission off them.

 

Dave

[+The Good Raymondo]

On 13th January 2005 I wrote to Wyre Forest F.C. asking permission to place caches in their forest. I have constantly written reminders and led them by the hand as to what GCing is all about and I eventually got WRITTEN PERMISSION this week and I have also have to sign an agreement and return it to the FC about the nature of the my proposed caches, a map where they will be placed and their British Grid positions.

 

Within the last few weeks there has been a series of multi caches chalked up ('Trek to the Severn') - I question the owner (Coppernoggins') if he/she has permission because until I started their GCing education the FC Rangers did not know what I was talking about.

 

I am in favour of as many caches as we can get in the area but what happens when an 'illegimate' (for want of a better word) rules out a legitimate one because they are deemed too close?.

 

Yes - I am pretty peeved because I have chosen the path laid down by Geocaching.com and clearly I was a mug.

 

Now do we need to get permission or don't we? Will someone please give me a ruling?

 

Ray Shakeshaft (The Good Raymondo)

[+Happy Humphrey]

As Pengy & Tigger pointed out, the key phrase is "adequate permission". In some places it's adequate to have no permission at all: but before you send me an outraged e-mail, consider that this is a worldwide game. In crowded Surrey, you'd almost certainly need explicit permission from the landowner and interested parties. But what about in the Nevada desert, or a remote mountain pass in Chile, or the tundra of Siberia, for instance? And other countries have different traditions, where some land is not owned by anyone.

 

Obviously Groundspeak are just covering themselves by keeping the ball in our court - we have to declare that we have taken responsibility for permission, being local cachers with knowledge of local customs and conditions. They can't insist on full written permission for every cache, otherwise we'd all be using a different listing site by now.

 

So the answer to the general "do we need permission or not" is... it depends!

 

In the USA, the system has broken down so that no caches are allowed in State or National Parks. We recently had the ridiculous situation where we looked for nearly an hour for a micro hidden somewhere around a decrepit shack at a major road junction. We found beer cans, bottles, discarded car parts and miscellaneous litter: but the 35mm film container remained elusive. A fortnight later, I checked the cache page and discovered that the cache had (since we visited) been reported to the approvers, as it was in a State Park. It's now disabled (though I think still in situ - it would seem a bit pointless to remove it). I'm not sure of the events leading to the blanket ban, but I believe it was due to concerns that geocaching paths may appear leading to popular cache sites. I don't think that permission was the issue, more that the popularity of the pastime was a worry. IMO they should have taken a more positive attitude, working with cachers to ensure that approach routes to caches were sensible ecologically.

 

Mini-rant over!

 

HH

[+Pieman]

 

Yes - I am pretty peeved because I have chosen the path laid down by Geocaching.com and clearly I was a mug.

 

Now do we need to get permission or don't we? Will someone please give me a ruling?

 

 

That must be annoying and something I've thought about myself when approval has taken a while. Unfortunately, it is not practical for the approvers to check permissions in detail so it has to be taken on trust.

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

The Good Raymondo you took the right approach by obtaining permission. Close on 3 years ago 18 caches that were placed in the New Forest, were uplifted by the forest rangers. It took over 12 months of negotiations before they revealed that they actually had the containers and returned them. it took several more months of negotiations before an agreement was reached regarding the placement of caches in the forest. For every cache placed without permission, there is a risk of a knock on effect for every other cache on land owned by the same person/group.

 

If you contact Lactodorum with the contact details for Wyre FC, I'm sure that he would be prepared to make contact with them to see if he could set up a agreement which he and Eckington have with several other FC areas, where by they will pass the details of the cache on to the FC Area before giving Approval. You have to remember that even though recreational activity's take place in FC areas, at the end of the day they are still a working area with all the Health and Safety obligations that go with it.

 

Unfortunately some cachers in the UK don't seem to understand about obtaining permission, others don't care. But at the end of the day it's the whole community who suffer! (this is not a person attack or comment about any individual, just a general comment about the whole of the UK Geocaching Community)

 

Dave

[Lactodorum]

As I have already been contacted about this and have replied I don't think that airing the same conversation on a public forum is appropriate. Either I can handle it in the manner I indicated to the person reporting it or it can be thrown open for public debate. I prefer the former approach so I am ending this public debate now.