Open-to-public Private Ownerships

[+Mr Smiles]

Many caches have been hidden in public areas of privately held land. Parking areas of malls, big-box retailers, hospitals, and golf courses and the landscaped planter strips associated with these places, for example, are popular places to hide caches. My question is: when is a public place not a public place for the purposes hiding caches without explicit permission?

 

In many instances, if not most, it would be nearly impossible to even find an individual with authority to grant permission, let alone getting the grant.

[+webscouter.]

Why would anyone want to hide a cache in these locations?

 

I have never seen the appeal of showing me a Walmart parking lot. That being said if you need to place a cache in the shopping center parking lot get written permission from the management company that runs the shopping center. Then let all the store managers have a copy of the permission letter and put at least one in the cache so when I am stopped by LEO I can show him that I have permission to be where I am at.

[+briansnat]

There are different kinds of private property. Places like malls are private places of public accomodation. Though privately owned, they invite the public there. They legally are different in many ways from other private property. For instance I could ban all Latvians from my lakefront estate (and I do), but a mall owner can not do the same.

 

Private golf courses are a bit different because you really don't belong there if you're not a paying customer.

Edited February 27, 2006 by briansnat

[+The BeeGees]

For instance I could ban all Latvians from my lakefront estate (and I do)

Oh My Gosh !

My family's been banned from Brian's house

And I thought we were friends.

[+Salvelinus]

There are different kinds of private property. Places like malls are private places of public accomodation. Though privately owned, they invite the public there. They legally are different in many ways from other private property. For instance I could ban all Latvians from my lakefront estate (and I do), but a mall owner can not do the same.

 

True, but they can ban activities (and do) on their property that they feel may be opposite to its intended use. Malls and plazas ban skateboarders all the time. And I dare you to start up a game of volleyball in a Wal-Mart parking lot and see how long it lasts.

 

Personally, I still don't understand why a cache placed on commercial property is not considered commercial.

[+Team Cotati]

There are different kinds of private property. Places like malls are private places of public accomodation. Though privately owned, they invite the public there. They legally are different in many ways from other private property. For instance I could ban all Latvians from my lakefront estate (and I do), but a mall owner can not do the same.

 

True, but they can ban activities (and do) on their property that they feel may be opposite to its intended use. Malls and plazas ban skateboarders all the time. And I dare you to start up a game of volleyball in a Wal-Mart parking lot and see how long it lasts.

 

Personally, I still don't understand why a cache placed on commercial property is not considered commercial.

 

Thank you.

[+Mr Smiles]

There are different kinds of private property. Places like malls are private places of public accomodation. Though privately owned, they invite the public there. They legally are different in many ways from other private property. ....

 

My question remains unanswered and I appreciate your point. I'd like to know; When is a public accomodation place an acceptable place for a cache hide sans explicit permission, and what criteria would I use to discriminate between the types?

 

Thanks!

Mr Smiles

[+BigWhiteTruck]

 

My question remains unanswered and I appreciate your point. I'd like to know; When is a public accomodation place an acceptable place for a cache hide sans explicit permission, and what criteria would I use to discriminate between the types?

 

Thanks!

Mr Smiles

 

I don't think that there IS a time or place when no permission is needed in things such as shopping malls or store parking lots. For example, if yo go into a Walmart, go to the service desk and look at the signs on the wall there. It basically says that the entire store and parking lot are private property and you are only there by invitation as a paying customer. The moment you are not a paying customer, you are trespassing.

[+Walkin' Ed]

Last weekend I found my first shopping center lampost micro. It was early on a Sunday morning before the stores were open so there were very few people around. As I was lifting the lamp post skirt I envisioned myself before the mall security trying to explain geocaching. My next thought was,"Well its on private property so the cache owner must have asked for permission". But did he? I know that there are thousands of caches hidden this way, but very few near me. (The cache owner thought that this was a unique hide.)

 

So to return to the original question, what is geocaching.com's position on parking lot caches? Do they need permission from the property managers? If not, why not? I know these caches are popular with a segment of the geocaching population. I don't want to eliminate or stop them, just open this up for discussion.

[salmoned]

So to return to the original question, what is geocaching.com's position on parking lot caches? Do they need permission from the property managers? If not, why not? I know these caches are popular with a segment of the geocaching population. I don't want to eliminate or stop them, just open this up for discussion.

 

Here it is [the bottom line] - GC.com don't give a horse's arse about placements. They aren't responsible. Any placement whatsoever is kosher, until someone (a reviewer, a seeker, a finder, a property manager, etc.) complains. Then, if the complainer is recognized, lip service to the effect of "Oops, sorry about that!" is provided. As an example, I notified a reviewer of a cache being placed on U.S. government property with "No Trespassing" signs posted. The location was a former military installation, which is in the process of being transferred to the state (this transfer has been occuring piecemeal since 1999, due to the usual problems associated with government entities). The signs were placed just prior to the 'announced transfer' and supercede previous military signs, "Authorized Pesonnel Only". Action taken - none.

Edited February 28, 2006 by edchen

[+Renegade Knight]

...True, but they can ban activities (and do) on their property that they feel may be opposite to its intended use. Malls and plazas ban skateboarders all the time. And I dare you to start up a game of volleyball in a Wal-Mart parking lot and see how long it lasts. ...

 

Tell you what. When I retire, get that massive motorhome and park in the Wallyworld parking lot like they invite people to do I'll put together a vollyball game and invite you. If they ask me about it I'll ask them if they have baseball equipment we could use instead. They might see fit to allow that game of parking lot vollyball.

[+Walkin' Ed]

So the question should go to the reviewers/approvers. If a cache was submitted that was clearly in a shopping center parking lot would you ask if permission was received or would you assume that it wasn't necessary since it was a private place of public accomodation?

[salmoned]

Again, 'adequate' permission is ASSUMED to have been obtained by virtue of submitting the cache for review. It's called the 'HONOR' system. Some 'get it', some don't. I have SBAed a number of 'approved' caches that were "obviously" on military property (without any permission whatsoever, of course) where I wasn't the 1st or 2nd or 3rd finder, but WAS the first (and only) to SBA. Certainly private property with public access is no more clear-cut than posted, guarded and active military property, eh?

Edited February 28, 2006 by edchen

[+Walkin' Ed]

Again, 'adequate' permission is ASSUMED to have been obtained by virtue of submitting the cache for review. I have SBAed a number of 'approved' caches that were "obviously" on military property (without any permission whatsoever, of course). Certainly private property with public access is no more clear-cut than posted, guarded and active military property, eh?

 

This is pretty much what I expected. The reviewer assumes that permission has been obtained. So the onus is on the cache owner. If someone places a cache in a shopping center parking lot the reviewer expects that permission has been granted. I would like to hear an opinion from a reviewer.

[+LSUMonica]

Make sure to READ the Cache List Requirements/Guidelines. When you submit a cache, you state that you have read the guidelines.

 

From the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines updated Nov 2, 2005:

 

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

 

Regarding what is considered a commercial cache:

 

From the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines updated Nov 2, 2005:

 

Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing.

 

While we may agree or disagree with these guidelines and definition of these guidelines. This is it. So a cache located in the parking lot or near a commercial establishment is not considered a commercial cache unless the cache submission was to draw customers to a site.

[+briansnat]

Last weekend I found my first shopping center lampost micro. It was early on a Sunday morning before the stores were open so there were very few people around. As I was lifting the lamp post skirt...

 

Oh, PLEASE tell me that it wasn't in northern NJ.

[+Walkin' Ed]

The question wasn't whether or not it was a commercial cache, but rather was permission required to place a cache on private property, i.e. a shopping center parking lot.

[+nfa]

The question wasn't whether or not it was a commercial cache, but rather was permission required to place a cache on private property, i.e. a shopping center parking lot.

 

I would guess that in 95% (or more) of parking-lot-lamp placements, permission was not granted...I think a good question is...does the geocaching community think that permission is required for this type of placement?

 

Jamie

[+Walkin' Ed]

Last weekend I found my first shopping center lampost micro. It was early on a Sunday morning before the stores were open so there were very few people around. As I was lifting the lamp post skirt...

 

Oh, PLEASE tell me that it wasn't in northern NJ.

 

Except for Bergen County, your turf is safe.

[salmoned]

This is pretty much what I expected. The reviewer assumes that permission has been obtained. So the onus is on the cache owner. If someone places a cache in a shopping center parking lot the reviewer expects that permission has been granted.

 

Okay, you're almost there. There is no assumption of explicit permission - only 'adequate' (meaning absolutely nothing in particular) permission. Each reviewer abides by his own conscience, with help from the others when requested. The impression I have developed is that generally 'adequate permission' equates to 'no actual permission' for almost every cache (excepting my own). For the record - I am not a reviewer.

[+Prime Suspect]

I don't think that there IS a time or place when no permission is needed in things such as shopping malls or store parking lots. For example, if yo go into a Walmart, go to the service desk and look at the signs on the wall there. It basically says that the entire store and parking lot are private property and you are only there by invitation as a paying customer. The moment you are not a paying customer, you are trespassing.

Which, of course, is completely at odds with Wal-Mart's official policy of allowing RVers to use their parking lots overnight. There is no obligation to be a "paying customer" in order to do so.

[+nfa]

I don't think that there IS a time or place when no permission is needed in things such as shopping malls or store parking lots. For example, if yo go into a Walmart, go to the service desk and look at the signs on the wall there. It basically says that the entire store and parking lot are private property and you are only there by invitation as a paying customer. The moment you are not a paying customer, you are trespassing.

Which, of course, is completely at odds with Wal-Mart's official policy of allowing RVers to use their parking lots overnight. There is no obligation to be a "paying customer" in order to do so.

 

But...do they have an official policy encouraging geocachers to place micros in their lamposts?

 

j

[+tozainamboku]

I don't think that there IS a time or place when no permission is needed in things such as shopping malls or store parking lots. For example, if yo go into a Walmart, go to the service desk and look at the signs on the wall there. It basically says that the entire store and parking lot are private property and you are only there by invitation as a paying customer. The moment you are not a paying customer, you are trespassing.

Which, of course, is completely at odds with Wal-Mart's official policy of allowing RVers to use their parking lots overnight. There is no obligation to be a "paying customer" in order to do so.

 

There may be no obligation for the RVer to be a paying customer but there is a certain reasonable expectation on Wal-Mart's behalf that this is the case. RVer's who are travelling have to stock up on supplies, e.g. groceries, and if they are parked in Wal-Mart's parking lot they are much more likely to shop at Wal-Mart. I would think there is less expectation that a geocacher looking in a lightpost would then go into the store to buy swag or a new cache container.

Edited February 28, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+Snoogans]

Private golf courses are a bit different because you really don't belong there if you're not a paying customer.

 

I like to use private golf courses for puzzle cache waypoints.

 

I know know of one puzzle cache waypoint that is right in the middle of the runway here at Bush IAH in Houston.

 

These "off limits" waypoints are good because you aren't messing up the 528 rule for someone else. Just make sure you post that the cache isn't at to coordinates listed on the page.

[Keystone]

Again, 'adequate' permission is ASSUMED to have been obtained by virtue of submitting the cache for review. I have SBAed a number of 'approved' caches that were "obviously" on military property (without any permission whatsoever, of course). Certainly private property with public access is no more clear-cut than posted, guarded and active military property, eh?

 

This is pretty much what I expected. The reviewer assumes that permission has been obtained. So the onus is on the cache owner. If someone places a cache in a shopping center parking lot the reviewer expects that permission has been granted. I would like to hear an opinion from a reviewer.

Walkin' Ed, your summary is correct. It is the cache owner's responsibility to obtain adequate permission. But, contrary to several posts in the thread, there is a fair percentage of caches placed outside of business premises where the owner includes a "note to reviewer" saying that permission was obtained from Jane Smith, store manager. But not every cache says this, and I cannot be placed in a position to sit and judge which ones are OK and which ones are not.

 

Edchen's example is a good illustration of why a reviewer does not "approve" a cache location, as that situation was not at all as cut and dried as he says in his summary. There is a whole separate forum thread about that cache, and it should not be debated again here because this thread is about commercial properties, not former military bases.

 

Reviewers do check against published geocaching policies issued by land managers. I have approximately 25 such policies to keep track of in my review territory. If a cache is placed on a property covered by a published policy, then it is part of my job to make sure that permission has been obtained. But Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, Publix and Cracker Barrel are not on that list of 25 land managers. I don't know that any of them have a geocaching policy, so I have nothing to check against.

[+wimseyguy]

These "off limits" waypoints are good because you aren't messing up the 528 rule for someone else. Just make sure you post that the cache isn't at to coordinates listed on the page.

 

That's very thoughtful, but should be unecessary. Bogus posted coords of puzzle caches aren't factored into the cache saturation guideline enforcement according to this:

The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another. This guideline applies to all stages of multicaches and mystery/puzzle caches, except for any “bogus” posted coordinates for a puzzle cache.

I just hope some dumass going paperless for his first time doesn't wander under a 737 about to takeoff blindly following his arrow.

Edited February 28, 2006 by wimseyguy

[Keystone]

Private golf courses are a bit different because you really don't belong there if you're not a paying customer.

 

I like to use private golf courses for puzzle cache waypoints.

 

I know know of one puzzle cache waypoint that is right in the middle of the runway here at Bush IAH in Houston.

 

These "off limits" waypoints are good because you aren't messing up the 528 rule for someone else. Just make sure you post that the cache isn't at to coordinates listed on the page.

FYI, the 528 foot cache saturation guideline does not apply to a "bogus" waypoint for a puzzle cache. We regularly list traditional caches that are, say, 150 feet away from a puzzle cache coordinate that has no relationship to the actual cache location, except maybe as parking coordinates. The 528 foot test is applied to the actual place where the cache is found once the puzzle is solved.

 

Though not addressed in the listing guidelines, I would prefer it if airport runways, etc. were NOT used as bogus waypoints, simply because off-limits locations like that raise questions when an uninitiated person looks at the spot on the map. Also there is a certain percentages of ill-prepared geocachers who will go to the false coordinates and expect to find a container there. My preference is for the false coordinates to be in the middle of a river or lake. Make 'em swim for it.

[+Walkin' Ed]

Thanks Keystone, for your response.

I was just curious, as this kind of cache was new to this area. I know you folks have enough to do with all the different regulations for the various land management agencies you have to deal with, without worrying about whether the local Sears or WalMart manager has granted permission to place a cache. Although I doubt if most of these caches are placed with permission, I'll give the owner the benefit of the doubt and cache with caution.

[salmoned]

I find it RATHER cut and dried. Every cache placed without any sort of permission fails to have adequate permission. Land managers with no policy on geocaching HAVE policies on littering, trespassing, unlawful storage, loitering, squatting and/or other such activities, which adequately covers geocaching as well. How can NO permission equal adequate permission?

[AZcachemeister]

I don't think that there IS a time or place when no permission is needed in things such as shopping malls or store parking lots. For example, if yo go into a Walmart, go to the service desk and look at the signs on the wall there. It basically says that the entire store and parking lot are private property and you are only there by invitation as a paying customer. The moment you are not a paying customer, you are trespassing.

Which, of course, is completely at odds with Wal-Mart's official policy of allowing RVers to use their parking lots overnight. There is no obligation to be a "paying customer" in order to do so.

 

But...do they have an official policy encouraging geocachers to place micros in their lamposts?

 

j

 

Wally-World sells GPSRs, and the batteries to feed them!

[+team lagonda]

Personaly i dont see where geo . com is responsible for any cache placement..its up to the guy who placed it thats gonna get busted if he does get busted....i also had another idea,,we aughta have obstical course muti caches for the real cachers out there,,you know like have land mines hidden by the caches that require you to take along metal detctors....lol

[+Salvelinus]

Which, of course, is completely at odds with Wal-Mart's official policy of allowing RVers to use their parking lots overnight. There is no obligation to be a "paying customer" in order to do so.

 

There may be no obligation to shop there, but I'll bet anything if they were not attracting business from allowing them there then they wouldn't do it. Do ya really think they are doing that to be nice? I'll guarantee you that if I owned a business there would be a geocache in the parking lot. If for nothing else, it would be there to (un-intentionally ) attract business that I normally may not get. You get them in your parking lot for whatever reason, your half-way to a sale.

 

Back to the OT. I know of a cacher who does not like this type of hide. So, he went to an establishment (restaurant) where one of these was hidden and asked permission to be there to look for it. The manager was less than happy when he heard about it and asked it to be removed. Yeah, the cacher was making a point and hasn't made too many new "friends" by doing what he did. But, it does bring up the question about this type of hide and the permission required. I think GC.com needs to take a harder look at these kind of hides.

 

I still think they are first a commercial cache and should be dealt with as such.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Though not addressed in the listing guidelines, I would prefer it if airport runways, etc. were NOT used as bogus waypoints, simply because off-limits locations like that raise questions when an uninitiated person looks at the spot on the map. Also there is a certain percentages of ill-prepared geocachers who will go to the false coordinates and expect to find a container there. My preference is for the false coordinates to be in the middle of a river or lake. Make 'em swim for it.

 

I have first hand experience with this. I used some false coordinates in a locked area of the Idaho State Police compound thinking it would help cachers catch a clue that it's a puzzle cache. Nope. They got in, looked and freaked out the Police. Even expereiced cachers were looking at the fake coordinates! I got calls on that one. Finally I moved the coordinates to the middle of a sewage lagoon and haven't had any trouble since.

[+briansnat]

Land managers with no policy on geocaching HAVE policies on littering, trespassing, unlawful storage, loitering, squatting and/or other such activities, which adequately covers geocaching as well. How can NO permission equal adequate permission?

 

And they do not necessarily apply to geocaching. First defining geocaches as litter may be problematic. In fact they are quite the opposite if you go by the dictionary's definition. If its a public park, trespassing isn't an issue unless you're there outside posted hours, geocachers are hardly squatters as they are only there for a few minutes or hours. The only possible application would be the unlawful storage rules, but not every park has one.

 

I know for a fact that some land managers are aware of geocaches on their property and are fine with it. There was no express permission given, but knowing the activity goes on and making no effort to stop it means they have given the sport their tacit approval. I've personally spoken with park rangers and officials who know about geocaching and don't want to get involved with forumlating a policy and dealing with the resultant red tape.

Edited March 1, 2006 by briansnat

[+Salvelinus]

Reviewers do check against published geocaching policies issued by land managers. I have approximately 25 such policies to keep track of in my review territory. If a cache is placed on a property covered by a published policy, then it is part of my job to make sure that permission has been obtained. But Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, Publix and Cracker Barrel are not on that list of 25 land managers. I don't know that any of them have a geocaching policy, so I have nothing to check against.

 

I admire how well you handle the enormous task your constantly up against, and would never consider volunteering to do it myself. But, I was just curious if This particular cache has made TPTB in GC.com rethink this type of placement. Seems, as an approver, your now up against another "grey" area.

 

What do you do when the next one is submitted?

 

Salvelinus

Edited March 1, 2006 by Salvelinus

[Keystone]

Reviewers do check against published geocaching policies issued by land managers. I have approximately 25 such policies to keep track of in my review territory. If a cache is placed on a property covered by a published policy, then it is part of my job to make sure that permission has been obtained. But Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, Publix and Cracker Barrel are not on that list of 25 land managers. I don't know that any of them have a geocaching policy, so I have nothing to check against.

 

I admire how well you handle the enormous task your constantly up against, and would never consider volunteering to do it myself. But, I was just curious if This particular cache has made TPTB in GC.com rethink this type of placement. Seems, as an approver, your now up against another "grey" area.

 

What do you do when the next one is submitted?

 

Salvelinus

I archived that cache when it became clear that local management did not want the cache on the property, and the owner was not able to come forward with proof of permission. No, there was no need to "rethink this type of placement." The listing service's procedures worked just fine.

 

When the next one is submitted, I will publish the cache if it meets the listing guidelines. If I spot any listing guideline issues when reviewing the cache, I will put it on hold and ask the cache owner. That same process applies regardless of whether a cache is hidden in a Wal-Mart parking lot, a town park or a State Gamelands.

[+Salvelinus]

I archived that cache when it became clear that local management did not want the cache on the property, and the owner was not able to come forward with proof of permission. No, there was no need to "rethink this type of placement." The listing service's procedures worked just fine.

 

When the next one is submitted, I will publish the cache if it meets the listing guidelines. If I spot any listing guideline issues when reviewing the cache, I will put it on hold and ask the cache owner. That same process applies regardless of whether a cache is hidden in a Wal-Mart parking lot, a town park or a State Gamelands.

 

I understand you can only go by the guidelines you have, so I guess my question would of been better directed to whomever has some power over reviewing and changing the guidelines that you work with.

 

It just seems to me that there have been enough situations lately where "adaquate" permission has been questioned. Maybe someone needs to take a closer look at it and what exactly it means. I understand it is not your job to do as such, nor should it be.

 

Based on the example I gave, it seems that the 131 active "Off Your Rocker" caches have a question to whether or not they now have "adaquate" permission. I guess some would disagree with that, but as this game gets more and more "urbanized" there is potential for major problems if this is not addressed.

 

Salvelinus