Jump to content

Placement Permission


Followers 4

Recommended Posts

Me either, but evidently it is, because no one seems to want to touch an answer, they all want to go off on tangents!
You've received many on-topic replies to your 'question'. You merely choose to ignore them because no one is rallying to your side.

 

Get over it.

Link to comment

I think it's a legitimate question, unworty of all the "snarky" comments, so I'll treat it as such;

In my opinion, geocaching is, in and of itself, a legitimate activity. If I choose to partake of this activity on public land that my tax dollars help pay for, then I don't feel I need detailed permission to do so, any more than I would need detailed permission to go hiking. I believe that, as a tax payer, I already have permission to hide my caches on public land.

 

Certain land managers feel differently, and have expressed their feeling to Groundspeak in various ways, to include requiring the completion of an online form, to banning caches all together. Groundspeak makes every effort to keep abreast of these land manager concerns, and passes the information to cache hiders as necessary.

 

For instance;

My cache, Little Big Econ Canoe Launch, was hidden without asking a soul, because I believe I have permission to use this county park for this activity. However, my cache, Triangulation, had to be placed on a back burner until specific permission was obtained, due to the land manager's rules.

 

I hope this answers your question. Take it with a grain of salt, since I'm not a reviewer, and I don't have insider knowledge.

Link to comment

I use the Frisbee rule when placing my caches. It may not be the best way, but I hate cutting red tape, especially when its silly. I don't (except when I first started) put caches on PRIVATE property, though.

 

I'm pretty sure he's not trolling--it seems a legit concern. If I fed him so be it. A bit of angst, maybe, but not trolling.

Link to comment

I have a question I couldn't ask before.

 

why couldn't you ask this question before? i would think as a reviewer that you would have been in the best position to ask this. if it has bothered you so much, why weren't you making every cache owner send you a permission letter signed by the person or persons in charge of the property?

 

BTW i deleted most of your OP because the hero to zero part is immaterial to me.

Edited by uperdooper
Link to comment

Be advised that the green message below will now appear in every topic referencing "cache cops" until the subject diasappears into the depths of the sea.

 

Cache Cop: You want answers?

 

OP: I think I'm entitled to them.

 

Cache Cop: You want answers?

 

OP: I want the truth!

 

Cache Cop: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has caches. And those caches have to be policed. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for locationless caches and you curse the pocket caches. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that urban micros, while tragic, probably saved Geocaching. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves Geocaching...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that cache patrol. You need me on that cache patrol.

We use words like maintenance, permanence, saturation...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a gps and find a cache. Either way, I don't give a sat-lock what you think you're entitled to!

 

OP: Did you order the cache archived?

 

Cache Cop: (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do.

 

OP: Did you order the cache archived?

 

Cache Cop: You're goll-darn-right I did!!

 

Now on a more serious note, a society without self policing is a society of danger and disorder. The same can be said for any organized activity, including Geocaching. I personally would not appreciate putting myself or others in either physical or legal harms way over a cache. However, I would also be using good common sense while caching (searching and placing) to prevent such a situation.

Link to comment

If I choose to partake of this activity on public land that my tax dollars help pay for, then I don't feel I need detailed permission to do so, any more than I would need detailed permission to go hiking. I believe that, as a tax payer, I already have permission to hide my caches on public land.

 

I understand what you are saying and in many ways I agree, but here's the rub. When you hike on the public lands, you are expected to keep to the trails in many cases. The reason is that in some areas hiking can and does damage the ecosystem. By cutting new trails and trampling vegetation erosion is increased. And there are other considerations for caches on 'your' public lands.

 

I've been working with the local State Park to get more caches hidden there. They are grateful that I want to place caches there and have even suggested hide spots for me. But something you need to consider before just stomping in and dropping your cache, is what impact is this going to have on the area and on the way the public and land owners will view Geocaching. The people that would best able to answer that question, would the park system mangers in question. If you talk to them, you might be surprise what you learn

Link to comment

I'm not aware of any caches that were placed without adequate permission. If you are, address the issue.

 

Unlike what you did to me, I am not about to go searching folk's profiles to expose illegal caches.

 

My position is simply that many caches placed without permission are out there, and nothing is being done about them.

 

This is a gross violation of the Groundspeak guidelines and should be of great concern to the ethical geocachers who so loudly protect their vision of our game, yet it's not.

 

I have to wonder why?

 

Who determines which guidelines will be enforced?

Thank you, your entire argument is so weak that I can allow several brain cells to have the afternoon off while the one or two actually needed to rebut this nonsensical argument can play with it.

 

First, I didn’t go through your profile as you seem to be implying here. It’s good to see you admit that they were illegal caches, even though ‘illegal’ is a bit strong.

 

Your second sentence blows your entire argument out of the water. You are saying that you haven’t looked for any ‘illegal’ caches but are saying definitively that they are there. Are you gifted? How do you know with such authority that there are caches placed without adequate permission?

 

… should be of great concern to the ethical geocachers who so loudly protect their vision of our game, yet it's not.

 

It’s not about my vision of the game, it’s Groundspeak’s vision of the game.

 

Personally I have nothing against you, I think you’re an asset to the game in most regards, but this thread has no beef. Where’s the beef?

Link to comment

I am not a reviewer, nor do I envy their work. I fully agree with you on the need for appropriate permissions to be obtained, but "ensuring" that seems like a monumental task aside from the honor systems. Even if there were a persmissions contact area, how could a reviewer know that contact information was authentic and not just the cache placer's cell number.

 

On another note do the "proper authorities" really want to be notified of every cache? Can you imagine how many times the road department would be called if everyone had to call for permission, and then have the reviewer call as well? Of course, I still agree that they should be contacted for permission.

 

The ones that are obviously over the line and in need of permission are "business caches" whether they are the cracker barrel caches, or the dreaded wally-world caches. If I were a business owner I could deffinetly want to know of a cache on my property. Those would also be easier to follow up.

 

"clink" "clink" - there's my 2 cents.

 

There seems to be something a bit contradictory about this: "On another note do the "proper authorities" really want to be notified of every cache? Can you imagine how many times the road department would be called if everyone had to call for permission, and then have the reviewer call as well? Of course, I still agree that they should be contacted for permission." Are you recommending that everyone get proper permissions at all times or not? :huh:B)B)

 

Personally I do not have any guard rail caches - but it begs the questions of implied concent. At what point is "explicit" permission needed. I belive this is where AlabamaRambler is getting upset. To answer your question, PROPER permission is always needed.

 

Boy, you're going to make this just as difficult as possible it seems. I'll play along for a while, OK? So , in your own example of "the road department", what is PROPER permission and how would you obtain it? :unsure::lol::lol:

Link to comment

hey, I don't want to play along. Niavity is bliss - I would rather play dumb. Lets see how I could weasel myself out of this. Me personally, I would see a guardrail as being implied concent in most cases. Of course, since I am new to this, I would trust my reviewer to point out any inconsistancies. The one cache I have placed, I was asked if it was on private property (and I appreciated the heads up question) to which I responded it was a public park. Since I was never asked to provide explicit permission, I assumed that a public park constituted implied concent.

Link to comment

Let me rephrase the issue and question, reduce it to its essential, see if we can get on topic:

 

I believe that many geocaches are placed without permission, contrary to a basic guideline of geocaching.

 

This community seems to be very concerned about honesty and ethics, and accepts as fact that cachers are trusted to get permission, when reality shows that they often do not.

 

Why is the community not upset about this?

I don't believe that anyone on these forums has the right to speak for "the community". So I'm speaking for myself.

Who says that I'm not upset about it?

There are caches all over the place that I know have no permission to be there. But that "knowledge" is not proof, and unless I want to interrogate every cache owner in the area I'll only get proof if I'm unlucky enough to be cornered by the property owner or police. On the occasions that this has happened I SBA'd the cache and/or e-mailed the cache owner.

Are caches being placed without adequate permission? Yes.

Does it upset me? Yes.

Can I do anything about it? Technically, yes. Realistically, no.

Am I going to loose sleep over it? No.

Am I going to have a root beer float for dinner? Yes.

Link to comment

Let me rephrase the issue and question, reduce it to its essential, see if we can get on topic:

 

I believe that many geocaches are placed without permission, contrary to a basic guideline of geocaching.

 

This community seems to be very concerned about honesty and ethics, and accepts as fact that cachers are trusted to get permission, when reality shows that they often do not.

 

Why is the community not upset about this?

I don't believe that anyone on these forums has the right to speak for "the community". So I'm speaking for myself.

Who says that I'm not upset about it?

There are caches all over the place that I know have no permission to be there. But that "knowledge" is not proof, and unless I want to interrogate every cache owner in the area I'll only get proof if I'm unlucky enough to be cornered by the property owner or police. On the occasions that this has happened I SBA'd the cache and/or e-mailed the cache owner.

Are caches being placed without adequate permission? Yes.

Does it upset me? Yes.

Can I do anything about it? Technically, yes. Realistically, no.

Am I going to loose sleep over it? No.

Am I going to have a root beer float for dinner? Yes.

Oooh, Barqs or A&M? I love the A&M stuff, Barqs is OK, but not really a 'float' root beer. A&M has that sweeter taste that mixes so well with teh ice cream. MMmmmm!

Edited by New England n00b
Link to comment

to answer again quickly... If my perception is wrong, I wish to be corrected - that is why I am even discussing this topic in the forum.

 

My take on it is that there is no unmanaged land.

 

Private property is managed by someone to protect the owner's interests.

 

Public lands are managed by someone to protect the public's interest.

 

Infrastructure, such as stop signs and telephone switch boxes, are owned and managed and have rules regarding what can and can't be done with or to them.

 

Therefore, everywhere you might want to place a cache is managed and owned by someone.

 

That we 'own' and therefore can do as we like on public lands is simply not true.

 

All Americans 'own' the National Parks, but we can't place caches there. All Alabamians 'own' our state parks, but we can't litter or shoot the animals there.

 

Somebody sets the land use rules regardless of who owns it.

 

So now comes geocaching, a game where we all want to go place cache hides.

 

Do we seek permission for our hides?

 

The Groundspeak guidelines indicate that we must, if they are to be listed on geocaching.com.

 

Do we do that? In large part, no.

 

Do we check the boxes that tell our Reviewers we have permission when we don't? Yep, with the vast majority of our listings.

 

Is it silly that some forums posters get all het up about following the rules they want to enforce on others while ignoring this one? Yeah, it's a riot! :rolleyes:

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

Let me rephrase the issue and question, reduce it to its essential, see if we can get on topic:

 

I believe that many geocaches are placed without permission, contrary to a basic guideline of geocaching.

 

This community seems to be very concerned about honesty and ethics, and accepts as fact that cachers are trusted to get permission, when reality shows that they often do not.

 

Why is the community not upset about this?

I don't believe that anyone on these forums has the right to speak for "the community". So I'm speaking for myself.

Who says that I'm not upset about it?

There are caches all over the place that I know have no permission to be there. But that "knowledge" is not proof, and unless I want to interrogate every cache owner in the area I'll only get proof if I'm unlucky enough to be cornered by the property owner or police. On the occasions that this has happened I SBA'd the cache and/or e-mailed the cache owner.

Are caches being placed without adequate permission? Yes.

Does it upset me? Yes.

Can I do anything about it? Technically, yes. Realistically, no.

Am I going to loose sleep over it? No.

Am I going to have a root beer float for dinner? Yes.

Oooh, Barqs or A&M? I love the A&M stuff, Barqs is OK, but not really a 'float' root beer. A&M has that sweeter taste that mixes so well with teh ice cream. MMmmmm!

This time I have Mug, it's what was in the pop machine here at my apartment. A&M is definitely better, though.

I've seen some people pour the root beer in the glass, then add the ice cream. I prefer to pour the root beer over the ice cream, it softens the ice cream faster and gives the root beer the unique taste that I prefer. How do you do it?

Link to comment
All Americans 'own' the National Parks, but we can't place caches there. All Alabamians 'own' our state parks, but we can't litter or shoot the animals there.

A good point, but one I occasionally disagree with. To wit;

Our legal system is based upon the English System of Law, and one of the basic tenants of that system is, anything not specifically prohibited by law must be legal. In the case of those parks where specific permission is now required, said requirement is an established rule prohibiting a certain act, specifically, hiding a cache without permission.

 

Most parks have rules prohibiting certain behaviors, but very few have rules prohibiting any act not first approved by The Powers That Be.

 

I think that if Groundspeak required specific, detailed permission for every cache placed, they would be acknowledging that geocaching is not a legitimate activity.

 

Just my $0.02.

Link to comment

to answer again quickly... If my perception is wrong, I wish to be corrected - that is why I am even discussing this topic in the forum.

 

My take on it is that there is no unmanaged land.

 

Private property is managed by someone to protect the owner's interests.

 

Public lands are managed by someone to protect the public's interest.

 

Infrastructure, such as stop signs and telephone switch boxes, are owned and managed and have rules regarding what can and can't be done with or to them.

 

Therefore, everywhere you might want to place a cache is managed and owned by someone.

 

That we 'own' and therefore can do as we like on public lands is simply not true.

 

All Americans 'own' the National Parks, but we can't place caches there. All Alabamians 'own' our state parks, but we can't litter or shoot the animals there.

 

Somebody sets the land use rules regardless of who owns it.

 

So now comes geocaching, a game where we all want to go place cache hides.

 

Do we seek permission for our hides?

 

The Groundspeak guidelines indicate that we must, if they are to be listed on geocaching.com.

 

Do we do that? In large part, no.

 

Do we check the boxes that tell our Reviewers we have permission when we don't? Yep, with the vast majority of our listings.

 

Is it silly that some forums posters get all het up about following the rules they want to enforce on others while ignoring this one? Yeah, it's a riot! :rolleyes:

 

I would venture to say you are walking a hard line there. If I take everything you just wrote to its logical end, what you are petitioning for is the EXPLICIT permission, whether written or verbal, for every cache hidden. Now, where I agreed with your presumptions on most issues, I cannot go this far with you. I agree that all land is managed by someone, but does that mean that explicit permission is required for each cache? I don't think anyone want to take this arguement to its logical ends - the logistical mess that would ensue would be catestropic to our community.

Link to comment

Sure, it will make just as much sense as about 83% of the rest of the stuff that is posted in here. :rolleyes::D:P

Within the limits of my limited capacity to understand things, I think that I resent your statement. Why? Because, pesonally, I have NEVER posted anything here which makes the even the remotest sense! :P:P:)

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team
Link to comment

I've seen some people pour the root beer in the glass, then add the ice cream. I prefer to pour the root beer over the ice cream, it softens the ice cream faster and gives the root beer the unique taste that I prefer. How do you do it?

 

I buy the new Breyer's A&W Root Beer Float Ice Cream!

But you can't drink it and eat it at the same time. And you don't get that foam at the top.

The Root Beer Float Ice Cream is okay in it's place, but I'm an old-fashioned kinda guy who likes the old-fashioned way of doing it.

Link to comment

I think I should archive seven of my eight traditional caches, based on your question. Each is on state land that is open to hunting, hiking, and in two, horseback enthusiasts. Most of my caches ask for cachers to CITO. I CITO whenever I do a maintenance visit. All have been pretty well liked, the oldest being out since April 2002.

 

Here's the rub. I've only had one "official" approval of a cache. In two of the other cases, no one responded to my letters requesting cache placement. Letters included details, cache descriptions, topo map placement, contact info, cache visit estimations and a history of geocaching. In the others, the office people looked at me as if I was from one of Vinny's wormhole/alternate universes, or were not open due to staffing cutbacks by our environmentally-minded governor. As a former approver, would you disallow these caches? I tried to obtain written approval, really I did.

 

The community is not interested in pursuing this, because unlike your "question," the other issues that precipitated the anger and strife on this site were not turning the geocaching experience into an insider's joke. Groundspeak has a policy, and if memory serves me right, has been active in excercising its voice, when called upon by land managers to do so. (Does anyone remember South Carolina?) My hat's off to the many reviewers who are reviewing, listing, critiquing, and withholding approval when necessary. My hat's off to the geocachers who are willing to do the right thing, even if it means crossing the paths of the "anything goes, if it feels good, do it" gang. My hat stays on for this thread.

Link to comment

 

Shouldn't we all, as responsible geocachers, be asking the landowners of every cache we find whether it was placed with permission?

 

Most landowners I know would eventually ask that a cache that they had previously given permission for be removed if they had cachers knocking at their door every day asking "are you *sure* you gave permission for this cache?".

 

Your suggestion would only lead to valid caches being archived and harrasment of landowners by cache cops.

Shouldn't we file a Should Be Archived note to every cache where we find that no permmission exists?

 

 

You betcha. If a landowner comes out and says "Hey, that ain't supposed to be here".

 

If on the other hand he was harrassed by cache cops to the point he's fed up with geocaching, the cache should still be archived, but the overzealous cache cop should have his account shut down.

 

 

I tried to ignore the trollbait riddled drama in the original post, but it was just too thick. It's obvious to me that there isn't really a question here...more of a gripe about cache cops. Personally...I think cache cops suck. They do little to enhance the game and are more interested in their own agenda than anything else.

Link to comment

Let me rephrase the issue and question, reduce it to its essential, see if we can get on topic:

 

I believe that many geocaches are placed without permission, contrary to a basic guideline of geocaching.

 

This community seems to be very concerned about honesty and ethics, and accepts as fact that cachers are trusted to get permission, when reality shows that they often do not.

 

Why is the community not upset about this?

 

Permission is only needed where it's required. Adequate permission is the guideline. What you are saying the guidelines is: is something its not. The thing is we are more or less required to live, work, and recreate, in the world around us. We both afford and are afforded certain liberties that may not be laid down in the letter of the law. Playing Frisbee in a park, walking around town, and geocaching are but a few things that I list among them. The larger land we live in is our home and our back yard. You should not be in such a rush to hem it in. The government will hem it in plenty fast enough without your help.

Link to comment

...It's obvious to me that there isn't really a question here...more of a gripe about cache cops. Personally...I think cache cops suck. They do little to enhance the game and are more interested in their own agenda than anything else.

 

Having encountered a few, I have to agree. Debating things in a forum is one thing. The cache cop cruise is another. I've even seen a cache cop brag about giving me a what for over one of my caches, in another forum like he had done the world a favor and was deserving of his brown nose brownie points, acclaim, and adulation from his adoring fans.

 

Too funny in a pathetic sort of way.

 

I'm not going to hold a grudge agaisnt someone who emails me on an issue if they have taken the time to visit the cache. Beyond that people should debate things in the forums. Thats why we have them.

Link to comment

I don't think anyone want to take this arguement to its logical ends - the logistical mess that would ensue would be catestropic to our community.

 

And that, my friend, is exactly the point of my question! Thank you!

 

SOMEBODY had to say it - we don't get permission because it's too much trouble, and the community accepts living a lie because enforcing it might threaten the game!

 

Now, we either petition Groundspeak to eliminate the guideline or we admit that we select which guidelines we will follow!

 

If the latter, then all the recent uproar about following the guidelines to the letter is moot.

Link to comment

to answer again quickly... If my perception is wrong, I wish to be corrected - that is why I am even discussing this topic in the forum.

Hello SG-MIN, and welcome to the forums. Since you are new and seem to be asking earnest questions, I am happy to assist you by outlining how Groundspeak and its volunteer cache reviewers handle the issue of permission for hidden caches. Much of what I am going to say is based on material lifted right out of the reviewer training manual (yes, there really is one, and I'm the poor sap who keeps it up-to-date). An understanding of these basic rules is part of the training protocol for new volunteer cache reviewers.

 

We start with the proposition that the hider of the cache is responsible for obtaining "adequate permission." Note that it says "adequate permission" in the guidelines -- NOT just "permission." We rely upon cache owners to think about this issue and make a determination about what permission is necessary. In submitting a cache report, the geocacher assures the listing service that adequate permission has been obtained, and the listing service assumes that this is the case. Geocaching.com is a listing service, not a guarantor of the proposition that every cache is placed with permission. But sometimes there are reasons why this assumption ought to be questioned. Here are some of them:

 

1. When a landowner / land manager such as a park system or a private land conservancy trust has a published geocaching policy that Groundspeak is aware of, then the volunteer cache reviewer will ask the cache owner about compliance with that policy. Knowing of the policy's existence, it is not appropriate to blindly assume compliance with the policy if no mention is made of this on the cache page. So we will ask whether a required permit has been obtained. We will point out that XYZ park system has banned geocaches, and ask whether the hider obtained permission despite that policy. Sometimes they do.

 

2. When a cache is hidden on land that is obviously private, like someone's back yard, it is unwise to blindly assume permission. Usually permission is stated or implied on the cache page ("this cache is hidden in our front yard -- please, no night caching"). If it isn't, the reviewer may ask about it. The guidelines require permission for caches hidden on private property. There's even a specific sentence about never ignoring a "no trespassing" sign.

 

3. Some locations are so sensitive in nature that it is unwise to assume that permission has been obtained, so specific listing guidelines have been adopted to guard against placements in those areas. Examples include airports, government buildings, school yards, dams and highway bridges. If the reviewer sees a cache in one of these locations, they will challenge the assumption of adequate permission by reference to these specific guidelines.

 

In most other cases -- ranging from suburban parks to shopping centers -- it is up to the cache owner to determine what constitutes "adequate permission." One cache owner might conclude that no formal permission at all is needed for a particular spot, while another will obtain written or oral permission for a different cache location because their instinct tells them that permission is a good idea. If the cache owner arrives at an unwarranted conclusion, the listing service will react to questions about permission. First, if a land owner / land manager requests removal of a cache placed without permission, Groundspeak's policy is to archive the cache unless and until the hider is able to straighten things out and provide an explanation of clear permission. Second, if another geocacher sees a cache location which causes them to have doubts about permission, they are welcome to raise their concern with the cache owner. If that is not productive, the geocacher may contact the website, contact a volunteer reviewer, or place a "needs archived" log on the cache page. The system is thus largely self-policing in this majority of circumstances.

 

SG-MIN, I hope that you find this explanation helpful. It is not intended as a complete statement of the listing guidelines and procedures for dealing with permission issues, but rather as a summary. These are my words, and not Groundspeak's. The listing guidelines, and their application to specific fact situations by Groundspeak and its volunteers, always control.

Link to comment

I don't think anyone want to take this arguement to its logical ends - the logistical mess that would ensue would be catestropic to our community.

 

And that, my friend, is exactly the point of my question! Thank you!

 

SOMEBODY had to say it - we don't get permission because it's too much trouble, and the community accepts living a lie because enforcing it might threaten the game!

 

Now, we either petition Groundspeak to eliminate the guideline or we admit that we select which guidelines we will follow!

 

If the latter, then all the recent uproar about following the guidelines to the letter is moot.

 

I would appreciate my quote viewed in context. The logical ends I refering too was not obey the rules - it was requireing the explict permission of every land manger on every cache.

 

Following the rules to a t should not be an issue - being exceedingly nit-picky is an issue. In Christianity we call this behavior LEGALISM!!

Link to comment

I don't think anyone want to take this arguement to its logical ends - the logistical mess that would ensue would be catestropic to our community.

 

And that, my friend, is exactly the point of my question! Thank you!

 

SOMEBODY had to say it - we don't get permission because it's too much trouble, and the community accepts living a lie because enforcing it might threaten the game!

 

Now, we either petition Groundspeak to eliminate the guideline or we admit that we select which guidelines we will follow!

 

If the latter, then all the recent uproar about following the guidelines to the letter is moot.

 

Thats a crock.

 

We don't get explicit written permission for every cache because it's not needed or required, not because it's too much hassle. This goes back to the dead horse argument of when and how explicit permission is needed. This question remains in dispute.

 

Just because 1 post finally opined your original secret point doesn't validate it.

Link to comment

thank you KEYSTONE. So basically my assumptions were correct. Adequate permission does not equate to be explicit permission and such most of this conversation appears to moot. I appreciate your explaination.

Edited by SG-MIN
Link to comment

thank you KEYSTONE. So basically my assumptions were correct. Adequate permission does not equate to explicit permission and such most of this conversation appears to moot. I appreciate your explaination.

You are most welcome! It was my pleasure to assist you. One of the reasons why I enjoy being a cache reviewer and forum moderator is to help newcomers to our game with questions like these.

Link to comment

Oooh, Barqs or A&M? I love the A&M stuff, Barqs is OK, but not really a 'float' root beer. A&M has that sweeter taste that mixes so well with teh ice cream. MMmmmm!

This time I have Mug, it's what was in the pop machine here at my apartment. A&M is definitely better, though.

I've seen some people pour the root beer in the glass, then add the ice cream. I prefer to pour the root beer over the ice cream, it softens the ice cream faster and gives the root beer the unique taste that I prefer. How do you do it?

 

I went down to the local A&W (A real one, drive up ordering, low carbination rb, etc) and bought a bunch of the really big mugs. And they were only like $2.50 - 3.00 each!

 

Oh, ice cream first then root beer.

Link to comment

thank you KEYSTONE. So basically my assumptions were correct. Adequate permission does not equate to explicit permission and such most of this conversation appears to moot. I appreciate your explaination.

You are most welcome! It was my pleasure to assist you. One of the reasons why I enjoy being a cache reviewer and forum moderator is to help newcomers to our game with questions like these.

You told me you were doing it for the girls. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

thank you KEYSTONE. So basically my assumptions were correct. Adequate permission does not equate to explicit permission and such most of this conversation appears to moot. I appreciate your explaination.

You are most welcome! It was my pleasure to assist you. One of the reasons why I enjoy being a cache reviewer and forum moderator is to help newcomers to our game with questions like these.

You told me you were doing it for the girls. :rolleyes:

Well, there's that too. Which is why my post said "one of the reasons."

 

Hey, thanks for the link to Utilikilts and all the other kilt advice. I am sure it will change my life.

Link to comment
Thats a crock.

 

We don't get explicit written permission for every cache because it's not needed or required, not because it's too much hassle. This goes back to the dead horse argument of when and how explicit permission is needed. This question remains in dispute.

 

Just because 1 post finally opined your original secret point doesn't validate it.

 

Thanks, Keystone, you know I value your advice, even if we don't often agree.

 

But, as you acknowledge, it does in fact remain in dispute.

 

Every cache listing, by having the checkbox checked, states in part that "By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." when in fact we know that most caches do not have ANY permission.

 

How is it determined whether permission is required? Often by a geocacher being confronted by authorities, or a complaint being lodged after the listing is placed. In only rare cases are landowner's regulations published so that geocachers know up front what they are.

 

How does one discover whether the permission that was gained is adequate? Unfortunately, the same way - in hindsight, usually by some unfortunate circumstance.

Link to comment

Thats a crock.

 

We don't get explicit written permission for every cache because it's not needed or required, not because it's too much hassle. This goes back to the dead horse argument of when and how explicit permission is needed. This question remains in dispute.

 

Just because 1 post finally opined your original secret point doesn't validate it.

 

Thanks, Keystone, you know I value your advice, even if we don't often agree.

 

But, as you acknowledge, it does in fact remain in dispute.

 

Every cache listing, by having the checkbox checked, states in part that "By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." when in fact we know that most caches do not have ANY permission.

 

How is it determined whether permission is required? Often by a geocacher being confronted by authorities, or a complaint being lodged after the listing is placed. In only rare cases are landowner's regulations published so that geocachers know up front what they are.

 

How does one discover whether the permission that was gained is adequate? Unfortunately, the same way - in hindsight, usually by some unfortunate circumstance.

I hope you don't mind that I edited your post so the proper person was credited for the quote.

Link to comment
Thats a crock.

 

We don't get explicit written permission for every cache because it's not needed or required, not because it's too much hassle. This goes back to the dead horse argument of when and how explicit permission is needed. This question remains in dispute.

 

Just because 1 post finally opined your original secret point doesn't validate it.

 

Thanks, Keystone, you know I value your advice, even if we don't often agree.

 

But, as you acknowledge, it does in fact remain in dispute.

 

Every cache listing, by having the checkbox checked, states in part that "By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." when in fact we know that most caches do not have ANY permission.

 

How is it determined whether permission is required? Often by a geocacher being confronted by authorities, or a complaint being lodged after the listing is placed. In only rare cases are landowner's regulations published so that geocachers know up front what they are.

 

How does one discover whether the permission that was gained is adequate? Unfortunately, the same way - in hindsight, usually by some unfortunate circumstance.

 

While I'm not nearly as smart as Keystone is, I'm way better looking...

 

Your argument depends on the flawed assumption that implied permission equals no permission at all. When the sign at the park reads:

 

Park open from dawn to dusk

No alcoholic beverages or glass allowed

No fireworks

No dogs allowed

 

That sign is giving implied permission for all other legal non disruptive recreative activities.

 

Your argument would also require picnikers, kite flyers and frisbee throwers to get a permit.

 

edited speiling

Edited by BadAndy
Link to comment

to answer again quickly... If my perception is wrong, I wish to be corrected - that is why I am even discussing this topic in the forum.

Hello SG-MIN, and welcome to the forums. Since you are new and seem to be asking earnest questions, I am happy to assist you by outlining how Groundspeak and its volunteer cache reviewers handle the issue of permission for hidden caches. Much of what I am going to say is based on material lifted right out of the reviewer training manual (yes, there really is one, and I'm the poor sap who keeps it up-to-date). An understanding of these basic rules is part of the training protocol for new volunteer cache reviewers.

 

We start with the proposition that the hider of the cache is responsible for obtaining "adequate permission." Note that it says "adequate permission" in the guidelines -- NOT just "permission." We rely upon cache owners to think about this issue and make a determination about what permission is necessary. In submitting a cache report, the geocacher assures the listing service that adequate permission has been obtained, and the listing service assumes that this is the case. Geocaching.com is a listing service, not a guarantor of the proposition that every cache is placed with permission. But sometimes there are reasons why this assumption ought to be questioned. Here are some of them:

 

1. When a landowner / land manager such as a park system or a private land conservancy trust has a published geocaching policy that Groundspeak is aware of, then the volunteer cache reviewer will ask the cache owner about compliance with that policy. Knowing of the policy's existence, it is not appropriate to blindly assume compliance with the policy if no mention is made of this on the cache page. So we will ask whether a required permit has been obtained. We will point out that XYZ park system has banned geocaches, and ask whether the hider obtained permission despite that policy. Sometimes they do.

 

2. When a cache is hidden on land that is obviously private, like someone's back yard, it is unwise to blindly assume permission. Usually permission is stated or implied on the cache page ("this cache is hidden in our front yard -- please, no night caching"). If it isn't, the reviewer may ask about it. The guidelines require permission for caches hidden on private property. There's even a specific sentence about never ignoring a "no trespassing" sign.

 

3. Some locations are so sensitive in nature that it is unwise to assume that permission has been obtained, so specific listing guidelines have been adopted to guard against placements in those areas. Examples include airports, government buildings, school yards, dams and highway bridges. If the reviewer sees a cache in one of these locations, they will challenge the assumption of adequate permission by reference to these specific guidelines.

 

In most other cases -- ranging from suburban parks to shopping centers -- it is up to the cache owner to determine what constitutes "adequate permission." One cache owner might conclude that no formal permission at all is needed for a particular spot, while another will obtain written or oral permission for a different cache location because their instinct tells them that permission is a good idea. If the cache owner arrives at an unwarranted conclusion, the listing service will react to questions about permission. First, if a land owner / land manager requests removal of a cache placed without permission, Groundspeak's policy is to archive the cache unless and until the hider is able to straighten things out and provide an explanation of clear permission. Second, if another geocacher sees a cache location which causes them to have doubts about permission, they are welcome to raise their concern with the cache owner. If that is not productive, the geocacher may contact the website, contact a volunteer reviewer, or place a "needs archived" log on the cache page. The system is thus largely self-policing in this majority of circumstances.

 

SG-MIN, I hope that you find this explanation helpful. It is not intended as a complete statement of the listing guidelines and procedures for dealing with permission issues, but rather as a summary. These are my words, and not Groundspeak's. The listing guidelines, and their application to specific fact situations by Groundspeak and its volunteers, always control.

 

What is supposed to happen after a "needs archived" is logged?

Link to comment

Thats a crock.

 

We don't get explicit written permission for every cache because it's not needed or required, not because it's too much hassle. This goes back to the dead horse argument of when and how explicit permission is needed. This question remains in dispute.

 

Just because 1 post finally opined your original secret point doesn't validate it.

 

Thanks, Keystone, you know I value your advice, even if we don't often agree.

 

But, as you acknowledge, it does in fact remain in dispute.

 

Every cache listing, by having the checkbox checked, states in part that "By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." when in fact we know that most caches do not have ANY permission.

 

How is it determined whether permission is required? Often by a geocacher being confronted by authorities, or a complaint being lodged after the listing is placed. In only rare cases are landowner's regulations published so that geocachers know up front what they are.

 

How does one discover whether the permission that was gained is adequate? Unfortunately, the same way - in hindsight, usually by some unfortunate circumstance.

I hope you don't mind that I edited your post so the proper person was credited for the quote.

 

thanks for pointing that out RM! i hadn't even noticed that the OP appeared to be attributing the wrong quote to keystone. the OP must have made a mistake. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

 

I'll play your game, but only briefly.

 

When you were a reviewer, did you ever list caches that you knew 1) required permission and 2) did not have that permission?

 

Yes, more often than not, except where I knew there to be landowner limitations.

 

Sorry if this has already been said. I have to hurry off and I have not had time to wade through the rest of this thread.

 

You seem to have been "fired" as a reviewer. Could this be the reason? I don't think it is general practice for reviewers to ignore need of explicit permission when it is clearly required.

Link to comment

This may be a little OT, sorry...

 

I've seen some references here and in other threads to "illegal" caches (or sometimes cache contents like candy, pocket knives etc.) I agree with the earlier poster who said "illegal" wasn't really a good word to use in many cases, when we really only mean it's a cache (or contents) that don't follow the website's guidelines. Maybe we should try to avoid using that "illegal" word. That's the kind of thing that could eventually be misquoted or used against the hobby by someone sometime - "They admit they place illegal caches!!". Maybe "nonconforming" would be another choice?

Link to comment

i don't see how the question is so painful!

 

Me either, but evidently it is, because no one seems to want to touch an answer, they all want to go off on tangents!

 

Let me rephrase the issue and question, reduce it to its essential, see if we can get on topic:

 

I believe that many geocaches are placed without permission, contrary to a basic guideline of geocaching.

 

This community seems to be very concerned about honesty and ethics, and accepts as fact that cachers are trusted to get permission, when reality shows that they often do not.

 

Why is the community not upset about this?

First point: You are basing your entire arguement on the "I believe" statemant above (which also contains the qualifier "many", but your follow on posts seem to equate to "all"). Having no proof, you want everyone to get upset like we did about other recent issues. But those issues were explictly against the guidelines and proveable (moving caches and such). If you can show proof about these "many" caches, we'll deal with that - but not with unsubstantiated beliefs.

 

Second point: Your "without permission" implies "explict permission", but the guidelines call for "adaquate permission" - two different things. You can argue all you want that explict permission isn't given, but that's apples and oranges, it's not what is required by the guidelines. There are many, many activities in parks that do not have explict permission - eating lunch, play frisbee, taking a nap, reading a book, etc. - but I don't see you saying we should keep out of parks unless we are doing something that is explictly allowed. They all have adaquate permission.

 

Third point: What is explict permission? As I understand it, the Forest Service has said they see nothing wrong with geocaches on FS land. But is that explict permission to place GCxxxx cache at such and such co-ords? No, but it is adaqute permission. And just because somebody high up doesn't think there's a problem, that doesn't keep a local ranger, who doesn't like caches, from pulling them when he finds them even when his bosses don't have a problem with them. Who's "permission" than do we listen to?

 

Fourth point: How are we suppose to find which caches don't have your defined "permission"? Moving caches are easy to see, read the cache page. But permission? Not so easy to see.

Link to comment

thank you KEYSTONE. So basically my assumptions were correct. Adequate permission does not equate to explicit permission and such most of this conversation appears to moot. I appreciate your explaination.

You are most welcome! It was my pleasure to assist you. One of the reasons why I enjoy being a cache reviewer and forum moderator is to help newcomers to our game with questions like these.

You told me you were doing it for the girls. :P

Well, there's that too. Which is why my post said "one of the reasons."

 

Hey, thanks for the link to Utilikilts and all the other kilt advice. I am sure it will change my life.

 

ohhhh.....more manly men in kilts.....:rolleyes::P :P

Link to comment

As others pointed out, the guidelines don't requre explicit permission outside areas where it is required.

 

There are many land managers who know about geocaching and by letting it go on, give their tacit permission.

I've spoken with several who have no problem with geocaches. They allow geocaching with a "wink and a nod". If however you approach them and demand their official sanction, then it becomes an issue.

 

A case in point is NY state parks. They let geocaching go on and most park managers had no problem with it. Sure some local park rangers had a problem with it, but most found it to be harmless and not worth dealing with. Then a well meaning geocacher came along and asked for permission. The result was that a fairly restrictive geocaching policy was implemented.

 

On the other hand, NY state's Department of Environmental Conservation, which manages state forests and forest preserves had a total ban on geocaches, until they did a study where they found geocaches to have a negligable impact. As a result, they lifted the ban and allowed geocaching without restriction, other than asking that we modify our .1 mile rule (I think they asked for at least a .25 mile rule).

 

The BLM has come to a similar conclusion.

 

Requiring explicit permission would be the end of this sport as we know it. Who do you ask for permission to place a cache on a guardrail? Even if you tried you are likely to run into a dead end. Sometimes they don't even agree as to who is responsible for the road (sheesh, in my area they argue over who is responsible for plowing the snow. Sometimes county trucks will lift their plows and leave sections unplowed becaust they say it's the town's responsibility and the town swears the county is supposed to take care of it).

 

Nearly every land manager today is aware of geocaching. If they do not take steps to regulate it, or ban it then you have their implicit permission.

Link to comment

...Every cache listing, by having the checkbox checked, states in part that "By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." when in fact we know that most caches do not have ANY permission....

 

Do you have a point? The difference between needing permission and not needing permission and how they relate to adequate permission is escaping you. But then you are doing that on purpose.

 

Here is the deal. Since I checked the box, and since I own the cache, I am responsible. Not you, Not the cache cops or any one else. If you have specific knowledge then you can say something. If you don't you can debate the issue in the forums. Given your lack of addressing the counter points to your original point, you are not here to debate the issue. Just stir the pot.

Link to comment

It seems pretty easy to go from hero to zero around here, and now that I have managed to do so I have a question I couldn't ask before. (Whether or not I was ever anyone's hero is not the topic here, it's an apt expression of how I feel, please leave it alone! :rolleyes: )

 

This is a legitimate question and certainly not a troll, please treat it as such, and though it mentions and questions certain reviewing practices it is not an attack on Reviewers - I have the utmost respect for them and the job they're doing. In that light I hope the moderators will allow these questions to be asked and discussion to follow.

 

With the recent advent of certain self-appointed Cache Cops searching the profile of anyone who offends them and reporting questionable cache listings to TPTB to get them archived (GCNXEC, for example), and the support such actions received in a recently closed thread on this topic, this question comes to mind:

 

When will folks glom onto the REAL dirty little secret of geocaching, the one that can truly harm the game and actually harm geocachers, and begin to address caches hidden without permission?

 

It is my understanding that every cache listing has two checkboxes at the bottom, one that commits that the cache listing complies with Groundspeak's Listing Guidelines and one that commits that the owner will abide by Groundspeak's Terms of Service.

 

The very first line of the Guidelines, under Off-Limit (Physical) caches, is

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

 

Not being a Reviewer I can't speak for them, but I suppose most Reviewers accept the checking of those boxes as proof that permission was acquired, as spelled out in the Cache Listing Guidelines, except perhaps where the Reviewer is aware of landowner restrictions or has had previous issues with the cacher.

 

It's a trust thing; Groundspeak can't function without its Reviewers, and Reviewers have a life. I suppose they don't want to spend it questioning the permission contact info for every hide, so there it is - Unless they have reason not to, Reviewers pretty much have to trust the cacher on this issue.

 

Cachers by and large being basically honest folk this works to a degree, but I postulate that many cachers don't see the importance of permission, or don't know how/where/from whom to get it, and just check these boxes to get their listing published, meaning, I believe, that MOST hides don't have permission, and the Reviewers must know it, though they may disingenuously hide behind 'Hey, the cacher checked the boxes, I have to trust them!'

 

That most folk have no idea who to ask for permission to place an Altoids tin on a guardrail, or who can permit a keyholder to be placed under a sewer cover or for an ammo box to be hidden in a city park has to be known to Groundspeak and their Reviewers, but that's not their worry, is it; the cacher certified with those checkboxes that he had permission from SOMEBODY, and for this game to work TPTB accept that!

 

So, it appears to me that we geocachers live in a world where we turn a blind eye to one of the most fundamental 'rules' of geocaching, despite the fact that this one 'rule' can be the most damaging to the game and to geocachers.

 

Now, I would think that caches placed without permission are a far graver danger to geocaching than, say, logging pocket caches at an event, yet I don't see anyone doing anything about it!

 

Where's the panic and anxiety over caches placed without permission? This is a direct threat to geocachers!

 

If my supposition is correct, and it is true that most caches do not have permission, and landowners discover this, aren't we in great danger of losing lands to place caches? Will all of geocaching not suffer a huge disgrace?

 

If I am right, don't Reviewers have to fess up that they 'know' this and don't do anything about it? Doesn't Groundspeak? Oh, I forgot the mantra - 'Hey, the cacher checked the boxes, I have to trust them!'.

 

The Reviewers I have met are smart people, surely they have to know that they are regularly being lied to!

 

If this is the case, is Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge 'Hey, the cacher checked the boxes, I have to trust them!' an acceptable practice?

 

No doubt expert legal minds created that, so I am sure it's quite a legal way to deny reality, Groundspeak and Reviewers can say with a straight face 'I believe that all of the caches I list have permission because the owner checked the boxes saying they did', but if they know that most caches do not in fact have permission, is that acceptance of the geocachers checkbox commitment in fact not encouraging the placement of caches without permission?

 

Perhaps they do not know it, perhaps I am in fact wrong that most don't have permission, I can't find where anyone has run a study on the issue. If I am wrong and most caches do have permission and Reviewers have good reasion to take cacher's checkbox assertions at face value, I will apologize for stating my belief.

 

Perhaps we need our cache police to start an investigation into the matter to determine if I am right or wrong?

 

Why do I feel this issue is critical to the future of our game and need be explored?

 

I know personally one geocacher that was arrested while hunting an illegally placed cache; he was prosecuted for Criminal Trespass and ordered not to geocache for one year by an Arkansas judge, and I have heard of all sorts of unfortunate things happening to cachers looking for caches that were placed without permission.

 

I myself have been detained by police and/or landowners and told to have caches removed from property where they had no permission being.

 

If the folks who are so hyped about honor and protecting the game are willing to spend time and effort ferreting out illegal caches, why not these illegal caches?

 

Shouldn't we all, as responsible geocachers, be asking the landowners of every cache we find whether it was placed with permission?

 

Shouldn't we file a Should Be Archived note to every cache where we find that no permmission exists?

 

We do want to clean up the game, don't we?

 

Shouldn't Groundspeak add a couple of data fields to the listing page to require the contact info of the permission giver?

 

If that permission contact info was on every cache listing would it not stop most of the harrasment and woe geocachers hunting caches placed without permission experience?

 

Wouldn't it reassure landowners that we geocachers are in fact seeking permission for our hides, as we say we are in our game's guidelines?

 

Wouldn't it drastically reduce the number of caches placed without permission and thereby relieve the fear many geocachers have (rightly) of being busted while unknowingly hunting an illegaly placed cache?

 

Having been called a liar and every kind of cheat recently for my misguided but well-intended actions I wonder how those who intentionally say they have permission but don't will be treated?

 

Just a question that's been on my mind. I really would like to hear from the players and protectors of the game just how this incipient crisis can be ignored. :P

 

Ed

 

I agree 100%. And I make no bones about it. If we (and I do mean WE) don't get a handle on this issue Geocaching will become a bygone memory, or worse, a back alley activity that gets someone hurt. I love this sport. I love the comrauderie (sp?), not so much in here. I love seeing placed I would have never seen before and meeting people I have never met before. Can I do this on my own without caching? An honest answer is no.

 

I hear every week about a new cache blown up by the bomb squad. I cringe. I have moved to a new town in North Carolina that currently has no caches. I plan to meet with the police chief, the fire chief, and someone from the mayors office to educate them on Geocaching and what to expect and of the benifits to tourism and the like. I would really hate to be made to look like an idiot because a hide-happy cacher finds virgin ground to conquer. JMHBAO

Link to comment

Nearly every land manager today is aware of geocaching. If they do not take steps to regulate it, or ban it then you have their implicit permission.

 

Is that the official Groundspeak position or your experience as a Moderator? Serious question.

 

I'm a moderator in the Getting Started forum. I do not speak for Groundspeak in any other forum.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...