Placement Permission

6.7k · July 29, 2006

One of the recurring themes I hear in geocaching is the fear of being busted at a cache that doesn't have placement permission, or the actuality of the things that can happen when you are (embarrasment, hassle, arrest, fines, etc.).

This came up again recently in another thread where a cache on private property had some issues, and I suggested this answer.

It reminded me how big an issue this can be if you are, say, working with land managers and trying to convince them that we go by the Guidelines, or more especially if you are the one that gets busted!

Our Reviewers for the most part, I think, accept the fact that the hider checked the 'I will abide by the Guidelines and Terms of Service' checkboxes on the listing page to be an assurance that the hider in fact has, as the Guidelines call for, "adequate permission".

The issue keeps coming up, however, making me wonder how many in fact have any permission at all, and I think this suggestion may help address that as well.

The cache listing page contains minimal owner contact info...the hider's name and a contact link, and every cache is supposed to have the owner's name and contact info on or in it, so why not do the same with permission-givers contact info? Call it the Placement Contact.

Placement Contact Email at a bare minimum, so even if you are arrested for trespassing you can show the judge that you had permission to be there! A phone number is much better, as it prevents the arrest to start with... If someone stops you and asks what you are doing, tell them you are hunting a geocache that was placed with Bob TheLandOwner's permission, and here's his phone number if you need to check it out.

Problem solved.

Put placement contact info on the cache page and you solve a whole lot of problems!

Even if TPTB at Groundspeak don't see this as worth putting on the Listing page, you can put it in your descriptions and thereby give those who seek your caches some sense of security.

Ed

July 29, 2006

I also see the need to stop cache placement on private propety.

One problem with a phone number, its too personal. How would you feel if you owned 40 geocaces and muggles found one or two of your caches. Would you feel safe with your personal phone number being out like that?

The only thing I could think of is to leave your email and the GC####. This way, the land owner could email you, or check out the geocache website for himself.

7.3k · July 29, 2006

You mis-read TAR's post, he's suggesting that the contact info of the person who GAVE PERMISSION for the cache placement be on the cache page.

2.7k · July 29, 2006

This sounds vaguely familiar...

9.4k · July 29, 2006

You know, you had your chance to ask for permission with every cache you published and you didn't do it. Why is this suddenly a big concern for you? :unsure:

July 30, 2006

So far I have placed 3 caches. Two I have had permission for. One is at a town park and I do not think it was required. I personally think that in a case where an organization has given permission to place a cahe in say, a large nature preserve, a large park of some type where there is staff on hand and regular business hours I would think hey, post the info, why not! However, I don't think that many people who have caches placed on their land would like to be bothered anymore than necessary. For example, most cachers are normal every day people who are decent and have a clue what proper manners are. They clean up trash, leave things better than the found them, offer good trades, place caches in places that people would want to visit, and log real finds and don't cheat. But what about that other .1 percent of cachers with no discretion? Would they be calling the caretaker of the small cemetary whom I got permission from at 2 am saying, "Hey, I am looking for this "!@!(&" cache and I can't find it" or "its wet can you come down here and give me new paper so I can sign it?" Unless you can assure these people that all cachers will have a tad bit of respect, then their numbers should not be posted. I would gladly place my name and number, email, whatever it took on any of my caches because they are my responsibility. I'll go with them, set up a time, stand guard, hold the flashlight, whatever it takes to make them feel comfortable! If I were called at 2 because someone was being arrested at my cache I would then of course contact whoever it took to help the cacher.

On the other hand, I do suspect that many people do try to get around the issue of getting permission. The way I look at it, if I get caught where I am not supposed to be then its my problem if I chose to go after the cache. Honestly, I usually figure that people DON'T have permission unless its mentioned, and I trust those who say they have gotten it.

Another suggestion would be contact the owner of the cache and ask for the land owners contact info and a good time of day to call. That way the people who would like security can have it.

July 30, 2006

If Groundspeak supplies that information, and that information turns out to be wrong, and someone gets arrested, then Groundspeak could be held liable.

6.7k · July 30, 2006

You know, you had your chance to ask for permission with every cache you published and you didn't do it. Why is this suddenly a big concern for you?

As you well know, it's not "suddenly" a concern - It's been a concern of mine for a long time, one that I have voiced repeatedly, especially after one of the cachers in my area of responsibility was arrested, prosecuted and given a one year suspended sentence for Criminal Trespess while hunting a listed cache placed without permission.

I am cautious not to mention things we discussed in the Reviewer forum before I got myself fired from that role, and deliberately did not mention that I had brought this subject up there. Since TeamGPS Saxophone and NewEngland N00b have alluded to it, I will assume it's now an open topic.

Yes, I did suggest this in the Reviewer forum, and it fell on deaf ears - I don't think many Reviewers and certainly not Groundspeak want to publicly admit that the permission issue is complaint-driven - unless Reviewers have had complaints about a geographic location or particular owners/managers such as the NPS or State Parks formulate a policy regulating or restricting geocaching, not much attention is paid to permission.

The cache owner checks a box on the listing page saying he will follow the guidelines, which state that all caches must have "adequate permission", and unless the Reviewer has reason to believe otherwise that is accepted as a commitment that the hider in fact has adequate permission. This process legally absolves Groundspeak from liability but does nothing to protect the geocacher who may be lured into trespass by assuming that since it is listed it must have permission.

The 'dirty little secreat' of geocaching, then, is that the vast majority of caches do not have any sort of permission at all, and the responsibility for geocachers being where they are not allowed to be seeking caches placed without permission is shifted to the geocacher. If a cacher is arrested for trespassing while hunting a listed cache, Groundspeak takes no responsibility - hey, the owner checked the box that said he had permission, right?

Why did I not seek Placement Contact info for all the caches I listed, you ask? You darn well know the answer to that - Reviewers aren't allowed to act differently than other Reviewers! I no longer have access to the private Reviewer forum to quote from it, nor would I be allowed to if I did, but I was in effect told not to try to implement this. as there is no guideline requiring permision contact info, and the consensus of the Reviewer forum was it shouldn't be done.

Don't ask questions you know the answer to unless you want to see the answer posted here.

To me, the fact that the Reviewers don't want to touch this reinforces my supposition that Groundspeak and its Reviewer body do not want any attention focused on the situation - if landowners get the impression that Groundspeak in fact has little control over the permissions issue, limited almost exclusively to the personal knowledge of each Reviewer, then it will be hard to convince land-owners that cachers seek adequate permission.

I can understand why this Placement Permission Contact Info idea meets resistance - it will seriously burden the cache hider to discover who the land owner is and get permission, resulting in fewer caches placed.

I am no lawyer, so I don't know, but I suppose that it may be that if Groundspeak solicits Placement Permission Contact info some legal responsibility might fall on them to actually use it to confirm permission, a situation I am sure neither Reviewers nor Groundspeak want to get into.

Even the definition of "adequate permission" is intentionally left vague - usually interpreted to mean caches don't actually require permission, unless they do! Catch-22.

So, it is a problem. As a listing service Groundspeak (in my opinion) does not want to get into requiring and verifying permission for all hides, and cache hiders don't want to have to get permission, yet geocachers continue to have problems while seeking caches placed without permission.

Though it does add an extra burden to the cache hider to actually get the adequate permission they say they have for every listing, I think actually getting permission and publishing Placement Permission Contact Info can only help the game in the long run.

As far as the "I don't want my phone number on cache pages" argument, that may be a concern for a few, those who choose to have unlisted numbers, for instance, but most folks are in the phone book - if someone wants to do you ill they don't need to look at cache pages to find you! As I mentioned earlier, an email address of the placement permission-giver will do as a poorer but acceptable resource.

I really don't see how anyone can make a logical argument that having access to contact info for whoever gave permission for the hide can be anything but good for geocachers and geocaching.

Then, if Placement Permission Contact Info is missing from the listing then at least cachers have an indication that they may be hunting something placed without permission and can chose to skip it and avoid the possible unpleasant results.

Ed

3.9k · July 30, 2006

...one of the cachers in my area of responsibility was arrested, prosecuted and given a one year suspended sentence for Criminal Trespess while hunting a listed cache placed without permission.

Do we get to hear more details on this? I'm curious what area a cache was placed in that was such a risky place for cachers to go into. I can't think of any place that you could get arrested and sentanced for Criminal Trespass, that didn't have adequate signage.

If a cacher saw No Tresspassing signs and ignored them, how is that the fault of anybody except the cacher?

38.2k · July 30, 2006

...one of the cachers in my area of responsibility was arrested, prosecuted and given a one year suspended sentence for Criminal Trespess while hunting a listed cache placed without permission.

Do we get to hear more details on this? I'm curious what area a cache was placed in that was such a risky place for cachers to go into. I can't think of any place that you could get arrested and sentanced for Criminal Trespass, that didn't have adequate signage.

If a cacher saw No Tresspassing signs and ignored them, how is that the fault of anybody except the cacher?

This is the key. If more people would just walk away from these kinds of caches and issue a SBA note this wouldn't be as big a problem as it is. Way too often I'll see 5, 10 15 or more "found it' logs on a cache thiat is obviously illegal before someone finally says "this ain't right" and reports it.

Too many people are willing to look the other way in pursuit of the next smiley.

July 30, 2006

I have my phone number on all my cache containers except for one.

I have only had two phone calls. One from a new cacher that found one on Christmas day and called to wish me a "Merry Christmas". The other was from a muggle that found one very near a disk golf thingy, and just called to let me know he "found it".

I put it on them in case someone find it and might be alarmed about what the might be. I can't see any harm in posting a phone number.

July 30, 2006

... the contact info of the person who GAVE PERMISSION for the cache placement be on the cache page.

I know what I am about to say will be scoffed at and nay sayed by those of you smarter than I am, however I feel it needs to be said.

By posting the contact information for the person who gave permission you are adding a lot of problems for all concerned.

1. disgrundled cacher, past cacher, cache maggot now knows exactly who to complain to in order to mess up the game for others in the area. And as we have seen in Canada If you can mess it up in one area it often trickles down (Parks Canada, Onatrio Parks) I have no first hand knowledge of vengeful environmentalists, and or vendetta driven cachers but have to expect that there is never a 100% of anything even a less than 1% of all people involved being so inclined could make a big problem very fast.

2. Lots of you have alluded to TPTB staying out of the liability loop with the check box "I promise to be a good cacher and follow all the rules, wink, wink." If they don't want to accept liability what makes you think an individual who gave permision in a public way wants to accept that liability.

3. phone numbers - I love the Well your listed in the phone book arguement. I may be listed in the phone book but I am not affiliated with anything there. You may be able to navigate through all the channels to get permission in that nice little spot you have found but If that person was flooded with calls about a specific geocache that he already knew about. will it make him more or less likely to say okay give out my information some more?

I don't know about the permission area so much. I live in a part of Canada that is surrounded by crown land (read open access) permission isn't so big a deal here. If I were in a major centre maybe I would worry about it more. I have done one cache that made me nervous for about 5 minutes. I have also walked away from caches that make me nervous. If you don't like how or where it's placed maybe walk away, contact the hider and ask a few questions. If you don't get an answer or don't like the answers you do get. Couldn't the reviewer help you sort it out (I realize that the OP said they aren't allowed to pass judgement but really if a concern is brought to their attention does't that implecate them anyway?)

Wow am I longwinded today. enough of my carp.

tell me how I am caching 1-555-fast-gps

bwmick

6.7k · July 30, 2006

...one of the cachers in my area of responsibility was arrested, prosecuted and given a one year suspended sentence for Criminal Trespess while hunting a listed cache placed without permission.

Do we get to hear more details on this? I'm curious what area a cache was placed in that was such a risky place for cachers to go into. I can't think of any place that you could get arrested and sentanced for Criminal Trespass, that didn't have adequate signage.

If a cacher saw No Tresspassing signs and ignored them, how is that the fault of anybody except the cacher?

Nope, that wasn't the case at all - it was at a service station in a shopping center.

"If a cacher saw No Tresspassing signs and ignored them, how is that the fault of anybody except the cacher?" Yes, we have personal responsibility to obey the law while geocaching, but we also have a reasonable and customary expectation that caches placed and listed on geocaching.com follow the Groundspeak guidelines. Therefore if we walk past an obvious No Trespassing sign we knowingly violate the law, but if we don't SEE the sign we end up breaking the law because we rightfully assume the cache has permission.

Plus, I had a cache, now muggled and archived, for over a year at a local baseball park, ten feet beyond a No Trespassing sign but with the full permission of the park superintendant and local Police Chief. It was found dozens of times without incident. Just for theory, if you had been arrested at that cache for Trespassing would you say it was your fault for ignoring the sign or mine for luring you past it?

In any case, there WAS no sign or warning in the case I referred to.

Details at:

http://www.arkgeocaching.org/modules.php?n...a1473d761186e71

and

http://www.arkgeocaching.org/modules.php?n...a1473d761186e71

This is just one of many - anyone who denies that geocachers being questioned at caches placed without permission can be a problem just isn't listening to enough geocachers - I hear it quite frequently.

Why risk a single more geocacher being arrested like this when we can easily remedy the problem by posting contact info for the permission giver?

Edited to add: By the way, I am not suggesting that this be a required field, just available for those who choose to use it. In fact not all caches require specific permission - but this lets the owner list permission contact info when it is.

Ed

Edited July 30, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

6.7k · July 30, 2006

I wonder how many of these cases could have been avoided if the Placement Permission Contact were listed?

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.a...22-2e4bd0d76070

July 30, 2006

I wonder how many of these cases could have been avoided if the Placement Permission Contact were listed?

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.a...22-2e4bd0d76070

the problem with your question here is that it implies that the muggles who found it, or the authorities who are called in to investigate it would say to themselves "Hey, I wonder if this is a geocache? and then go check the website and contact the permission giver to see if it really was.

the real question to ask with the assumption by gaining permission you are catagorically making sure that the cache is safe. A smart terrorist (and there must be some or they would have been caught by now) could say to themselves hey This cache is placed with so and so's permission what if I ..... (can you fill in the scarey blank?)

Having a cache site that lists its permission links only helps if a) the authorities check the website and call the number and :rolleyes: the authorities believe the side of the box that says "official geocahe" otherwise it is still likely to go kaboom!

again, I am not that clever so I am probably saying something dumb.

Bwmick

(but officer my GPSr told me to look under your squad car honest!)

5.3k · July 30, 2006

If a cacher saw No Tresspassing signs and ignored them, how is that the fault of anybody except the cacher?

Dang! I hate it when I have to agree with Mushtang.

There seems to be a relentless drive to make somebody else responsible for cachers' behavior. If a cache is in a dangerous place, and a cacher gets hurt doing the cache, then it's somehow Groundspeak's fault that that cache got listed. Or if the cache is placed in an off-limits area and somebody gets in trouble for ignoring "No Trespassing" signs, that is Groundspeak's fault too.

What rubbish. Cachers need to take responsibility for their own actions in seeking a cache. If getting to the cache looks too dangerous or illegal, then just don't do it!

July 30, 2006

You know, you had your chance to ask for permission with every cache you published and you didn't do it. Why is this suddenly a big concern for you?

That was a very cheap shot

Joe

6.7k · July 30, 2006

What you say is true, FizzyMagic, but it has nothing to do with the OP or topic.

Please, if you are going to debate this suggestion, let your argument show how having an available but not required data field for cache placement permission contact information can do anything but help the game.

These other arguments are red herrings, serving only to divert attention from the topic at hand.

My thread has absolutely nothing to do with trying to make anyone responsible for a geocacher's actions. In my opinion Geocaching.com and Groundspeak are no more liable for caches than AAA is for listing attractions in an area, and I have never said otherwise.

38.2k · July 30, 2006

I wonder how many of these cases could have been avoided if the Placement Permission Contact were listed?

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.a...22-2e4bd0d76070

There have been an number of instances of caches that had permission causing trouble as well.

July 30, 2006

If a cacher saw No Tresspassing signs and ignored them, how is that the fault of anybody except the cacher?

Dang! I hate it when I have to agree with Mushtang.

There seems to be a relentless drive to make somebody else responsible for cachers' behavior. If a cache is in a dangerous place, and a cacher gets hurt doing the cache, then it's somehow Groundspeak's fault that that cache got listed. Or if the cache is placed in an off-limits area and somebody gets in trouble for ignoring "No Trespassing" signs, that is Groundspeak's fault too.

What rubbish. Cachers need to take responsibility for their own actions in seeking a cache. If getting to the cache looks too dangerous or illegal, then just don't do it!

I'll third that!

Posting "permission" on the web site could even backfire if it makes the cache seeker over-confident about wandering into places where they shouldn't be. This could happen because of an error in co-ordinates or straying from landowner A's property to adjacent Landowner B's property where there is no permission to cache granted.

38.2k · July 30, 2006

What about where permission isn't required? Many land managers don't have a problem with geocaching and allow it, but don't want to deal with the added work involved with micro-managing the sport.

July 30, 2006

Some thoughts...

1. Yes, cache seekers need to take responsibility and think for themselves. AR agrees with this.

2. Cache owners should take responsibility as well. They check the box to indicate permission when submitting a cache for review and indicate compliance with the guidelines requiring maintenance.

3. In the case of the "No Trespassing" signs, cachers should stay away unless the owner states on the cache page that permission has been obtained. Hoepfully, AR did this with the cache he owned.

4. AR is encouraging an option, not a requirement. If the permission-giver and owner are willing to provide this contact information, don't the possible benefits outweigh the less likely problems? If the landowner agrees to permit the cache but doesn't agree to provide contact info, that's fine, no micro-management necessary.

5. If there are liability issues, don't they already exist? Would simply providing optional contact information make the situation worse? It seems like it would have more of an opposite effect and show an extra attempt on the part of cachers to take responsibility.

6. Some cachers, hopefully a small percetnage, will still wander into areas and ignore signs, etc. I don't think adding "permission" on the cache page would change that due to overconfidence. Permsission is already supposed to be a given, one of the reasons AR created the thread.

1.1k · July 30, 2006

If the person giving permission does not want their personal contact info listed nobody here has the right to do it. IMHO it's a bad idea as stated, but with thought a suitable alternative maybe possible.

July 30, 2006

If the person giving permission does not want their personal contact info listed nobody here has the right to do it. IMHO it's a bad idea as stated, but with thought a suitable alternative maybe possible.

I don't believe AR ever recommended that personal contact info be listed if the permission-giver didn't agree, unless I missed something in his posts. That idea seems only to have been a possible concern perpetuated by later posts, not part of his OP. He was only proposing an option, not a requirement.

July 30, 2006

AR, if permission is such a big deal to you, why is this info not listed on the caches you own? I only looked at two listings but saw no such info.

if this is so important to you, instead of demanding a system on the site, why don't you lead by example for the locals and just put the info in the listing to begin with? What if one of your caches gets blown up? What are you gonna say after that?

Listing who you got proper permission from is already an option....it's called the DESCRIPTION! You can use as much space as you want so why aren't you putting the contact info already?

Making such a system an option would have no effect in my opinion. AR, I suggest you quit trolling and start practicing what you preach.

3.9k · July 31, 2006

Plus, I had a cache, now muggled and archived, for over a year at a local baseball park, ten feet beyond a No Trespassing sign but with the full permission of the park superintendant and local Police Chief. It was found dozens of times without incident. Just for theory, if you had been arrested at that cache for Trespassing would you say it was your fault for ignoring the sign or mine for luring you past it?

I'd get to the site, see the no trespassing sign, turn around and leave. Then I'd either email you or post a note on the cache page about the sign.

Was the No Trespassing sign, and the permission, mentioned in your description for the cache?

9.4k · July 31, 2006

When I'm out hunting elk, I am the one that has to watch where I'm going. I can't count on the elk to stay on public land.

Same thing with geocaching. It is my responsibility to make sure I'm not on private property, and for all I know the cache hider didn't know where the boundary was when he placed the cache.

So you got some property owner that knew his rights and told the cacher that since he wasn't there to do business, he was trespassing. Good. Maybe that will cut down on the number of lamppost micros. Just because WalMart invites you there to shop doesn't mean they invite you to scratch their lightpoles by raising the bolt cover.

Is posting permission on the cache page really going to chang it though? To submit a cache they say they have permission. Couldn't they still make it up if they had to post a name? I thought so. Now, before you say the reviewers will have to verify permission with a phone call, remember that you can post your own phone number and claim to be the property owner. It might be more involved than the current way of checking the box, but people find ways around overly restrictive rules.

3.9k · July 31, 2006

Plus, I had a cache, now muggled and archived, for over a year at a local baseball park, ten feet beyond a No Trespassing sign but with the full permission of the park superintendant and local Police Chief. It was found dozens of times without incident. Just for theory, if you had been arrested at that cache for Trespassing would you say it was your fault for ignoring the sign or mine for luring you past it?

Was this one Irondale Park? I actually DID find that one on July 30, 2004. :rolleyes: The cache page doesn't mention the No Trespassing sign, and I don't remember seeing one. Or did you mean another cache?

July 31, 2006

I was JUST talking to a friend about placing caches on private property. He's one of those number cachers. He'll do anything for a smiley. He has a cache by his house, just so it makes it easier to check up on it (at least hes doing that!). But he talked about placing a 6 stage multi at the YMCA up the street. Ok, first of all the YMCA is private property, and there is no way he can fit 6, even micros, on the property. Crazy *roll eyes*.

-Eric

2.3k · July 31, 2006

Since we are talking about an "optional" data field, then isn't it already "optional" to include whatever permission information you want in the cache description?

July 31, 2006

Since we are talking about an "optional" data field, then isn't it already "optional" to include whatever permission information you want in the cache description?

Well, by golly, I think you're right. However, and I'm not claiming to know...

1. Wouldn't many permission-givers see a difference between a single reviewer having a phone number to contact and thousands of cachers who might want help, etc.? I doubt most (not all, of course) cachers would ask a local property owner if no number appeared. However, putting it on the page might make them consider it.

2. Would it be more helpful to the reviewers to see a contact number from the permission-giver right from the start. In cases where questions exist, couldn't it possibly lessen the delay of publishing a cache. I realize that may not be the majority of caches, but it does seem to be a frequent issue when the cache owner overlooks something and e-mail communication seem to be slow. Of course, reviewers may not want it.

2.3k · July 31, 2006

Since we are talking about an "optional" data field, then isn't it already "optional" to include whatever permission information you want in the cache description?

Well, by golly, I think you're right. However, and I'm not claiming to know...

1. Wouldn't many permission-givers see a difference between a single reviewer having a phone number to contact and thousands of cachers who might want help, etc.? I doubt most (not all, of course) cachers would ask a local property owner if no number appeared. However, putting it on the page might make them consider it.

2. Would it be more helpful to the reviewers to see a contact number from the permission-giver right from the start. In cases where questions exist, couldn't it possibly lessen the delay of publishing a cache. I realize that may not be the majority of caches, but it does seem to be a frequent issue when the cache owner overlooks something and e-mail communication seem to be slow. Of course, reviewers may not want it.

Well, by golly, I think the OP was suggesting the permission info be placed publicly on the listing page via a Placement Contract section, and if not implemented by TPTB that the info be put in the description by the cache owner.

Placement Contact Email at a bare minimum, so even if you are arrested for trespassing you can show the judge that you had permission to be there! A phone number is much better, as it prevents the arrest to start with... If someone stops you and asks what you are doing, tell them you are hunting a geocache that was placed with Bob TheLandOwner's permission, and here's his phone number if you need to check it out.

Problem solved.

Put placement contact info on the cache page and you solve a whole lot of problems!

Even if TPTB at Groundspeak don't see this as worth putting on the Listing page, you can put it in your descriptions and thereby give those who seek your caches some sense of security.

I think you can put it in your descriptions is the best course of action. It's optional and best of all, doesn't require TPTB to implement anything. Anyone using an "optional" field most likely already provides this information. If you don't want it on the public listing, then provide the information in your reviewer note.

My concern, if I were a reviewer, is that if someone doesn't already provide this kind of information in a reviewer note, I would question if s/he has a proper understanding of the guidelines to begin with. Some of the things I have read in some of the reviewer bashing threads of late make me wonder just how many people bother to read the guidelines they claim to have read when they check that box.

If your cache listing gets held up because you failed to provide all the information in a reviewer note or in the description itself, then that's just something you have to deal with. If you fail to provide contact information for a cache you have placed on NPS land, for instance, then you shouldn't be upset if the review process gets held up. I really don't see the need for a placement contract section. You already have the tools you need to provide that info to either the general caching public in a description or to your reviewer in private via a reviewer note.

24.7k · July 31, 2006

One of the recurring themes I hear in geocaching is the fear of being busted at a cache that doesn't have placement permission, or the actuality of the things that can happen when you are (embarrasment, hassle, arrest, fines, etc.).

This came up again recently in another thread where a cache on private property had some issues, and I suggested this answer.

It reminded me how big an issue this can be if you are, say, working with land managers and trying to convince them that we go by the Guidelines, or more especially if you are the one that gets busted!

Our Reviewers for the most part, I think, accept the fact that the hider checked the 'I will abide by the Guidelines and Terms of Service' checkboxes on the listing page to be an assurance that the hider in fact has, as the Guidelines call for, "adequate permission".

The issue keeps coming up, however, making me wonder how many in fact have any permission at all, and I think this suggestion may help address that as well.

The cache listing page contains minimal owner contact info...the hider's name and a contact link, and every cache is supposed to have the owner's name and contact info on or in it, so why not do the same with permission-givers contact info? Call it the Placement Contact.

Placement Contact Email at a bare minimum, so even if you are arrested for trespassing you can show the judge that you had permission to be there! A phone number is much better, as it prevents the arrest to start with... If someone stops you and asks what you are doing, tell them you are hunting a geocache that was placed with Bob TheLandOwner's permission, and here's his phone number if you need to check it out.

Problem solved.

Put placement contact info on the cache page and you solve a whole lot of problems!

Even if TPTB at Groundspeak don't see this as worth putting on the Listing page, you can put it in your descriptions and thereby give those who seek your caches some sense of security.

Ed

It's enough that I get permision. If they don't care to give out their info, then why would I want to give it out without their permission?

24.7k · July 31, 2006

...The 'dirty little secreat' of geocaching, then, is that the vast majority of caches do not have any sort of permission at all, and the responsibility for geocachers being where they are not allowed to be seeking caches placed without permission is shifted to the geocacher. If a cacher is arrested for trespassing while hunting a listed cache, Groundspeak takes no responsibility - hey, the owner checked the box that said he had permission, right?...

There is a lot of land that accomodates the public in some capacity. Nobody really thinks about it. However if all of the sudden everone shifted to you have to be a customer to be there and the only way to prove you were a customer is to produce a reciept you would find yourself in a world that consists of Public Roads, Work, Business but only when you buy something. You would have no right to drive through a parking lot. To sight see, to walk along a creek unless it's public land and you can forget that trail that you always used as a kid because it cut across the corner of Old Man Jed's place.

The dirtly little secret is that loitering laws and other things have been passed entirly to make the world a small box. Home, Work, Road, Customer. I thank God that people recognize that in spite of those laws that they recognize that we all need to stretch our legs in the larger world we live in. If they ever did start universally enforcing those laws, the groundswell of public outrage would change the political winds quick enough.

July 31, 2006

Well, by golly, I think the OP was suggesting the permission info be placed publicly on the listing page via a Placement Contract section, and if not implemented by TPTB that the info be put in the description by the cache owner.

Placement Contact Email at a bare minimum, so even if you are arrested for trespassing you can show the judge that you had permission to be there! A phone number is much better, as it prevents the arrest to start with... If someone stops you and asks what you are doing, tell them you are hunting a geocache that was placed with Bob TheLandOwner's permission, and here's his phone number if you need to check it out.

Problem solved.

Put placement contact info on the cache page and you solve a whole lot of problems!

Even if TPTB at Groundspeak don't see this as worth putting on the Listing page, you can put it in your descriptions and thereby give those who seek your caches some sense of security.

I think you can put it in your descriptions is the best course of action. It's optional and best of all, doesn't require TPTB to implement anything. Anyone using an "optional" field most likely already provides this information. If you don't want it on the public listing, then provide the information in your reviewer note.

Agreed about the OP meaning the cache page listing--I had already made the leap in my mind to revise that to being optional. I was hoping it could just be on the submission page (still as an option) instead.

I have mixed feelings about listing the number right on the cache page for all to see instead of just a reviewer. However, I do think your example is a valid reason to support simply listing it in the description if desired, and your point that you can still already add contact info on the submission page in a reviewer note.

And, by golly, thanks for the thoughtful response--I agree with your conclusions. It's just difficult not to toss in a little slang when communicating with a pirate.

(edited for clarification)

Edited July 31, 2006 by Teach2Learn

6.7k · July 31, 2006

Plus, I had a cache, now muggled and archived, for over a year at a local baseball park, ten feet beyond a No Trespassing sign but with the full permission of the park superintendant and local Police Chief. It was found dozens of times without incident. Just for theory, if you had been arrested at that cache for Trespassing would you say it was your fault for ignoring the sign or mine for luring you past it?

Was this one Irondale Park? I actually DID find that one on July 30, 2004. The cache page doesn't mention the No Trespassing sign, and I don't remember seeing one. Or did you mean another cache?

Yes, it was. The sign is buried in bushes, rusted and barely visible, that's why I missed it to start with. I found it on a maintence trip when the bushes had recently been cut back and asked the Park Superintendant about it, he said "don't sweat the small stuff". I know the local police well, and their Chief said nobody would be bothered going back there, so I left it alone.

I'd have to go back and read the logs, but I don't think any cachers saw or mentioned it.

I brought it up because it is a good example of where cachers were taken past a No Trespassing sign and could, in theory, have been arrested. The question that brought that up was who would then be responsible, me for luring cachers past the sign or the cacher for passing it. It serves, in this thread, as an example of where a contact for the permission giver, the Park Super or Police Dept., might have been important to an apprehended cacher.

All of my caches will have this info posted in the description soon, the few that don't already, as will any more that I place. I just think it is a good idea that will help geocachers and don't see a down-side to the idea.

I encourage geocachers to voluntarily put Placement Permission Contact Info in the description area of their cache pages when permission is required, or even available but not required. Obviously, no person's contact info should be published without their permission.

Once the idea takes hold, and I think it will, Groundspeak may see it as a good idea. As I am sure y'all are aware, talking about it here does not make it a suggestion to Groundspeak. I will post it as a suggestion in the appropriate area after a bit of feedback and massaging here.

Ed

6.7k · July 31, 2006

...I think you can put it in your descriptions is the best course of action. It's optional and best of all, doesn't require TPTB to implement anything. Anyone using an "optional" field most likely already provides this information. If you don't want it on the public listing, then provide the information in your reviewer note.

...Agreed about the OP meaning the cache page listing--I had already made the leap in my mind to revise that to being optional. I was hoping it could just be on the submission page (still as an option) instead.

I have mixed feelings about listing the number right on the cache page for all to see instead of just a reviewer. However, I do think your example is a valid reason to support simply listing it in the description if desired, and your point that you can still already add contact info on the submission page in a reviewer note.

Any cache that requires permission should already have the permission-giver's contact info in the Reviewer Note. That's SOP today.

This does nothing, however, to resolve the problem of cachers being stopped and possibly apprehended at the cache site, as Reviewer Notes are not available to us, nor even the Reviewer's immediate contact, nor even Groundspeak unless during their business hours, so who you gonna call?

I can't see much of a stretch from asking a landowner "Can I place a cache on your property?" to "Can I list a phone number or email so authorities can verify that geocachers have permission to be there?" Frankly, I doubt that I would place a cache if the land-owner refused to verify that I have permission to place it there and geocachers permission to come seek it.

The whole point of this is for the cacher to have the ability to immediately provide access permission information to whomever might ask for it.

Ed

July 31, 2006

The whole point of this is for the cacher to have the ability to immediately provide access permission information to whomever might ask for it.

Ed

Agreed or not concerning the details/method, I hope we can all agree that the intention is a worthy one. <_<

24.7k · July 31, 2006

The whole point of this is for the cacher to have the ability to immediately provide access permission information to whomever might ask for it.

Ed

Agreed or not concerning the details/method, I hope we can all agree that the intention is a worthy one.

I have that information at hand at all times for each of my caches. What I don't want is an end run where others who didn't do the work, who have no say, do their own investigation and cause problems. If you want to know ask me. I likely will only volunteer information to those who need it. If you don't own the land, or don't have the ability to toss my butt in jail, odds are you don't need it.

I'm not actually sure what higher purpose is served by what's being proposed other than to make it easier for busy body's to cause more problems than they already do.

Placement Permission

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation