Getting frustrated...

[+biosearch]

I again express my dismay at the folks who don't understand the concept of "adequate permission."

 

It's been discussed time and time again. I really don't understand how folks are still confused by it.

I have to say that I didn't expect the thread to go this direction, but from the looks of things, it is not very unexpected to some.

 

This may well be the reason that the thread has been discussed "time and time again", there is no clarity, or perhaps I should say that the understanding of authorization is interpreted differently by members of the geocaching community. Along with this issue is the issue of how it is interpreted by the general public, person's in position of authority and landowners.

 

I try and look at it this way.

 

Let's say I wanted to place a sign for a friend who was running for public office. Whatever permission that I should get for that sign is the same permission that I should get for a geocache. Of course, and here is where it gets sticky, there are situation where this will not work. But it is a good baseline in my opinion. Granted I've only placed one cache, but there it is.

 

In our community, the one I live in physically, those signs are not allowed. I feel that in this community the community association would not want people coming into the community to hunt geocaches. So this area is not in my view accessible to geocaches. The landowner should be asked, however the community association should also be looked to for guidance/authority. The land owner may be the one to do this, or the geocacher. The same thing goes for anywhere else. An owner of a hanger at an airport would need to be asked for permission to place a geocache, however the airport authorities should also be consulted, and the airport security may be the ones who know the guidelines/rules.

 

In my case, the original post for this thread, I felt that the campus security should be asked, they were the ones who would be patroling the area. If there was an issue with the caches they would know the rules/regulations regarding this sort of thing. As they have never had this issue come up and could not site specific guidelines they were not able to either give me guidance or grant permission. In this case I must obviously go to someone else. If they had said "yes" I would have accepted the fact that they knew something that I did not and would quote them as the party that gave permission. As it stands I must go to another office to gain permission and have that office inform the campus security, or get some document to use to inform campus security.

 

Simply placing a cache, or looking for permission from one individual is not all that is required in some cases. Some cases are much easier and require very little or nothing.

 

I think that they main issue here is that the circumstances vary to such a degree that one answer is not acceptable for all situations.

 

And as usual, I could be very very wrong....

[+The Fantasmic Four]

Always easier to ask for forgivness then for permission.

[CoyoteRed]

And as usual, I could be very very wrong....

 

Actually, IMHO, you're not too far off the mark.

 

Security could be the right person to see if geocaching is allowed on campus, but not for permission to place a cache. Well, unless they are the ones designated as point for the activity.

 

Yes, permission has been discussed time and time again. It's more of a complex issue than trading kindly or putting the cache back where you found it, but even those issues pop up once in a while to be discussed yet again.

 

Your example of placing signs is very close to the mark. Some places don't allow signs. Some places you don't need to talk to anyone, you just put it up. It's the same with caches. Some places you need to get permission and some places you simply hide your cache.

 

As RK mentioned, permission is such a complex issue that you can write expansively and still not cover it. That's why the site requires "adequate permission" and leave that up to the cache owner--they're the ones better suited to determine what is required. Besides writing the guideline for determining proper permission that would cover every situation would be a seriously large tome and still not cover everything, have massive loop holes, or unduly restrict viable spots. Even the way the stash note is written tells us we, the community, understand mistakes in judgment will happen.

 

The time to actually seek explicit permission is a very fuzzy line. There is no real if-then test that will work in every case every time.

 

Here's how I look at it; how much control does the land managers maintain over the property? This ranges from the public is invited to go anywhere at any time without restriction to you need an armed escort with pre-approved access. I think most hunts fall towards the former end of the scale.

 

The more limits that are placed on property the more likely I'm going to seek permission. These limits include limited access hours, pay-for-entry, "Don't step on the grass" signs, sensitive or dangerous areas, or roaming security. When I start seeing things like that, I'll ask if hiking off-trail is allowed and judge their reaction. Many folks still haven't heard of geocaching so I don't hit them with it right off the bat. If hiking off-trail is not allowed I'll re-evaluate whether I want to place a cache there. That's not say a geocache can't be placed there, but it would mean I'd seek explicit permission. These tightly controlled areas generally mean it's much better to get the management involved anyway as they are the better judges of keeping everyone safe and highlighting the interesting areas of their wards.

 

Another thing I do is try to think like a land owner. Would I care if folks are defacing my property? Would I care if they are fooling around with my equipment? Would I care if strangers are lurking in areas where a mugger would hide to ambush me or my employees? A lot of property managers are very security conscience. If they see folks where they shouldn't be then they go on high alert. Then we get to hear about folks getting arrested here in the forums.

 

Now, this is not to sanitize the hobby and remove "high risk" caches, but hopefully it does highlight the need to be very, very careful about how you design your hunts. What would a dean think about letting folks onto their campus without limit? What would a parent think if they knew folks where coming onto the campus where their daughter learns and lives at all hours of the night? Considering the easier the cache the more likely you will have at least one cacher completely disregard stated hours of access, would you want to risk campus staff discovering geocaching because of an incident?

 

There are a lot of things to consider when trying to determine when to ask for permission rather than simply go ahead and place the cache. It's a complex issue. Many folks obviously don't consider it. It's not the fact that many caches don't have explicit permission that will be the downfall of geocaching. It's the caches that were placed without permission when explicit permission was needed that will do it.

[+jon & miki]

Always easier to ask for forgivness then for permission.

Yep, lots easier for the original hider. Especially since he or she is probably not the one who has to ask for forgiveness later. Lots harder for the person who has to follow him/her after the land managers discover that they've got 15 caches on their land and that not one was placed with any kind of notification to the land managers.

 

It's a little hard to convince land managers of how concerned we are about the land and how sensitive we are to land manager's needs when we take that attitude. I believe the "forgiveness" approach is exactly how geocaching has gotten banned in some parks - the land manager didn't feel "forgiving" or their first reaction was "get the &$%^#%^# things out of here". The "ask forgiveness" approach certainly provided a great deal of ammunition to the South Carolina legislature when they tried to pass a law requiring written permission for many cache placements in our state.

 

Actually, I have a hard time understanding how a cacher can even claim to know whether there are or are not policies regarding geocaching in a given area without talking to someone responsible for the land.

 

I think the constant use of the word "permission" is part of the problem though. Too much angst from our teenage years perhaps? Maybe it would be better to think of it as notifying the land manager that you've placed a cache on the property they are responsible for? At least the land managers ought to be made aware in advance of why folks are rooting around in the bushes in a certain area and have any concerns about cache placement taken into account. Just let 'em know what you're up to, is that so hard?

[+Renegade Knight]

....Actually, I have a hard time understanding how a cacher can even claim to know whether there are or are not policies regarding geocaching in a given area without talking to someone responsible for the land....

 

I learned the rules of driving without ever once talking to the folks at DMV. Parks rules are posted, most of us have never once bothered to read the posted rules, let alone the pages and pages of unposted rules. We simply are reasonable in our use of the park and we are good to go. Works for caching as well.

 

The last time I was yelled at for a cache was by a homeowner. No the cache wasn't on their property. It was near it in the right of way. Regardless their complaint was legitamate and I told them I would follow up on their concerns. I did, I called them back and resolved the problem. Ironicly I was using stale cache data at the time. The cache has been disabled because the cache owner was already 'on it'. It was my own dumb mistake that created more issues.

 

As for the South Caroliana Legislature. That's another ball of was and it wasn't permission that created the problem. It was fuel for a fire already burning. If I recall that got stalled out by a successful effort by SC geocachers. We are not some underground internet geek hobby by a few dredges of society who can be ignored. Geocaching is mainstream, has come of age, and is learning that we have muscles to flex. There have been growing pains, and there remains issues to resolve, but we have Doctors, Engineers, Computer Profesisonals, and all kids of other upstanding members of society in our ranks.

 

That we even discuss permission is a sign that we are not the dark and seedy element that skulks in shadow hoping never to asked if we are "geocachers".

[CoyoteRed]

...we are not the dark and seedy element that skulks in shadow hoping never to asked if we are "geocachers".

 

We're not?

 

Oh, right.

 

Yeah, we're not!

[+Ladybug Kids]

Student Activities would probably be over all things related to events on campus.

 

Likewise, the Student Activities person is all about things happening on campus. I am sure it would be very easy for him to say yes and it would come from an official source.

The University of Alaska system requires a permit to use campus grounds for activities. These permits are much easier to get if sponsored by an on campus group. The campus Outdoor Adventure Center at UAF was very enthusiastic about sponsoring geocaching on campus because it provides another outdoor oriented activity for the student. The Center Director signed the permit application which then went to the university lands office. All the Director asked was for me to provide an orientation to geocaching at the Student Center during a lunch hour.

[+Ladybug Kids]

It's a little hard to convince land managers of how concerned we are about the land and how sensitive we are to land manager's needs when we take that attitude. I believe the "forgiveness" approach is exactly how geocaching has gotten banned in some parks - the land manager didn't feel "forgiving" or their first reaction was "get the &$%^#%^# things out of here".

What they said!

 

I'm having a heck of a time working things out with the Fairbanks North Star Borough because there were so many caches placed without permission. The conversation goes like this:

 

FNSB: "So, your guidelines say you are are supposed to get permission to place a cache."

Me: "Yes."

FNSB: "But, there are already several caches on our land?"

Me (fidgets): "Um, yes."

FNSB: "So, not all who play the game follow the guidelines?"

Me: "I can't speak for the previous hiders."

FNSB: "Didn't you say there is an approval process that verifies the guidelines are being followed?"

Me: "Yes."

FNSB: "Not very effective, is it?"

Me: Wants to crawl into hole and go away...

[+sbell111]

I'm having a heck of a time working things out with the Fairbanks North Star Borough because there were so many caches placed without permission. The conversation goes like this: ...

I would likely explain that specific permission is only required in those areas that require it, since there are many land managers who recognize that the game poses no danger to their land and, therefore, do not require their approval. I would also note that those caches that are already placed were probably placed by individuals who were not aware of any local approval requirement and I would volunteer to contact those hiders so they can get approval.

[+Renegade Knight]

....The University of Alaska system requires a permit to use campus grounds for activities. These permits are much easier to get if sponsored by an on campus group. The campus Outdoor Adventure Center at UAF was very enthusiastic about sponsoring geocaching on campus because it provides another outdoor oriented activity for the student. The Center Director signed the permit application which then went to the university lands office. All the Director asked was for me to provide an orientation to geocaching at the Student Center during a lunch hour.

 

How did you reconcile that a normal activity takes place all at once. Normal being a BBQ, Vollyball Tournament etc. It has a start, end and certain given people and is under the control of the event organizer. Where a cache it placed then sought over time by people who never meet? It just doesn't fit a standard event description. I'm curiouse how you solved that?

[+Renegade Knight]

....FNSB: "Not very effective, is it?"

Me: Wants to crawl into hole and go away...

 

Me:

Since FNSB has park lands that allow recreational activiites and doesn't have any specific regulation regarding geocaching, cache owners assume that no specific permission is needed as no specific permission is needed for the hiking, walking, orienteering, picnicing that geocaching closely resembles. If a regulation is created those regulations would be followed and I would see to it that they are well publicised on the Alaska Geocachers website. It's my hope that since there have been no problems in the 5 years geocaching has taken place in the FNSB that we don't need regulations. I'd be happy to take you on a tour of the existing caches and show you what this activity is all about.

[+sbell111]

While I would like to say 'That's what I meant', RK's is better.

[+GClouse]

Find out who mows the lawn and find out who their boss is. Trace the chain of command upwards until you find the person that signs the paychecks for the property maintenance crews, and get permission from them. get someway for the campus cops to verify this permission,(e.g. phone number, copy of a letter) then notify the campus security (as a courtesy) that you will be placing the cache with the permission granted by so-an-so. Give them your proof of permission.

 

Public right-of-way doesn't necessarily mean public use. Public right-of-way simply means that the public has the right to travel along the right-of-way, without having to pay a toll for the privilege to do so.

[Clan Riffster]

I don't know where you have found the "standard" of "adequate permission."

I can't speak for RK, but I can tell you where I found the "standard for adequate permission". Our nation's legal history is founded upon the English System of Law. The basic Tennant of this system is that an action is legal unless specifically prohibited by law. This system has been upheld by our Supreme Court time and time again.

 

So, how does this apply to geocaching? Simple. Geocaching is a lawful activity unless, and until it become unlawful. Some land managers have taken it upon themselves to create rules governing our favorite hobby on their lands. Groundspeak respects the wishes of those land managers and has their reviewers asking for specific permission for caches hidden there. Some land managers have no policy whatsoever. In those areas, permission is implied by the fact that it is not governed.

[+jon & miki]

...snip....

 

As for the South Caroliana Legislature. That's another ball of was and it wasn't permission that created the problem. It was fuel for a fire already burning. If I recall that got stalled out by a successful effort by SC geocachers.

 

Hmm, I was under the delusion that I lived in Columbia SC and had actually met with the representatives sponsoring the bill, spoken directly with them, and even seen their presentations. Heck, I even thought I was one of the folks involved in the "successful effort" to stop the bill in the Senate. My delusions included the observation that a lack of "adequate permission" was a major force behind the bill and it was one of the items that made our defense MUCH more difficult. Thanks for straightening me out.

[+Renegade Knight]

...snip....

 

As for the South Caroliana Legislature. That's another ball of was and it wasn't permission that created the problem. It was fuel for a fire already burning. If I recall that got stalled out by a successful effort by SC geocachers.

 

Hmm, I was under the delusion that I lived in Columbia SC and had actually met with the representatives sponsoring the bill, spoken directly with them, and even seen their presentations. Heck, I even thought I was one of the folks involved in the "successful effort" to stop the bill in the Senate. My delusions included the observation that a lack of "adequate permission" was a major force behind the bill and it was one of the items that made our defense MUCH more difficult. Thanks for straightening me out.

 

My Delusion was that it was a cache in a cematary that was protested for even existing in the cematary at all. This was BEFORE anyone even know about the caches permission status and that later when the lack of explicit permission was found it fanned the flames of a fire that had already started. My delusion also has me recalling that it didn't start with the represenatives, merly that someone caught their ear and then it became an issue. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm glad cachers like you intervened. Mostly I recall a heck of a lot of spin and rheteric bandied about before it was all over. Anyone can make anything sound horrible by a little well applied spin.

[+jon & miki]

The initial cache that started the SC legislation was placed in a cemetery on private land without permission. The locals wanted to know what cachers were doing in "their" cemetery.

 

If the locals had been contacted before placement, the issue probably would not have started up. And alone, that cache would have been a minor issue, but the representative who chose to make a case of it took the position that a lot of caches were being placed without permission and without due respect to the historical significance of the areas and was able to amass considerable evidence to support her position (at least as far as permission was concerned, there was little evidence to support the purported disrespect).

 

That's why the proposed legislation (in all its various drafts) focused on requiring written permission to place a cache in many areas of the state. Some versions went further, but every version required written specific permission to place a cache in large ill-defined areas.

 

The proponents of the legislation used a "shotgun" approach, accusing geocachers of every sin they could think of. Nearly all the accusations leveled against the hobby could be refuted by simple reference to the actual facts except the permission issue.

 

Placement of caches on private land without permission was a major part of her "evidence" and the most difficult to refute since many of the facts supported her position. (I should add she also listed placements on public land that had rules and regulations that restricted games or geocaching specifically as part of her evidence - it wasn't purely a private land issue).

 

Of the 40 or so caches in two cemetery series that were explicitly mentioned in the representative's presentations, I was unable to find even one that had been placed with any sort of permission or even awareness of the cemetery managers. That made it far more difficult to defend geocaching as a legitimate activity respectful of land owner rights since caches were being clearly placed on private land without permission in spite of specific guidelines on the geocaching.com website to the contrary. (and yes, there were placements on public land that she construed to be in violation of NPS and National Cemetery regulations as well and used as "evidence").

 

I did not intend to hijack this thread, so I'll shut up now. My point was only that the "ask forgiveness later" approach can backfire badly on others, not just the original cache hider. I've seen it more than once and not just in the SC legislature.

[Clan Riffster]

Jon, thank you for fighting the good fight at a local level. While I don't live, (or cache), in South Carolina, that little bit of legislative nonsense could've hurt all of us. Groundspeak seems to be enforcing explicit permission in cemeteries now, and I can only assume that was a result of all that politicking. That issue also served to educate the general geocaching public regarding the ownership status of most cemeteries. Before this issue arose, I assumed that the ancient cemeteries around here were public domain since no efforts are made to keep folks out. A bit of research on my part showed me how wrong I was. I wasn't able to find a single cemetery that belonged to a city or county government.

 

I'm a firm believer that caches on private land should have explicit permission. Obtaining permission from a business such as Cracker Barrel or Bennigans is fairly simple. Obtaining permission from "The Henderson Trust", (who own the cemetery where I considered hiding a cache), is ever so much harder. I applaud Groundspeak's stance on cemetery cache placement. Now if they could just get rid of those pesky Wally World lamp post skirt film canister hides I could die happy.

[+biosearch]

I did not intend to hijack this thread, so I'll shut up now. My point was only that the "ask forgiveness later" approach can backfire badly on others, not just the original cache hider. I've seen it more than once and not just in the SC legislature.

Started the thread, did I, and feel, do I, that this is all very much on topic.

 

The topic is the issue of permission, public or state owned property, difficulty in getting permission, how to go about it, what avenues to use, what individuals to speak to and, much more importantly, why. Your addition, and others, addressing the issues that are taking place in SC and elsewhere are very relevant and much appreciated....

 

It all helps, especially to one who is new to this, as I am....

[+Ladybug Kids]

....The University of Alaska system requires a permit to use campus grounds for activities. These permits are much easier to get if sponsored by an on campus group. The campus Outdoor Adventure Center at UAF was very enthusiastic about sponsoring geocaching on campus because it provides another outdoor oriented activity for the student. The Center Director signed the permit application which then went to the university lands office. All the Director asked was for me to provide an orientation to geocaching at the Student Center during a lunch hour.

 

How did you reconcile that a normal activity takes place all at once. Normal being a BBQ, Vollyball Tournament etc. It has a start, end and certain given people and is under the control of the event organizer. Where a cache it placed then sought over time by people who never meet? It just doesn't fit a standard event description. I'm curiouse how you solved that?

The University has a Research Permit used by students who count pikas per acre, identify the number of plant species in a plot, the effect of fencing arctic hares out of an area, etc. The university land manager decided geocaching could fall under that category of land use. Applying via this process keeps geocaches from ending up in the middle of research plots where access by cachers might upset a study.

[+Ladybug Kids]

....FNSB: "Not very effective, is it?"

Me: Wants to crawl into hole and go away...

 

Me:

Since FNSB has park lands that allow recreational activiites and doesn't have any specific regulation regarding geocaching, cache owners assume that no specific permission is needed as no specific permission is needed for the hiking, walking, orienteering, picnicing that geocaching closely resembles. If a regulation is created those regulations would be followed and I would see to it that they are well publicised on the Alaska Geocachers website. It's my hope that since there have been no problems in the 5 years geocaching has taken place in the FNSB that we don't need regulations. I'd be happy to take you on a tour of the existing caches and show you what this activity is all about.

 

Right on the money RK and sbell111! That's essentially the approach I've been taking, but it's requiring a lot of time to get the right folks' attention. Therein lies an interesting Catch-22. Cachers weren't seeking permission because none was needed due to lack of regulation. FNSB wasn't requiring permission because they didn't know the activity was happening on their land. Now that they are aware of the activity (silly me for talking to them), they aren't exactly sure how to handle it. One of the biggest hitches with the FNSB is their abandoned property law prohibiting residents from leaving personal property on borough land. I've explained how caches are left with contact information in them, so caches don't constitute abondoned property. The borough officials aren't so certain, though.

[+biosearch]

One of the biggest hitches with the FNSB is their abandoned property law prohibiting residents from leaving personal property on borough land. I've explained how caches are left with contact information in them, so caches don't constitute abondoned property. The borough officials aren't so certain, though.

Same "hitch" in every major park system, National, most State, etc. Regardless of whether or not it has contact information in it, it is considered abandonded property. Reasoning, I'm guessing here, if a gps was found out in the middle of nowhere with owner information recorded in it, the park service officials would not leave it where it was. They would collect it, contact the individual and return the item. If not collected they would handle it as any other lost/abandoned item. Contact information or no, left without being attended by a visitor, abandoned. Or that is how I read it and how I understand it from those that I have spoken with.

Edited November 20, 2006 by biosearch

[+Renegade Knight]

...One of the biggest hitches with the FNSB is their abandoned property law prohibiting residents from leaving personal property on borough land. I've explained how caches are left with contact information in them, so caches don't constitute abondoned property. The borough officials aren't so certain, though.

 

We both know that caches are not abandoned property. The catch 22 is that by the letter of the law caches do match the description of abandoned property. However I think the key is the intent. The intent of abandoned property laws is to allow public agneices the legal tools they need to cope with real and actual abandoned property.

 

Now I'm brainstorming. What if they consider caches as donated recreational equipment? The parks system would know how to deal with donations of both a permanent or temporary nature?

[Not So Lost Puppies]

...One of the biggest hitches with the FNSB is their abandoned property law prohibiting residents from leaving personal property on borough land. I've explained how caches are left with contact information in them, so caches don't constitute abondoned property. The borough officials aren't so certain, though.

 

We both know that caches are not abandoned property. The catch 22 is that by the letter of the law caches do match the description of abandoned property. However I think the key is the intent. The intent of abandoned property laws is to allow public agneices the legal tools they need to cope with real and actual abandoned property.

 

Now I'm brainstorming. What if they consider caches as donated recreational equipment? The parks system would know how to deal with donations of both a permanent or temporary nature?

 

That is a very good way of looking at it... it truely is recreational equipment, and usualy the point of all these parks is for recreation. I like it, maybe bringing it up to 'officials' in that manner might be helpful for getting future approvals?

[S222222S]

Did you guys also know that on Facebook there is an application that allows you add your Geocaching stats to your website?

 

Its called "Geocaching Stats". It adds a small box to your left hand panel of your page. Here's this link if you're interested in adding your stats to your profile:

 

http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=2443916522

[+hydnsek]

Did you guys also know that on Facebook there is an application that allows you add your Geocaching stats to your website?

 

Its called "Geocaching Stats". It adds a small box to your left hand panel of your page. Here's this link if you're interested in adding your stats to your profile:

 

http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=2443916522

What possible relevance does this have to this thread? Why are you spamming this in threads across the forums? It's the second or third thread where I've seen it.

[+the hermit crabs]

What possible relevance does this have to this thread? Why are you spamming this in threads across the forums? It's the second or third thread where I've seen it.

It's in five, so far, all identical posts...

Edited April 3, 2008 by the hermit crabs