Potential Problem Caches

[+BelKen]

Just so you people keep things in perspective. Wal Mart parking lot caches are not a global issue. Or any parking lot caches. Whilst the issue may be taking up a disproportionate amount of space in these forums it certainly will not affect the global game one way or the other.

 

Explicit permission may have an affect. But again from my perspective all that does is affect the listing service not the game.

[+TrailGators]

How would all of you like to see a national broadcast about geocaching on 20/20 or some show like that? I bet it will happen someday. Would there be any kind of caches or caching behavior that you would prefer not to shown on national TV?

Edited March 14, 2007 by TrailGators

[+mikeslomka]

Well said TrailGators.

 

What would you rather see, film footage of a person saying:

 

"Yeah, we allow them to place their caches here because for the most part, they are respectful of the property and it is good for business. We as management are well aware of the cache placement, and they are welcome here anytime."

 

Or:

 

"We had no idea that the object was there. We think that it was wrong of them to put it there without consulting us first. This incedent has cost us business, and our attorneys will be in contact with geocaching.com"

 

Earlier somebody said that if it did cause a problem, Wal-mart would have gc.com served with an injunctive order until all of the caches were removed. I once mentioned about a national electronics store chain being shut down for several hours because of a suspicious package in the parking lot. What would Wal-marts response to that be?

[+Team GeoBlast]

Then please do not cite consensus then. It comes off like... "we all agree you are whacked."

You are correct, I can't claim that everyone thinks that you're whacked.

You just explained to me what Mush was thinking when he posted something when I asked him for clarification. That was what I was referring to. More than once, our interaction has been of this nature and in this order.

I'm not clairvoyant. It was pretty darn clear that he was being sarcastic.

It doesn't lead anywhere but to "nah-nah-nah" and I am growing weary of it.. and I'm guessing others are too.

Actually, I was simply answering your question. It was clear what the answer was and I didn't know if Mushtang would be back soon.

 

BTW, in my opinion, 'nah-nah-nah' would be more like this post.

 

I am taking responsibility for my part in this and have made that clear. I'll do it again if you missed it. How about you doing the same and let's attempt to steer clear of this type of interaction?

[+sbell111]

How would all of you like to see a national broadcast about geocaching on 20/20 or some show like that? I bet it will happen someday. Would there be any kind of caches or caching behavior that you would prefer not to shown on national TV?

I got involved with this game after I saw a national (international?) TV piece on it. I thought that it looked cool and I'm really glad that I paid attention and remembered to look up the website later.

[+sbell111]

I am taking responsibility for my part in this and have made that clear. I'll do it again if you missed it. How about you doing the same and let's attempt to steer clear of this type of interaction?

I'm not sure what your asking me to do. Previously, what you asked is that I not reply to the thread. I don't think that's appropriate, so I cannot agree.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I am taking responsibility for my part in this and have made that clear. I'll do it again if you missed it. How about you doing the same and let's attempt to steer clear of this type of interaction?

I'm not sure what your asking me to do. Previously, what you asked is that I not reply to the thread. I don't think that's appropriate, so I cannot agree.

 

I was proposing that we both acknowledge and take responsibility for our actions and attempt to have a productive conversation. But never mind, it looks like it is not within your capability.

[+sbell111]

I am taking responsibility for my part in this and have made that clear. I'll do it again if you missed it. How about you doing the same and let's attempt to steer clear of this type of interaction?

I'm not sure what your asking me to do. Previously, what you asked is that I not reply to the thread. I don't think that's appropriate, so I cannot agree.

I was proposing that we both acknowledge and take responsibility for our actions and attempt to have a productive conversation. But never mind, it looks like it is not within your capability.

There you go again. Can't you avoid the attacks when you are trying to do away with attacks?

 

The fact is, I've been desperately trying to have a productive conversation.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Are we really going to relive the entire other thread? If so, why was a new thread started?

Mostly, I'm happy with the results. This thread had turned to a discussion of what is adequate permission and if that means asking someone then who to ask and how to approach them. This is useful information for geocachers who are thinking of hiding a cache a big box store.

 

I am glad you are happy with the results. With your help, it was a much more productive thread than the last one.

 

However, I think this thread has run it's course now and I do not agree that you could direct a new geocacher who is considering placing a geocache in a Big Box Store here to get information. I'm going to go ahead and take the initiative and actually -do this- and document it. I feel that this is the intent of those two little boxes that you check when you place a geocache and what everyone should do before placing a cache on Walmart property.

 

I've got some work to do before I approach the local Walmart for permission to hide a cache there. You can be assured that it will be a well thought out endeavor. Once all that is finished and I have detailed the steps that I went through, I will make my findings and results available in this forum or possibly in a blog format.

 

Thanks again for the lively conversation.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I am taking responsibility for my part in this and have made that clear. I'll do it again if you missed it. How about you doing the same and let's attempt to steer clear of this type of interaction?

I'm not sure what your asking me to do. Previously, what you asked is that I not reply to the thread. I don't think that's appropriate, so I cannot agree.

I was proposing that we both acknowledge and take responsibility for our actions and attempt to have a productive conversation. But never mind, it looks like it is not within your capability.

There you go again. Can't you avoid the attacks when you are trying to do away with attacks?

 

The fact is, I've been desperately trying to have a productive conversation.

 

I've given up and have resigned to the fact that it is not going to happen, at least on this topic. I sincerely appreciate your passion for what you believe in and will no doubt see you around these forums. I will do everything within my power to be extra civil when that happens and not allow the level of discourse we have been experiencing.

[+Renegade Knight]

Well said TrailGators.

 

What would you rather see, film footage of a person saying:

 

"Yeah, we allow them to place their caches here because for the most part, they are respectful of the property and it is good for business. We as management are well aware of the cache placement, and they are welcome here anytime."

 

Or:

 

"We had no idea that the object was there. We think that it was wrong of them to put it there without consulting us first. This incedent has cost us business, and our attorneys will be in contact with geocaching.com"

 

Earlier somebody said that if it did cause a problem, Wal-mart would have gc.com served with an injunctive order until all of the caches were removed. I once mentioned about a national electronics store chain being shut down for several hours because of a suspicious package in the parking lot. What would Wal-marts response to that be?

 

Well now you pose several points.

 

Fist GC.com does not place caches. Cache owners do. GC.com is only responible for the cache listing. While anyone can sue anyone at any time over anything they are also free to waste a heck of a lot of money doing it. Now I recon injuctive orders are much the same. Sure you can give me one to stop all software piracy on the planet but really, it's beyond my control.

 

You also asked a rhetorical question. Which is better, 100 dollars or 1 dollar? It's rather a no brainer. Both thank you very much. And that's what it comes down to. I'll take permission in all it's forms. Written, Verbal, Adequate, Explicit, Assumed, Prescribed, Adverse Posession and any other variation. You can worry about your own permission. Do not second guess mine until that manager is in your face interigating you over MY film cainser.

[+mikeslomka]

Ok, let me correct the frist grammatical error then.

 

What I meant(but did not say...apparently you have to be precise around here) is "Walmart will have gc.com served with an injunctive order until all cache listings are removed." Not just archived, but removed.

 

Secondly, I do have to worry about what kind of permission you have gotten, because it is going to be me(or another cacher) who is going to have that manager, or perhaps other authorities, in my face. The hider is most likely going to be the person who is observed acting suspicious and confronted. How many of the caches, and let's be honest...we're talking about micros, require much maintenance? I have seen quite a few with log books going back 2 years or more. Now I will grant you that this arguement gives a little bit of validaty to the fact that they are not often found by the people in charge, but it only takes one person being seen retrieving a cache to create a problem.

 

Or how about this situation:

 

There is a cacher that works at a BBS and is telling all of the other employees that there is a cache RIGHT IN THE PARKING LOT!! How cool is that?!?! The wrong person overhears it, and there's your problem.

 

Telling me not to question your permission while I'm out caching with MY family is presumptuous and arrogant. What one person does could very well affect the rest of the community.

 

And no, I can not give you an injunctive order to stop all software piracy on the planet. I can, however, give you one that will shut down your site until you stop supplying the means to pirate software. That is the most likely scenario in this situation. The injunctive order would probably list, not only gc.com, but all of the companies that run the servers, assuming that gc.com does not have its own, I don't know if they do or not.

 

Finally, I have to question just what "assumed permission" is. If you leave your wallet sitting on the trunk of your car, am I to assume that you wanted me to have it, so I should take it? I'm clearly not breaking into your vehicle, and you are not in control of that property, so I could asume that it was abandoned and fair game for anybody who wanted it. Assumed permission is not permission at all. "Well your honor, since they never made a rule that I couldn't, I just assumed that I could." Just because it is not expressly permitted, doesn't make it right.

[+sbell111]

Ok, let me correct the frist grammatical error then....

I just want to make two quick points regarding your post.

 

First, micros typically require more maintenance than larger caches because they are hidden around people.

 

Second, you seem to be quite concerned about permission for every LPC that you find. Are you equally concerned about every other cache that you look for? In my experience, you are more likely to catch heck while looking for a cache anywhere else than in a parking lot.

[Clan Riffster]

I have to question just what "assumed permission" is.

Good question. Just what is assumed, (or to coin the term used in the guidelines, "adequate"), permission?

That probably varies from state to state, depending on how each state words its statutes. The commonality between the states is the US Supreme Court. The guide they follow is based upon the English Standard of Law, which states if an action is not specifically prohibited by law, that action must be deemed legal. Geocaching is a lawful activity in all places except where it is unlawful. My presence in a Wally World parking lot is lawful, until I'm told I'm not allowed there. Therefore, (in Florida at least), my hiding and/or seeking a geocache on Wally World property is lawful. Florida statute gives me permission to do so. I would call this "assumed", I.e; "adequate". Others might have different definitions, but that's mine.

[+sbell111]

Similarly, parks exist for our enjoyment. If a park has no rules regarding geocaching, why should we have to ask permission to play the game there, as long as we are following the rules.

[+sbell111]

I've been painting a bunch of nanos this evening and thinking about this thread. Should I have to ask to hide a nano at a location that I have the legal right to be?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

What I meant(but did not say...apparently you have to be precise around here) is "Walmart will have gc.com served with an injunctive order until all cache listings are removed." Not just archived, but removed.

Not a lawyer and not challenging you, but I don't think they can. LimeWire, for instance does not distribute illegal downloadable music, they list music that is on people's hard drives. So far they have withstood all legal actions.

 

Secondly, I do have to worry about what kind of permission you have gotten, because it is going to be me(or another cacher) who is going to have that manager, or perhaps other authorities, in my face. The hider is most likely going to be the person who is observed acting suspicious and confronted. How many of the caches, and let's be honest...we're talking about micros, require much maintenance? I have seen quite a few with log books going back 2 years or more. Now I will grant you that this arguement gives a little bit of validaty to the fact that they are not often found by the people in charge, but it only takes one person being seen retrieving a cache to create a problem.

Yes, we do have to consider (not worry about) other people's permission. Case in point, the cacher I have mentioned several times from Arkansas who was arrested, convicted and put on probation for Criminal Trespass when hunting a cache that had been hidden behind a gas station without permission.

 

This is why I propose that cachers place Permission Contact Info on all private property cache listings... that way if permission does not exist, assumed or otherwise, the lack of Permission Contact Info alerts cachers to that fact.

 

Or how about this situation:

 

There is a cacher that works at a BBS and is telling all of the other employees that there is a cache RIGHT IN THE PARKING LOT!! How cool is that?!?! The wrong person overhears it, and there's your problem.

How management finds out about an unpermitted hide is irrelevant, it could happen in any number of ways.

 

Telling me not to question your permission while I'm out caching with MY family is presumptuous and arrogant. What one person does could very well affect the rest of the community.

If you are worried about a cache, stay away from it.

 

And no, I can not give you an injunctive order to stop all software piracy on the planet. I can, however, give you one that will shut down your site until you stop supplying the means to pirate software. That is the most likely scenario in this situation. The injunctive order would probably list, not only gc.com, but all of the companies that run the servers, assuming that gc.com does not have its own, I don't know if they do or not.

Addressed above, but you can't file any kind of order, a Judge does that, and I seriously doubt one would in that scenario.

 

Finally, I have to question just what "assumed permission" is. If you leave your wallet sitting on the trunk of your car, am I to assume that you wanted me to have it, so I should take it? I'm clearly not breaking into your vehicle, and you are not in control of that property, so I could asume that it was abandoned and fair game for anybody who wanted it. Assumed permission is not permission at all. "Well your honor, since they never made a rule that I couldn't, I just assumed that I could." Just because it is not expressly permitted, doesn't make it right.

Assumed permission is the heart of our game. 'That which is not prohibited is allowed' is the base of our system of laws and certainly the vast majority of caches exist under assumed permission.

 

By no means do all caches need explicit permission. I do believe that all caches on private property do. Big box stores are always on private property - theirs or someone else's. There are no Wal-Marts on public property.

 

However - the fact that caches on private property should have express permission is a concept very difficult to implement. No, placing caches in private parking lots is not 'right' legally, perhaps, yes, it is the standard way this game is played - mostly because of the assumed permission - it isn't banned so it must be okay.

 

I personally am content with that. It's worked so far. Greater legal minds than mine have given it thought and still it's the way things are done.

 

That being the case I am personally okay with it. I have been stopped, questioned and otherwise checked out by employees, management, police, neighbors and rangers at every kind of cache urban and rural and there hasn't been a problem, and I have no reason to expect that to change. I know that most parking lot caches don't have permission and am still not afraid to hunt them.

 

Explicit permission being 'right' and 'attainable' may not be the same thing.

 

Again, if you have permission, put the Permission Contact Info on the listing page. If you are worried about such things only hunt caches with that info listed.

Edited March 15, 2007 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+mikeslomka]

Ok, let me correct the frist grammatical error then....

I just want to make two quick points regarding your post.

 

First, micros typically require more maintenance than larger caches because they are hidden around people.

 

Second, you seem to be quite concerned about permission for every LPC that you find. Are you equally concerned about every other cache that you look for? In my experience, you are more likely to catch heck while looking for a cache anywhere else than in a parking lot.

 

I find your first point difficult to believe. Mainly because the micros that I have found are typically nothing more than a log and maybe a pencil. How much maintenance is there to do on that. The best micros that I have found have been VERY well thought out and hidden in places that most non-cachers wouldn't even think to look(on a bolt through a wooden block, and down the post of a fence).

 

And to answer your second question, yes, I am equally concerned about caches that are in places other than parking lots. That's why I volunteered to be on MiGO's park outreach committee, and to try to contact as many parks departments that I can to make sure that we have EXPLICIT permission to place caches there. It's nice being able to get out and be proactive instead of waiting around and griping about things after it is too late.

 

Also, I plan on doing a cache series in and around Michigan brew pubs, and I plan to get permission from each and every business that I include in the series. If they don't give me permission, then I will just go to the next place. Some of caches may even be micros.

 

Let me say this one more time, since so many people here like to pick and choose sentences from a whole post and ignore the rest, I have nothing against LPC's. If you like to hide and find them, go right ahead. That's your perogative, I am sure that you won't let what I think stop you, and you shouldn't. Personally, they don't do much for me, but I am all for your right(for lack of a better word) to go a seek them out. A well thought out micro is actually pretty cool.

 

What I think is wrong, is placing caches on private property when you don't have permission to do so. It's not your, or my, decision to make. It is the decision of the property manager or the person who has control of the property.

[+sbell111]

Ok, let me correct the frist grammatical error then....

I just want to make two quick points regarding your post.

 

First, micros typically require more maintenance than larger caches because they are hidden around people.

 

Second, you seem to be quite concerned about permission for every LPC that you find. Are you equally concerned about every other cache that you look for? In my experience, you are more likely to catch heck while looking for a cache anywhere else than in a parking lot.

I find your first point difficult to believe. Mainly because the micros that I have found are typically nothing more than a log and maybe a pencil. How much maintenance is there to do on that. The best micros that I have found have been VERY well thought out and hidden in places that most non-cachers wouldn't even think to look(on a bolt through a wooden block, and down the post of a fence).

Believe what you want, but I've owned both really big caches hidden in the woods and urban micros. The micros required tons more maintenance than the larger caches. They go missing quicker, the logs get full, the logs get wet, the method of attachment fails. People can't find them so you go check up on them. It goes on and on. In general, micros require more maintenance.

And to answer your second question, yes, I am equally concerned about caches that are in places other than parking lots. That's why I volunteered to be on MiGO's park outreach committee, and to try to contact as many parks departments that I can to make sure that we have EXPLICIT permission to place caches there. It's nice being able to get out and be proactive instead of waiting around and griping about things after it is too late. ...

If you don't mind, please explain this further. Do you contact parks to make sure that caching is allowed and find out if they have rules or do you follow up on whether other cachers had gotten permission. I'm not clear from your post.

[+Too Tall John]

How about "From Wally World to Water World?" I was thinking about the final being placed at one of the final scenes in the movie Water World.

I like it. Catchy, doesn't insult anyone, 'cept poor Uncle Wally.

 

Too Tall.. question for you. Do you think it would be better if I brought in an example of a geocache or purchased stuff for a cache and had it in a bag when I requested to talk to the manager?

I'd buy stuff there, if you wanted to have something to show. As soon as you pull out the stuff you brought from home, the conditioned response from the mgr will be "Where's his receipt?" If you buy something then & there, you got it (the receipt). It's also a more concrete example that geocachers are customers. Get some batteries for your gps while you're at it. (They have a good markup.)

Would the main manager be working at night or is there a better time of the day to approach?

Weekdays in the daytime is usually best, although most store managers work one weekday in the evening (most work Tuesdays in my experience). There's normally a pic with a name & phone number at the customer service desk (don't get too excited, the number is the store). Wander around, you might just bump into them. You'll at least hear pages for them if they are in the store on a pretty regular basis. (Funny side note - the 1st store manager I worked with was "Don." We had very similar last names- 1 letter difference. I can't count how many calls I picked up for him and him for me... "Say, John! I got a call. Bring a gallon of milk home when you go." "Thanks Don. Say, some guy called and wanted to know if he could put a geocache in the parking lot. Whaddya think?" ) Oh, you can also find their names on the "Are these bathrooms clean?" signs in the rest rooms.

[+mikeslomka]

Not a lawyer and not challenging you, but I don't think they can. LimeWire, for instance does no distribute illegal downloadable music, they list music that is on people's hard drives. So far they have withstood all legal actions.

 

The difference here is that geocaching.com reviews each cache before they publish it. Also, a hider has to click the box that says that they have read and understand the guildlines for placing a cache. That is where is says that you must have "adequate" permission. Just what adequate permission is, is what we are arguing about.

 

I do understand that I can not issue an injunctive order, I can file one though(or my legal representative if I don't know how to do it). However, Renegade Knight used personal pronouns so for the sake of continuity, I did the same.

 

Explicit permission being 'right' and 'attainable' may not be the same thing.

 

If permission is not attainable, then shouldn't that tell us all something? Like maybe the people that own the property don't want that kind of activity there. I'm not saying that that is the case, but the fact is, we don't know. Nobody has ever even bothered to ask.

 

Again, if you have permission, put the Permission Contact Info on the listing page. If you are worried about such things only hunt caches with that info listed

 

I would be fine with that. At least it would give me something to go on. In fact, when I submitted 2 caches for review last week, I put down the name of the park director and his phone number. If the reviewer wanted me to put that into the body of the listing, I would do so in a minute.

 

At no point have I ever lobbied to ban a specific type of cache, or a cache in a specific place. I have only said that permission should be obtained before hiding. Why take the chance that it will backfire and hurt the game.

[+Too Tall John]

I've been painting a bunch of nanos this evening and thinking about this thread. Should I have to ask to hide a nano at a location that I have the legal right to be?

If you are talking about commercial property, you don't have a right to be there. The business owner has invited people onto the property, and can revoke that permission at any time.

If you are talking about public lands, it then depends on the policies in place by the organization that oversees that property. In some places, no, you do not need to ask to place the cache.

I still want an acorn nano, BTW.

[+mikeslomka]

If you don't mind, please explain this further. Do you contact parks to make sure that caching is allowed and find out if they have rules or do you follow up on whether other cachers had gotten permission. I'm not clear from your post.

 

The Park Outreach Committee contacts parks to make sure that geocaching is allowed. We also find out if they have any rules where caches can be placed or if caches have to be registered with the park system. We also explain why caching is beneficial to them and offer ourselves as contacts if they need to discuss a problem.

 

If they do have rules or a permit system, a link to their webiste is placed on the MiGO site. That way our membership knows what those rules are and knows what parks are friendly toward us. The MiGO leadership has made great strides in opening up land to us that was previously unavailable(these folks were doing it long before I came along).

 

We are not acting like cache police in anyway.

[+sbell111]

Explicit permission being 'right' and 'attainable' may not be the same thing.

If permission is not attainable, then shouldn't that tell us all something? Like maybe the people that own the property don't want that kind of activity there. I'm not saying that that is the case, but the fact is, we don't know. Nobody has ever even bothered to ask.

Objection, Your Honor. Facts not in evidence.

[+sbell111]

I've been painting a bunch of nanos this evening and thinking about this thread. Should I have to ask to hide a nano at a location that I have the legal right to be?

If you are talking about commercial property, you don't have a right to be there. The business owner has invited people onto the property, and can revoke that permission at any time.

Until they revoke that permission, I'm allowed to be there.

I still want an acorn nano, BTW.

Maybe if you start agreeing with me, an acorn would find its way to you.

[+sbell111]

If you don't mind, please explain this further. Do you contact parks to make sure that caching is allowed and find out if they have rules or do you follow up on whether other cachers had gotten permission. I'm not clear from your post.

The Park Outreach Committee contacts parks to make sure that geocaching is allowed. We also find out if they have any rules where caches can be placed or if caches have to be registered with the park system. We also explain why caching is beneficial to them and offer ourselves as contacts if they need to discuss a problem.

 

If they do have rules or a permit system, a link to their webiste is placed on the MiGO site. That way our membership knows what those rules are and knows what parks are friendly toward us. The MiGO leadership has made great strides in opening up land to us that was previously unavailable(these folks were doing it long before I came along).

 

We are not acting like cache police in anyway.

Thanks for making that clear.

[+mikeslomka]

Objection, Your Honor. Facts not in evidence.

 

I'll rephrase, nobody has come forward to state that they asked and were given permission.

 

I haven't even heard about a guy who knew a guy, who dated a girl whose brothers chemistry partners dad asked permission and was granted it.

[+Too Tall John]

I've been painting a bunch of nanos this evening and thinking about this thread. Should I have to ask to hide a nano at a location that I have the legal right to be?

If you are talking about commercial property, you don't have a right to be there. The business owner has invited people onto the property, and can revoke that permission at any time.

Until they revoke that permission, I'm allowed to be there.

Yes, you have permission, but you don't have a legal right.

I still want an acorn nano, BTW.

Maybe if you start agreeing with me, an acorn would find its way to you.

And I thought the answer to everything today is "Pocket Queries"!

I already checked my pocket, no acorn...

[+JimmyEv]

P$ Wally world allows RV'$ to $tay in their parking lot$ for a rea$on. I'll bet a lot of them are geocacher$ and that even non RV cacher$ would have $omthing in common with those RV folk$. I know when I'm thir$ty and $top for a wally world cache I leave with le$$ money and a quenched thir$t.

 

I've noticed those RVers at Walmart. You don't see them in Target's parking lot. There's no sign at Walmart saying that RVers are allowed overnight. Do they each ask Mr. Store Manager if they can camp in the parking lot? Is it just something they assume they can do? Or does Walmart have a blanket policy on the RVers?

 

I wouldn't be afraid of someone asking Walmart Corporate for blanket permission. They're pretty savvy in Bentonville. They can look up the demographics of your average geocacher. Just like they know the demographics of their average RVer. What's funny is that they're almost the same, one's just a little younger on average.

[+TrailGators]

Has Jeff Foxworthy added putting geocaches in a parking lot at Wally World to his routine yet?

[+sbell111]

Objection, Your Honor. Facts not in evidence.

I'll rephrase, nobody has come forward to state that they asked and were given permission.

 

I haven't even heard about a guy who knew a guy, who dated a girl whose brothers chemistry partners dad asked permission and was granted it.

The thing is, very few people have participated in this thread. I don't think anyone who has actually owns a Wal-Mart LPC. On the other hand, there are thousands (or more) active geocachers. Many of which own LPCs but haven't participated in this thread. I have no way of knowing what their permission status is.

[+Too Tall John]

I've noticed those RVers at Walmart. You don't see them in Target's parking lot. There's no sign at Walmart saying that RVers are allowed overnight. Do they each ask Mr. Store Manager if they can camp in the parking lot? Is it just something they assume they can do? Or does Walmart have a blanket policy on the RVers?

Wal-Mart's policies allow RVers to park in their lots overnight. In fact, they actually keep track of the average number of RVs in each store and adjust how big their RV accessory section is accordingly.

I should point out that some Wal-Marts have stopped allowing RVs, but only because local town ordanances require it.

[+sbell111]

I've been painting a bunch of nanos this evening and thinking about this thread. Should I have to ask to hide a nano at a location that I have the legal right to be?

If you are talking about commercial property, you don't have a right to be there. The business owner has invited people onto the property, and can revoke that permission at any time.

Until they revoke that permission, I'm allowed to be there.

Yes, you have permission, but you don't have a legal right.

You may be right. I may be guilty of using sloppy verbiage. Maybe not.

I still want an acorn nano, BTW.

Maybe if you start agreeing with me, an acorn would find its way to you.

And I thought the answer to everything today is "Pocket Queries"!

I already checked my pocket, no acorn...

That kind of sass is not going to make an oaken seed appear.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

The Park Outreach Committee contacts parks to make sure that geocaching is allowed. We also find out if they have any rules where caches can be placed or if caches have to be registered with the park system. We also explain why caching is beneficial to them and offer ourselves as contacts if they need to discuss a problem.

 

If they do have rules or a permit system, a link to their webiste is placed on the MiGO site. That way our membership knows what those rules are and knows what parks are friendly toward us. The MiGO leadership has made great strides in opening up land to us that was previously unavailable(these folks were doing it long before I came along).

 

We are not acting like cache police in anyway.

 

Geocaching is allowed in all parks, except those parks which have chosen to ban it. Some parks may choose to regulate cacihing but most choose not to. There are some park managers that just don't seem to have the spirit of public service that parks are created for. Thankfully those are the exception.

 

My creating an outeach committe you may not be the 'geo police' but there is a lot of potential to create probelems where none exist.

[+Renegade Knight]

One of these days I should do a photo essay of all the assumed permission that goes on in the world and somehow the world still turns.

 

Much of the world turns entirely because the assumed permission is adequate and that lets us go about our lives.

 

People begging for explicit permission where it's not needed are not doing geocaching any favors.

[+Too Tall John]

People begging for explicit permission where it's not needed are not doing geocaching any favors.

...Neither are people who are placing caches where they shouldn't, giving geocachers a bad name among some land owners & Law Enforcement Officers.

 

Which is worse? An extra step to get certain caches placed, or land owners and local LEOs getting fed up?

[+BelKen]

I don't think Wal Mart Parking Lot caches are going to be the ruination of geocaching. What is actually ruining geocaching are people that join clubs, have an agenda, like to form commitees, cannot function without a clear set of rules, believe we need the official word in front of everything etc etc etc. All of this argument over implied consent and assumed consent is being based on hypotheticals, assumptions, suppositions.

 

History so far prove this is wrong. But what if? I hear them say...

 

Give us a break.

 

To all you muggles that find geocaches how do you feel about the cache that is actually inside the wal mart store. Without consent.

 

I salute the geocacher that hid it there and I salute the geocachers that find it and sign the log.

 

Its just not listed on GC.com as will a lot of other caches in the future when all the doom sayers finally surround themselves with enough rules they feel comfortable. Maybe you should find another pastime that suits your absolute need to either be controlled or be in control.

 

You do not have my consent either implied or explicit to do anything on my behalf. Even if you believe it is for my own good.

[Clan Riffster]

What I think is wrong, is placing caches on private property when you don't have permission to do so.

I agree, but because of ethical reasons, not legal ones.

 

If you are talking about commercial property, you don't have a right to be there. The business owner has invited people onto the property, and can revoke that permission at any time.

Their invitation is my right to be there. In legal terms, a right is an action protected by law. In this case, the action would be me, entering a commercial property, at the invitation of the owner. The law is Florida statute, which specifically dictates what is, and by exclusion, what is not, trespassing. So long as the business is freely open to the public, and I remain a member of said public, I have a right to be there. The only way I could lose that right, is if the company targeted me as an individual, and told me I could not be there.

 

I'll rephrase, nobody has come forward to state that they asked and were given permission.

I did.

 

Yes, you have permission, but you don't have a legal right.

This may be a debate over semantics. Perhaps you don't understand what a "right" is, in legal terms. Since they invited me, that gives me the legal right to be there. Yes, they can revoke that right any time they wish, but until they do, my right still stands. In legalese, your statement is a contradiction.

[+Renegade Knight]

People begging for explicit permission where it's not needed are not doing geocaching any favors.

...Neither are people who are placing caches where they shouldn't, giving geocachers a bad name among some land owners & Law Enforcement Officers.

 

Which is worse? An extra step to get certain caches placed, or land owners and local LEOs getting fed up?

You would think that's a simple question. It's not. You can either trust cachers to learn and grow as those with good experience guide them, or you can make yet more rules and still have to guide them.

 

There are cache placements that flat out suck even with notarized permission from the owner. There are people who would rant and rave if you accidentally stepped off the sidewalk into the Devil Strip in front of their house even if you stepped on a rattlesnake that was about to bite them..

 

We know we can work at guiding folks to good placements locally. Can we guide people who should just shut the heck up away from harming access to some lands as well? I see that as just as complex of an issue.

 

If we are going to require extra effort on certain types of caches, then perhaps we should make sure those who would claim to represent geocaching as a whole in their area are competent to the job.

 

What I really don’t like is that this discussion is really about moving responsibility from the cache owner to others. Who will the others be?

 

Edit: There is a lot of irony in that last sentance.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

P$ Wally world allows RV'$ to $tay in their parking lot$ for a rea$on. I'll bet a lot of them are geocacher$ and that even non RV cacher$ would have $omthing in common with those RV folk$. I know when I'm thir$ty and $top for a wally world cache I leave with le$$ money and a quenched thir$t.

 

I've noticed those RVers at Walmart. You don't see them in Target's parking lot. There's no sign at Walmart saying that RVers are allowed overnight. Do they each ask Mr. Store Manager if they can camp in the parking lot? Is it just something they assume they can do? Or does Walmart have a blanket policy on the RVers?

 

I wouldn't be afraid of someone asking Walmart Corporate for blanket permission. They're pretty savvy in Bentonville. They can look up the demographics of your average geocacher. Just like they know the demographics of their average RVer. What's funny is that they're almost the same, one's just a little younger on average.

Yes, Wal-Mart corporate extends an open invite to self-contained RVs, with certain restrictions, at some of it's locations. All you have to do is ask the manager.

 

As far as asking for blanket permission, I would have no objection to the proposal if I believed it needed to be done, which I don't.

 

Even if it does, I objected to the proposer. The only one that I have seen state that he intends to do this is, in my opinion, no way prepared or qualified, and carries a huge chip on his shoulder. I just don't think someone who has said the things he has said in these threads is the candidate for the job.

[+mikeslomka]

You would think that's a simple question. It's not. You can either trust cachers to learn and grow as those with good experience guide them, or you can make yet more rules and still have to guide them.

 

Well there's the problem, isn't it. Obviously certain cachers can't be trusted. If they could, then we wouldn't be hearing about caches placed on private property causing a large scale investigation.

 

Also, I really don't see any guidance going on in these forums. All I see is bickering and childish back and forths. Now, I come to realize that I am part of that childish arguing, because I continue to participate.

 

There are people on these forums that will fight over how to unwrap a birthday present. And I believe that they would argue just to be arguing and stirring the pot. So from now on, I won't be part of these discussions. In fact, I'm going to avoid these forums unless I really need a question answered that I can not find ANYWHERE else. Shouldn't be hard to do that, considering I've never actually seen a question answered here, just arguement and ridicule.

 

Out.

[Mushtang]

You would think that's a simple question. It's not. You can either trust cachers to learn and grow as those with good experience guide them, or you can make yet more rules and still have to guide them.

 

Well there's the problem, isn't it. Obviously certain cachers can't be trusted. If they could, then we wouldn't be hearing about caches placed on private property causing a large scale investigation.

 

Also, I really don't see any guidance going on in these forums. All I see is bickering and childish back and forths. Now, I come to realize that I am part of that childish arguing, because I continue to participate.

You can be childish by staying and participating, or you can be childish by pouting and leaving in a huff. Either way.

 

There are people on these forums that will fight over how to unwrap a birthday present. And I believe that they would argue just to be arguing and stirring the pot. So from now on, I won't be part of these discussions. In fact, I'm going to avoid these forums unless I really need a question answered that I can not find ANYWHERE else. Shouldn't be hard to do that, considering I've never actually seen a question answered here, just arguement and ridicule.

Ridicule doesn't seem to be limited to those of us that stay.

 

Out.

You'll be back.

[+sbell111]

You would think that's a simple question. It's not. You can either trust cachers to learn and grow as those with good experience guide them, or you can make yet more rules and still have to guide them.

Well there's the problem, isn't it. Obviously certain cachers can't be trusted. If they could, then we wouldn't be hearing about caches placed on private property causing a large scale investigation.

Well, cachers are just a sampling of the population, aren't they? Personally, I think that cachers, by and large, are very responsible. I suppose that a cynic would take the stand that no one can be trusted and that we need to follow up behind everyone, but I don't. If I approach a cache location and don't feel that I should be there, I leave and shoot an email to the cache owner to verify that I was in the right place and that it was OK for me to be there.

Also, I really don't see any guidance going on in these forums. All I see is bickering and childish back and forths. Now, I come to realize that I am part of that childish arguing, because I continue to participate.

A lot of good questions get answered in the forums. Many of us try to take time away from the angsty threads to read newbie threads to help solve their problems. I also take time to argue over the angsty ones. I think that it's important that these debates happen and I feel that they help people who are on the fence.

There are people on these forums that will fight over how to unwrap a birthday present. And I believe that they would argue just to be arguing and stirring the pot. So from now on, I won't be part of these discussions. In fact, I'm going to avoid these forums unless I really need a question answered that I can not find ANYWHERE else. Shouldn't be hard to do that, considering I've never actually seen a question answered here, just arguement and ridicule.

 

Out.

To me, the forums are the social part of the game. I know cachers that I would follow anywhere based solely on our conversations in the forums.

 

BTW, birthday presents should always be ripped open with wild abandon. Those people that carefully remove each piece of tape and fold the paper for reuse are twisted.

Edited March 15, 2007 by sbell111

[+tozainamboku]

There are people on these forums that will fight over how to unwrap a birthday present. And I believe that they would argue just to be arguing and stirring the pot. So from now on, I won't be part of these discussions. In fact, I'm going to avoid these forums unless I really need a question answered that I can not find ANYWHERE else. Shouldn't be hard to do that, considering I've never actually seen a question answered here, just arguement and ridicule.

 

Out.

I'm sorry you feel this way. There are clearly two camps here. One feel that parking lots at big box stores require some kind of explicit permission and the other side that feels that since you are allowed in the parking lot and since the store hasn't specifically stated that you can't be geocaching while there you don't need explicit permission. In some cases who is right might be determined by specific property rights laws which vary from locality to locality.

 

My original post was actually addressing what are the potential problems placing a cache in the parking lot of a store (possibly without permission) might cause. It seems that one side sees a big powerful corporation getting ticked off at finding out about geocaching and making such a big stink about it that geocaching.com is shut down and every city in the country passes "Protection of Private Property" laws that explicitly ban geocaching in parking lots. The other side sees the worse that can happen is that the big powerful corporation would decide to finally announce a geocaching policy (probably meant to limit their liability in case of a geocacher getting hurt while on their property). The policy may be to ban geocaches from their parking lots. They would likely inform Geocaching.com about their policy directly. Geocaching.com would archive any caches that are on these properties. The guideline may be change to require explicit permission for and parking lot hide. The cache owners would either be asked to remove their caches (if that's what Wal*Mart wants) or Wal*Mart could give an associate a GPSr and let them find and remove the cache. The publicity would probably get lots of new geocachers. Wal*Mart - while not allowing caches in their parking lots - would probably advertise on geocaching.com as the store to buy your caching supplies.

[+Renegade Knight]

You would think that's a simple question. It's not. You can either trust cachers to learn and grow as those with good experience guide them, or you can make yet more rules and still have to guide them.

 

Well there's the problem, isn't it. Obviously certain cachers can't be trusted. If they could, then we wouldn't be hearing about caches placed on private property causing a large scale investigation.

 

Also, I really don't see any guidance going on in these forums. All I see is bickering and childish back and forths. Now, I come to realize that I am part of that childish arguing, because I continue to participate. ...

 

Guidance is local. I can't show you how to place a cache in the forum. I can set an example locally. I can go out with others and when I come across a retaining wall caches say "man I hate these things, nobody can put the bricks back so it looks right, they shouldn't put caches here, the last thing we need is the maintenance person to come along and say "what the hell happned here!"". it's pretty effective done that way.

 

As for trust, that's a double edged sword. I don't trust everone who's talking to parks deparments to not cause more harm than good. However I do trust that most all cachers who place a cache are just trying to have fun and not meaning any harm. Of course neither is the person talking to the parks.

 

Balance. It's not such an easy thing to achieve. Oh and this is a forum. We are supposed to debate...er bicker.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Out.

You'll be back.

He dang well better be back. Decisions are made by those who show up. If you don't show up, you don't get a say. Democracy is the worst form of goverment ever made. Except for all the others. Stolen from Winston Churchill. He showed up when he was needed. This ain't WWII but it is what we do.

[Clan Riffster]

Just for the record, The U.S. is not, and has never been, a Democracy. Welcome to the Republic.

[Mushtang]

Just for the record, The U.S. is not, and has never been, a Democracy. Welcome to the Republic.

A fact that a lot of Democrats forget while they're crying, "Al Gore really won - boo hoo".

[+TrailGators]

Just for the record, The U.S. is not, and has never been, a Democracy. Welcome to the Republic.

A fact that a lot of Democrats forget while they're crying, "Al Gore really won - boo hoo".

Are they still whining about that?

[+Renegade Knight]

How would all of you like to see a national broadcast about geocaching on 20/20 or some show like that? I bet it will happen someday. Would there be any kind of caches or caching behavior that you would prefer not to shown on national TV?

 

The press can spin any cache and any behavior any way they choose and still be 100% factual. The attidude the press brings to the table will slant the story before it's ever told. Our real work is to slant the attitude before it's an issue. That work is different than singling out which kind of cache is going to be the poster child for the black sheep of the family.

 

When the story comes:

 

It can be caches hidden without permission encouraging tresspassing.

 

or it can be

 

A fun friendly family activity that takes place all around us encouraging people to get out more and helping out the local business economy in the process.