Obtaining Permission for Placement on a Commercial Property

[+Team GeoBlast]

....That's a legit question and I agree with you, asking for explicit permission from a responsible party should be something that is second nature to any cacher who is considering putting a cache on the property of a Big Box retailer or a WalMart store....

 

That is where we don't agree. Adequate permssion is enough. Explicit may be too much, may not be needed or may not be available to be had. While adequate permmsion may be had.

 

Since we are on the topic.

 

Define Explicit Permission. This is a challenge to everone who says that's what we need. I doubt everone will agree on what exactly it is, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

My own definition of explicit permission is permission in writing from somenoe legally authorised to give said permission. Said permission would include a description of the property allowing the cache. It would also contain any restrictions. You could walk into court with your explicit permission and a Judge and Jury would agree that you had Explicit Permision for the cache in question.

 

Okay as long as you will define adaquate

 

Explicit permission to me is obtained by asking either the owner or the person directly responsible for the property that permission is being requested from. In other words, if anyone would ever be challenged for placing it or seeking it, this person's permission would be enough to get you off the hook. So, a the checker at the express lane isn't going to qualify as explicit.

 

As far as putting something in writing, I've reaccessed my feelings on this issue because that was originally the holy grail for me. Many have rightly pointed out that a written request could be enough to scare someone off that otherwise might be okay with it. What I do plan on putting in writing (if I am successful) is a thank-you letter addressed specifically to the person that granted permission to me. The letter will include the date permission was granted, any understanding of restrictions placed on the cache, my contact information and so on.

 

Of course, it will be a sincere thank-you but I also intend to produce this letter if requested to prove permission or in the event that a cacher is confronted by a store employee, security, the police or whoever.

Edited March 25, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+Renegade Knight]

...Okay as long as you will define adaquate ...

 

Fair enough.

 

No permission. The owner has stated their desire in a way that prohibits caching.

exampel. "No Trespassing"

 

Presumed permissoin. Permission is presumed based on the ongoing and allowed access of the land by the public for recrational and casual use.

Parks, Open Space, Lands open for public use (like a vacant field) etc. If you presume correctly presumed permission is minimal.

 

Minimal Permission. All the permission you need and nothing more.

Parks with permits. Verbal, Handshake, You know the person, No permission needed, blanket permisson policy.

 

Adequate. At least the minimum amount of permission needed.

A nice way to say "Anywhere from minimal to explicit."

 

Explicit: Permissoin to a legally defensable level.

The ony way to tell this is to test it. In court.

 

A lot of these overlap.

Edited March 25, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+Team GeoBlast]

...Okay as long as you will define adaquate ...

 

Fair enough.

 

No permission. The owner has stated their desire in a way that prohibits caching.

exampel. "No Trespassing"

 

Presumed permissoin. Permission is presumed based on the ongoing and allowed access of the land by the public for recrational and casual use.

Parks, Open Space, Lands open for public use (like a vacant field) etc. If you presume correctly presumed permission is minimal.

 

Minimal Permission. All the permission you need and nothing more.

Parks with permits. Verbal, Handshake, You know the person, No permission needed, blanket permisson policy.

 

Adequate. At least the minimum amount of permission needed.

A nice way to say "Anywhere from minimal to explicit."

 

Explicit: Permissoin to a legally defensable level.

The ony way to tell this is to test it. In court.

 

A lot of these overlap.

 

Well done. You mind if I reprint this?

[+Renegade Knight]

....Well done. You mind if I reprint this?

Sure go ahead. Fix the typo's though.

[+Vanillahip]

Another angle not mentioned here is that Walmart is well known in the RV arena as a place that RV-ers and truckers can stop for a quick overnight rest in the parking lot. The gist of the RV message boards was basically that each Walmart store managaer has the flexibility granted to either allow overnight parking or not. Some stores that are in cities with ordinances forbidding overnight parking have signs in the lot saying so.

 

I guess my point is that there is a precedence of sorts that shows me that there is flexibility at each location to decide stuff like this, and I would be surprised if Walmart ever bothered to produce a blanket policy.

[Clan Riffster]

Define Explicit Permission.

From the Riffster Dictionary:

Explicit permission equals the granting of a privilege from a person in authority. In the case of a Wally World, that would be the Store Manager. This permission would prevent any prosecution in a court of law, since the only laws which might possibly be stretched to cover geocaching are trespassing, criminal mischief, loitering and littering. (I told you it was a stretch) These laws, like most of the laws in our country, hinge upon intent. If the state cannot prove you intended to commit these various atrocities, you cannot be convicted for them. A person of authority granting permission for the activities in question would trump any intent argument the state could make.

Okay as long as you will define adequate

Another excerpt:

Adequate = sufficient. As cachers, it's usually up to us to determine what is sufficient. In those areas where Groundspeak has recognized a potential problem, they define sufficient as explicit. Locally, these areas include SJRWMD properties, Florida state parks, etc. Hopefully the day will come when commercial properties are added to that list.

 

Your dictionary may differ.

[+Too Tall John]

That walmart selling a GPS angle is a good one. I do stop by the GPS rack on occasion and am normally dispointed at what I see.

 

I doubt geocachers outnumber hunters but any geocaching GPS does the job for hunting. The Department Manager could probably be sold on geocaching and that's an in for higher approval power.

 

Oh, a demo unit loaded with a cache waypoint leading to a cache in the parking lot so people could help sell GPSs. People stealing the demo unit being the main probelm to solve.

 

Well, I have to agree with this post. I've been extremely disappointed with the GPS selevction at my local Wal-Mart as they don't carry them! The Sporting Goods Department Manager could be a big proponent for geocaching, I think back to my time at Wal-Mart. The Sporting Goods Dept Mgr was approached about playing paintball. He got really excited, ended up getting a bunch of people hooked (including me) and sold a whole lot of gear, which caused the Home Office to increase the selection in that store. One more person telling the store manager that geocaching is good sure can't hurt...

 

...Okay as long as you will define adaquate ...

 

Fair enough.

 

No permission. The owner has stated their desire in a way that prohibits caching.

exampel. "No Trespassing"

 

Presumed permissoin. Permission is presumed based on the ongoing and allowed access of the land by the public for recrational and casual use.

Parks, Open Space, Lands open for public use (like a vacant field) etc. If you presume correctly presumed permission is minimal.

 

Minimal Permission. All the permission you need and nothing more.

Parks with permits. Verbal, Handshake, You know the person, No permission needed, blanket permisson policy.

 

Adequate. At least the minimum amount of permission needed.

A nice way to say "Anywhere from minimal to explicit."

 

Explicit: Permissoin to a legally defensable level.

The ony way to tell this is to test it. In court.

 

A lot of these overlap.

 

Good definitions overall, I highlighted a couple parts that worry me:

Lands open for public use (like a vacant field)

A vacant field is not necessarily open to public use. Also, some may interpret "open to public use" differently than others. The example that has been brought up (mainly because it's the location this debate started around) is the parking lot. It is private property that the store has invited the public to park in so that they may shop in the store.

No permission needed

Under what circumstance would no permission be needed? This sounds like a big loophole to me...

[+Too Tall John]

Explicit permission to me is obtained by asking either the owner or the person directly responsible for the property that permission is being requested from. In other words, if anyone would ever be challenged for placing it or seeking it, this person's permission would be enough to get you off the hook. So, a the checker at the express lane isn't going to qualify as explicit.

 

From the Riffster Dictionary:

Explicit permission equals the granting of a privilege from a person in authority. In the case of a Wally World, that would be the Store Manager. This permission would prevent any prosecution in a court of law, since the only laws which might possibly be stretched to cover geocaching are trespassing, criminal mischief, loitering and littering. (I told you it was a stretch) These laws, like most of the laws in our country, hinge upon intent. If the state cannot prove you intended to commit these various atrocities, you cannot be convicted for them. A person of authority granting permission for the activities in question would trump any intent argument the state could make.

If I were a cacher who got arrested for trespassing because you didn't have "explicit" permission, I sure wouldn't think that it was adequate!

[+sbell111]

Won't we all get a chuckle if the manager says, 'Why should I care? I don't even know why you're asking.'

Frankly, I'd be less surprised if the manager took off his mask, "Mission Impossible" style, to reveal his true identity is Jeremy Irish.

 

Comments like this are an attempt to try to minimize the very real concerns about CPCs placed without permission. You accuse TGB of being holier than thou, I suggest your attitude of "There's no way in heck you are right" is a far worse attitude to have. At least TGB has admitted that there is a possibility that Wal-Mart will have no problem with a geocache; in fact, he's banking on it with the work he's doing for this cache placement. He's willing to admit he may be wrong. You are not. Who's being holier than thou now?

Settle down, Roscoe. Did you not see the little laughing smiley at the end of my post?

[+sbell111]

... If Wal-Mart bans geocaching, I won't miss the LPCs in their lots, but they won't do it quietly. When the landowner down the street gets approached for permission afterwards, they'll remember hearing about geocaching getting banned in the news, and if they don't think twice about giving that cacher permission it's because they say "NO!"

I suspect that you are wrong. As explained in a number of posts in threads that you have participated in over the last few weeks, I suspect that if WalMart banned these types of hides that one of WalMart's competitors might embrace the opportunity to allow them, thereby getting a bit of goodwill and getting geocachers to shop in it's stores.

... Because this particular topic has been batted around almost every day for months in these forums -and not- one person has stepped up and said they have actually obtained explicit permission from a national chain, we are making the logical assumption that there's a reasonable percentage of cachers that skip this requirement and just check the box. Part of the exercise is to try to understand why that might be and we're getting a pretty good handle on that. ...

I believe that your logic is faulty. First, a number of examples of LPCs/CPCs being placed with permission have been shown. You ignore these because they were at regional chains, rather than national ones. I rather doubt that the decision process of the store managers vary greatly when the chain opens a store in the 50th state.

 

Further, you make the assumption that just because the dozen or so active posters in these threads haven't given you an example of explicit permission being received that it hasn't happened. It is much more likely that these active forum posters simply don't own any caches at WalMarts. This is made more likely as many people (like me) have chimed in to state that no WalMarts in their areas have LPCs/CPCs.

[CoyoteRed]

....That's a legit question and I agree with you, asking for explicit permission from a responsible party should be something that is second nature to any cacher who is considering putting a cache on the property of a Big Box retailer or a WalMart store....

That is where we don't agree. Adequate permssion is enough. Explicit may be too much, may not be needed or may not be available to be had. While adequate permmsion may be had.

I'm not sure I completely agree here.

 

Asking for explicit permission when you feel is warranted is not something I would discourage. Not getting a "yes" to the request doesn't mean you can't place a cache while getting a "no" does.

 

I've had answers to queries be "well, I'm not saying 'no' and the property does allow certain recreational activities, but the legal department says I can't give you permission." Quite simply, a "wink, wink" type of permission is just as valid as written and explicit.

 

In situations like this, I don't think it hurts to ask. At least you give yourself a chance of getting the "no" that will keep you or another cacher out of trouble.

[CoyoteRed]

I suspect that you are wrong. As explained in a number of posts in threads that you have participated in over the last few weeks, I suspect that if WalMart banned these types of hides that one of WalMart's competitors might embrace the opportunity to allow them, thereby getting a bit of goodwill and getting geocachers to shop in it's stores.

It depends on how the knowledge of the other store's prohibition gets to the target store.

 

Another thought they may have is just why would another store run these folks off? Are they that bad? Is there something I don't know? Why should I have to deal with them? If they are simply going from store to store, how do I get them to come inside? Otherwise, why should I encourage them taking up parking spaces from legitimate paying customers? How would my customers view these participants? Will their actions cause concern to my customers?

 

Those seem to be legitimate concerns a business owner would need to consider before proceeding.

[+sbell111]

I suspect that you are wrong. As explained in a number of posts in threads that you have participated in over the last few weeks, I suspect that if WalMart banned these types of hides that one of WalMart's competitors might embrace the opportunity to allow them, thereby getting a bit of goodwill and getting geocachers to shop in it's stores.

It depends on how the knowledge of the other store's prohibition gets to the target store.

 

Another thought they may have is just why would another store run these folks off? Are they that bad? Is there something I don't know? Why should I have to deal with them? If they are simply going from store to store, how do I get them to come inside? Otherwise, why should I encourage them taking up parking spaces from legitimate paying customers? How would my customers view these participants? Will their actions cause concern to my customers?

 

Those seem to be legitimate concerns a business owner would need to consider before proceeding.

You certainly have good points. Most of them were addressed in the other thread, so since they are off-topic to this one, I won't go through the list.

[+Mudfrog]

I suspect that you are wrong. As explained in a number of posts in threads that you have participated in over the last few weeks, I suspect that if WalMart banned these types of hides that one of WalMart's competitors might embrace the opportunity to allow them, thereby getting a bit of goodwill and getting geocachers to shop in it's stores.

It depends on how the knowledge of the other store's prohibition gets to the target store.

 

Another thought they may have is just why would another store run these folks off? Are they that bad? Is there something I don't know? Why should I have to deal with them? If they are simply going from store to store, how do I get them to come inside? Otherwise, why should I encourage them taking up parking spaces from legitimate paying customers? How would my customers view these participants? Will their actions cause concern to my customers?

 

Those seem to be legitimate concerns a business owner would need to consider before proceeding.

 

Allthough i had no intentions of hiding an LPC when i asked for permission, i did tell the store manager about that type of hide. He quickly told me that he would NOT want to see this done on the property as he didn't think it was a good idea for anyone to be messing with them. He also told me that it could cause some concern for regular customers.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I suspect that you are wrong. As explained in a number of posts in threads that you have participated in over the last few weeks, I suspect that if WalMart banned these types of hides that one of WalMart's competitors might embrace the opportunity to allow them, thereby getting a bit of goodwill and getting geocachers to shop in it's stores.

It depends on how the knowledge of the other store's prohibition gets to the target store.

 

Another thought they may have is just why would another store run these folks off? Are they that bad? Is there something I don't know? Why should I have to deal with them? If they are simply going from store to store, how do I get them to come inside? Otherwise, why should I encourage them taking up parking spaces from legitimate paying customers? How would my customers view these participants? Will their actions cause concern to my customers?

 

Those seem to be legitimate concerns a business owner would need to consider before proceeding.

Totally agree.

 

I think "If Wal-Mart, with all their savvy and fleet of lawyers don't want this, why the heck should I? No way!"

 

Their competitors may not like to compete with Wal-Mart, but they sure don't think they're stupid!

 

Further, "It will bring customers" is a mostly untrue. I have done hundreds of CPCs and never spent a dime with any vendor, unless I needed to shop there anyway, in which case getting the CPC becomes a factor of my going there to shop, not the reverse.

 

If I enter the store when hunting a Wal-Mart cache it's because I happen to need batteries or something, not beacuse there is a cache there.

[+Renegade Knight]

....A vacant field is not necessarily open to public use. Also, some may interpret "open to public use" differently than others. The example that has been brought up (mainly because it's the location this debate started around) is the parking lot. It is private property that the store has invited the public to park in so that they may shop in the store.

No permission needed

Under what circumstance would no permission be needed? This sounds like a big loophole to me...

 

When I think of a vacant field I'm thinking of the places that kids have a knack for finding. They build forts, play baseball, tag, hide and seek... They exist all over most towns and while there are seldom signs saying "come on in the waters fine". However they have been used so long for recreation that it's a valid use. You can make a legal case that it's a valid use even if the owner comes along and says "No" under adverse posession laws. I'm not saying geocaching should make this case but I am saying that geocaching is not the exception to the use and fits with the other activities that for all intents and purposes have a prescriptive easement. (Canal companies seldom have actual permission or an actual easement but they do claim that because they have been there they have the right to be there...). The only cases I've heard where adverse posession has been taken to court are access points. For example from the road to the beach. The road is public, the beach is public the trail was private but used for access for the last 100 years. Vacant fields by their nature are open for casual public use. Else they would be posted. The simple fact that we post "No Trespassing" instead of posting "Access Permitted" means that permission for reasonable access is presumed unless posted otherwise. Not vice versa.

 

Reasonable access and casual use does not mean dumping your lawn clippings, rocks, and trash on the lot. That's just ignorant.

 

No permission needed means just that. You do not need to go out of your way to obtain permission. The BLM has granted blanket permission by saying "Geocaching is an acceptable casual use". Casual use is important. Most other parks are created specificly for casual recreational use. They care that people enjoy the park, they don't care so much how they do it as long as people are not interfereing with other peoples enjoyment of the park. Geocaching doesn't.

 

I have lost my frisbee in the park. It never even occured to me to ask pemission to leave it hidden in the frisbee eating weeds. I figured in time someone else would find it and take it home. Geocaching is similar in that the container is not a permanent fixture. It's going to be going home someday.

[+Renegade Knight]

...If I were a cacher who got arrested for trespassing because you didn't have "explicit" permission, I sure wouldn't think that it was adequate!

 

There's another catch 22. Explicit permission to hide a cache does not directly correlate into explicit permission to seek the cache. We can come along later and both be arrested for trespassing and loitering.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Further, you make the assumption that just because the dozen or so active posters in these threads haven't given you an example of explicit permission being received that it hasn't happened. It is much more likely that these active forum posters simply don't own any caches at WalMarts. This is made more likely as many people (like me) have chimed in to state that no WalMarts in their areas have LPCs/CPCs.

 

Two examples that qualify. My Zoo Cache and my Travel Bug Hotel. The Zoo helped me install the cache. The TB Hotel I probably could not get back if I wanted it. I think the volunteers who keep it like the interaction they get with cachers.

[Clan Riffster]

If I were a cacher who got arrested for trespassing because you didn't have "explicit" permission, I sure wouldn't think that it was adequate!

You could get arrested, you could get beat up by midget ninjas, you could even get hit on the head by an errant chunk of Skylab. Your opinion of adequate! is mostly irrelevant up to that point. What you could not do, however, is be convicted for doing what you had permission to do.

[+sbell111]

... Further, "It will bring customers" is a mostly untrue. I have done hundreds of CPCs and never spent a dime with any vendor, unless I needed to shop there anyway, in which case getting the CPC becomes a factor of my going there to shop, not the reverse.

 

If I enter the store when hunting a Wal-Mart cache it's because I happen to need batteries or something, not beacuse there is a cache there.

Of course, you are not going to shop unless you need something, but if you happen to need batteries, a pair of pants (because you damaged yours on the last cache, a soda, food, a case of water, band-aids, bug juice, film, an apology card for your wife, or anything else, you'll go into the store if you make it as far as the parking lot.

 

Further, if Wal-Mart came out against geocaching and Target embraced the game, I suspect that I'm not the only cacher who will choose Target over Wal-Mart, even when not geocaching.

[+Trucker Lee]

When asking permission from a chain manager, keep in mind it may not completely be theirs to give. So......

 

I suggest making the request printed. Keep it neat, clean, and concise.

 

Remember, whomever may be reading your submission may not be a cacher, or know anything of caching, so include a short summary of caching for them.

 

Be sure to include the points Renegade Knight pointed out in #5 of this thread, I won't quote directly for brevity's sake. When making it easy for them to say yes, point out what caching could do for thier establishment, such as bringing out of town trade to their door, and most cacher's committment to CITO.

 

Scout, or point out, the possible sites with management if possible, or state suggested sites in your letter, with reasons they would work well.

[+sbell111]

If I were a cacher who got arrested for trespassing because you didn't have "explicit" permission, I sure wouldn't think that it was adequate!

You could get arrested, you could get beat up by midget ninjas, you could even get hit on the head by an errant chunk of Skylab. Your opinion of adequate! is mostly irrelevant up to that point. What you could not do, however, is be convicted for doing what you had permission to do.

I can pretty much guarantee that I'm not going to get hit in the head by a chunk of Skylab, since it bonked a cow in the head nearly twenty years ago.

[+sbell111]

When asking permission from a chain manager, keep in mind it may not completely be theirs to give. So......

 

I suggest making the request printed. Keep it neat, clean, and concise.

 

Remember, whomever may be reading your submission may not be a cacher, or know anything of caching, so include a short summary of caching for them.

 

Be sure to include the points Renegade Knight pointed out in #5 of this thread, I won't quote directly for brevity's sake. When making it easy for them to say yes, point out what caching could do for thier establishment, such as bringing out of town trade to their door, and most cacher's committment to CITO.

 

Scout, or point out, the possible sites with management if possible, or state suggested sites in your letter, with reasons they would work well.

On the other hand, I recommend a nice, informal chat. I want to give him an opportunity to say 'yes' without thinking of what a piece of paper is going to do to his career.

[+Too Tall John]

....A vacant field is not necessarily open to public use. Also, some may interpret "open to public use" differently than others. The example that has been brought up (mainly because it's the location this debate started around) is the parking lot. It is private property that the store has invited the public to park in so that they may shop in the store.

No permission needed

Under what circumstance would no permission be needed? This sounds like a big loophole to me...

 

When I think of a vacant field I'm thinking of the places that kids have a knack for finding. They build forts, play baseball, tag, hide and seek... They exist all over most towns and while there are seldom signs saying "come on in the waters fine". However they have been used so long for recreation that it's a valid use. You can make a legal case that it's a valid use even if the owner comes along and says "No" under adverse posession laws. I'm not saying geocaching should make this case but I am saying that geocaching is not the exception to the use and fits with the other activities that for all intents and purposes have a prescriptive easement. (Canal companies seldom have actual permission or an actual easement but they do claim that because they have been there they have the right to be there...). The only cases I've heard where adverse posession has been taken to court are access points. For example from the road to the beach. The road is public, the beach is public the trail was private but used for access for the last 100 years. Vacant fields by their nature are open for casual public use. Else they would be posted. The simple fact that we post "No Trespassing" instead of posting "Access Permitted" means that permission for reasonable access is presumed unless posted otherwise. Not vice versa.

 

Reasonable access and casual use does not mean dumping your lawn clippings, rocks, and trash on the lot. That's just ignorant.

 

No permission needed means just that. You do not need to go out of your way to obtain permission. The BLM has granted blanket permission by saying "Geocaching is an acceptable casual use". Casual use is important. Most other parks are created specificly for casual recreational use. They care that people enjoy the park, they don't care so much how they do it as long as people are not interfereing with other peoples enjoyment of the park. Geocaching doesn't.

 

I have lost my frisbee in the park. It never even occured to me to ask pemission to leave it hidden in the frisbee eating weeds. I figured in time someone else would find it and take it home. Geocaching is similar in that the container is not a permanent fixture. It's going to be going home someday.

Thanks for clarifying. Some have said things very similar to this, but meant something completely different.

[+Too Tall John]

I suspect that you are wrong. As explained in a number of posts in threads that you have participated in over the last few weeks, I suspect that if WalMart banned these types of hides that one of WalMart's competitors might embrace the opportunity to allow them, thereby getting a bit of goodwill and getting geocachers to shop in it's stores.

It depends on how the knowledge of the other store's prohibition gets to the target store.

 

Another thought they may have is just why would another store run these folks off? Are they that bad? Is there something I don't know? Why should I have to deal with them? If they are simply going from store to store, how do I get them to come inside? Otherwise, why should I encourage them taking up parking spaces from legitimate paying customers? How would my customers view these participants? Will their actions cause concern to my customers?

 

Those seem to be legitimate concerns a business owner would need to consider before proceeding.

You certainly have good points. Most of them were addressed in the other thread, so since they are off-topic to this one, I won't go through the list.

CR and TAR have good points, but I wasn't talking about Wal-Mart's competitors, I was talking about the little guy down the road who owns a parcel of undeveloped land (there's still spots like that around here!) who isn't trying to stick it to Wal-Mart, he just heard on the evening news that Wal-Mart banned this thing called geo-something. He forgot the story until you came to his door and said the word geocaching, then the red flags go up. That's the danger I'm talking about.

[+Too Tall John]

If I were a cacher who got arrested for trespassing because you didn't have "explicit" permission, I sure wouldn't think that it was adequate!

You could get arrested, you could get beat up by midget ninjas, you could even get hit on the head by an errant chunk of Skylab. Your opinion of adequate! is mostly irrelevant up to that point. What you could not do, however, is be convicted for doing what you had permission to do.

You see, here's where you are wrong: I keep my Official Skylab Collision Warning Meter (OSCo WaM) charged and with me at all times and I'm an Honorary Midget Ninja (honorary only because I'm... well, I'm Too Tall!) so the odds of anything but getting arrested are next to nil.

As far as being arrested and convicted goes, you are right, you won't be convicted by doing what you had permission to do. Your definition of explicit permission stated that explicit permission was what was needed to keep cachers from getting in trouble. My point was directed at those who have said that explicit permission isn't necessary to have adequate permission. From the point of view of the cacher sitting in the back of the cruiser, the cache owner didn't have adequate permission enough to keep him from being detained.

I guess I believe that the only way to measure if you have an adequate amount of anything is to ask if you have enough for when things turn bad. For my job I have a commercial boater's licence. When I take the boat out, I have to know, do I have an adequate number of life jackets on board? I have never been in a situation where anyone needed a PFD, but if I was in such a situation, I couldn't say "Sorry folks, I never needed a life jacket before, so I just left them behind! But the extra room meant we could fit more people on, isn't that great?" I have to be sure there are an adequate number of PFDs on board. That's how I define adequate.

[Clan Riffster]

I keep my Official Skylab Collision Warning Meter (OSCo WaM) charged and with me at all times

I want one!

Seriously, I'll take off my Devil's Advocate hat for a minute and stress that I believe all CPC's should have explicit permission.

[+sbell111]

I suspect that you are wrong. As explained in a number of posts in threads that you have participated in over the last few weeks, I suspect that if WalMart banned these types of hides that one of WalMart's competitors might embrace the opportunity to allow them, thereby getting a bit of goodwill and getting geocachers to shop in it's stores.

It depends on how the knowledge of the other store's prohibition gets to the target store.

 

Another thought they may have is just why would another store run these folks off? Are they that bad? Is there something I don't know? Why should I have to deal with them? If they are simply going from store to store, how do I get them to come inside? Otherwise, why should I encourage them taking up parking spaces from legitimate paying customers? How would my customers view these participants? Will their actions cause concern to my customers?

 

Those seem to be legitimate concerns a business owner would need to consider before proceeding.

You certainly have good points. Most of them were addressed in the other thread, so since they are off-topic to this one, I won't go through the list.

CR and TAR have good points, but I wasn't talking about Wal-Mart's competitors, I was talking about the little guy down the road who owns a parcel of undeveloped land (there's still spots like that around here!) who isn't trying to stick it to Wal-Mart, he just heard on the evening news that Wal-Mart banned this thing called geo-something. He forgot the story until you came to his door and said the word geocaching, then the red flags go up. That's the danger I'm talking about.

Let me respond this way:

 

Do you remember all the news stories that sprang up when Disney banned caching? You don't, because there wasn't any.

[+sbell111]

... For my job I have a commercial boater's licence. When I take the boat out, I have to know, do I have an adequate number of life jackets on board? I have never been in a situation where anyone needed a PFD, but if I was in such a situation, I couldn't say "Sorry folks, I never needed a life jacket before, so I just left them behind! But the extra room meant we could fit more people on, isn't that great?" I have to be sure there are an adequate number of PFDs on board. That's how I define adequate.

Of course, the number of PFDs is mandated by law. That is quite different than the topic at hand.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I suspect that you are wrong. As explained in a number of posts in threads that you have participated in over the last few weeks, I suspect that if WalMart banned these types of hides that one of WalMart's competitors might embrace the opportunity to allow them, thereby getting a bit of goodwill and getting geocachers to shop in it's stores.

It depends on how the knowledge of the other store's prohibition gets to the target store.

 

Another thought they may have is just why would another store run these folks off? Are they that bad? Is there something I don't know? Why should I have to deal with them? If they are simply going from store to store, how do I get them to come inside? Otherwise, why should I encourage them taking up parking spaces from legitimate paying customers? How would my customers view these participants? Will their actions cause concern to my customers?

 

Those seem to be legitimate concerns a business owner would need to consider before proceeding.

Totally agree.

 

I think "If Wal-Mart, with all their savvy and fleet of lawyers don't want this, why the heck should I? No way!"

 

Their competitors may not like to compete with Wal-Mart, but they sure don't think they're stupid!

 

Further, "It will bring customers" is a mostly untrue. I have done hundreds of CPCs and never spent a dime with any vendor, unless I needed to shop there anyway, in which case getting the CPC becomes a factor of my going there to shop, not the reverse.

 

If I enter the store when hunting a Wal-Mart cache it's because I happen to need batteries or something, not beacuse there is a cache there.

 

I think this is sometimes a selling factor and sometimes not. In my particular WalMarts case, it really might be good for business and I will tell you why. Every week my island's population grows and shrinks about 150 to 200K with visitors coming and going. One of the biggest puzzles that retailers and tourism related businesses have to solve is how to funnel those temporary residents to their doorstep while they are visiting. How they do this is often their lifeblood.

 

The WalMart I am approaching is in the center of downtown and not exactly a store you are just going to happen upon, although it is absolutely massive. In Waikiki where 70 percent of the island's hotels are, a little convenience store called ABC has a store on every corner. It is as is they have cast a net over the area. There's even a local joke that goes "I bet he couldn't find an ABC store in Waikiki." The main items they sell are the high mark up disposables like batteries, sunscreen, liquor and also souvenirs. They are very high priced but well merchandised.

 

WalMart has dedicated a section of their store and named it The Souvenir Shop. This section is about twice the size of an individual ABC store. Because it is located right by the door, I'm banking on them liking the concept of a visiting geocacher having a preloaded waypoint bring them to their store before they get to Hawaii being something that will be attractive to them.

[+Team GeoBlast]

... Further, "It will bring customers" is a mostly untrue. I have done hundreds of CPCs and never spent a dime with any vendor, unless I needed to shop there anyway, in which case getting the CPC becomes a factor of my going there to shop, not the reverse.

 

If I enter the store when hunting a Wal-Mart cache it's because I happen to need batteries or something, not beacuse there is a cache there.

Of course, you are not going to shop unless you need something, but if you happen to need batteries, a pair of pants (because you damaged yours on the last cache, a soda, food, a case of water, band-aids, bug juice, film, an apology card for your wife, or anything else, you'll go into the store if you make it as far as the parking lot.

 

Further, if Wal-Mart came out against geocaching and Target embraced the game, I suspect that I'm not the only cacher who will choose Target over Wal-Mart, even when not geocaching.

 

I agree with this in that permission should be requested in a such a way where you want the manager to consider the downside of saying no to you.

 

It does making approaching the sheer number of geocacher players a little delicate, however. On one hand you want to make it known that there's massive numbers of players (customers) playing this game that might purchase things but on the other hand, you don't want to create visions of his property being overrun 24 hours a day by geeks with mobile devices sporting tinfoil hats.

 

My plan (still looking for suggestions ) is to print out some cache pages that are on commercial property now. I will point out the regular stream of visitors but not more than 4-5 hits a day. But I will also show highlight in bright yellow ink, logs that state they purchased something at the business.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I suspect that you are wrong. As explained in a number of posts in threads that you have participated in over the last few weeks, I suspect that if WalMart banned these types of hides that one of WalMart's competitors might embrace the opportunity to allow them, thereby getting a bit of goodwill and getting geocachers to shop in it's stores.

It depends on how the knowledge of the other store's prohibition gets to the target store.

 

Another thought they may have is just why would another store run these folks off? Are they that bad? Is there something I don't know? Why should I have to deal with them? If they are simply going from store to store, how do I get them to come inside? Otherwise, why should I encourage them taking up parking spaces from legitimate paying customers? How would my customers view these participants? Will their actions cause concern to my customers?

 

Those seem to be legitimate concerns a business owner would need to consider before proceeding.

You certainly have good points. Most of them were addressed in the other thread, so since they are off-topic to this one, I won't go through the list.

CR and TAR have good points, but I wasn't talking about Wal-Mart's competitors, I was talking about the little guy down the road who owns a parcel of undeveloped land (there's still spots like that around here!) who isn't trying to stick it to Wal-Mart, he just heard on the evening news that Wal-Mart banned this thing called geo-something. He forgot the story until you came to his door and said the word geocaching, then the red flags go up. That's the danger I'm talking about.

Let me respond this way:

 

Do you remember all the news stories that sprang up when Disney banned caching? You don't, because there wasn't any.

 

I'm not sure this is a fair comparison. There's only two neighborhoods in the country that this is going to be real news in, Anahiem and Orlando.

 

If WalMart imposed a ban, there's very few neighborhoods it would not affect directly. Removing the existing caches of Disney property was no where near the operation it would be to remove every cache on WalMart property either. This is why a "geocache gone really bad, bomb squad called" story at a WalMart or any other national chain is potentially a much bigger problem as the game continues to grow.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I suspect that you are wrong. As explained in a number of posts in threads that you have participated in over the last few weeks, I suspect that if WalMart banned these types of hides that one of WalMart's competitors might embrace the opportunity to allow them, thereby getting a bit of goodwill and getting geocachers to shop in it's stores.

It depends on how the knowledge of the other store's prohibition gets to the target store.

 

Another thought they may have is just why would another store run these folks off? Are they that bad? Is there something I don't know? Why should I have to deal with them? If they are simply going from store to store, how do I get them to come inside? Otherwise, why should I encourage them taking up parking spaces from legitimate paying customers? How would my customers view these participants? Will their actions cause concern to my customers?

 

Those seem to be legitimate concerns a business owner would need to consider before proceeding.

 

Very good points you make.

 

We've been discussing how to profile Geocachers in the most positive light possible. While pointing out that they are consumers, discussions of a CCC "Cacher Code of Conduct" when searching on a commercial property was considered but we could find nothing printed. Of course, there's things related thrown around in the forums (such not using power tools and using stealth) but nothing specific. I think this is one of the main differences in an urban hide vs a hide in the woods, the list of things that a cachers should and shouldn't be doing is quite different.

[+tozainamboku]

I think this is one of the main differences in an urban hide vs a hide in the woods, the list of things that a cachers should and shouldn't be doing is quite different.

How so? In the woods - avoid being seen by muggles; urban - use stealth to avoid drawing the attention of muggles (granted in the woods you may be able to avoid the muggle by waiting them out while you may need to use different tecnhniques in an urban setting). In the woods - be aware of dangers in the environment such as wild animals or dangerous terrain; urban - be aware of dangers in the environment such as homeless people or cars. In the woods - obey the posted rules and regulations of the land managing agency; urban - obey the posted signs. In the woods - don't damage the tree to find the cache hidden in the knot hole; Urban - don't damage the lamp post.

[+Trucker Lee]

When asking permission from a chain manager, keep in mind it may not completely be theirs to give. So......

 

I suggest making the request printed. Keep it neat, clean, and concise.

 

Remember, whomever may be reading your submission may not be a cacher, or know anything of caching, so include a short summary of caching for them.

 

Be sure to include the points Renegade Knight pointed out in #5 of this thread, I won't quote directly for brevity's sake. When making it easy for them to say yes, point out what caching could do for thier establishment, such as bringing out of town trade to their door, and most cacher's committment to CITO.

 

Scout, or point out, the possible sites with management if possible, or state suggested sites in your letter, with reasons they would work well.

On the other hand, I recommend a nice, informal chat. I want to give him an opportunity to say 'yes' without thinking of what a piece of paper is going to do to his career.

An excellent point also. So, why not the full preparation, start with the informal chat to see if he/she will say yes, but have the written presentation ready in case it needs to be bumped to the next level.

[+Too Tall John]

... For my job I have a commercial boater's licence. When I take the boat out, I have to know, do I have an adequate number of life jackets on board? I have never been in a situation where anyone needed a PFD, but if I was in such a situation, I couldn't say "Sorry folks, I never needed a life jacket before, so I just left them behind! But the extra room meant we could fit more people on, isn't that great?" I have to be sure there are an adequate number of PFDs on board. That's how I define adequate.

Of course, the number of PFDs is mandated by law. That is quite different than the topic at hand.

 

My gut response: Even if it isn't mandated by law, it is my personal responsibility to be sure there are adequate PFDs for those I take on the boat. It is also my personal responsibility to be sure there is adequate permission for those I invite to find my cache to be there.

 

My (slightly) more thought out response: As far as being different than the topic at hand, a good deal of what we are discussing involves trespass law, so really, saying that it is different is debatable. There are many laws that cover what you can and cannot do on someone else's property, so just like knowing how many PFDs you need according to law, you should know that the people who are hunting your cache aren't going to get to sit in the back of a squad car when the landowner sees them hunting your cache. How do you do this? Get permission to place the cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

...My gut response: Even if it isn't mandated by law, it is my personal responsibility to be sure there are adequate PFDs for those I take on the boat. It is also my personal responsibility to be sure there is adequate permission for those I invite to find my cache to be there....

 

Let me build on this. The reason it's mandated by law is that the PDF result that came about from what people viewed as their personal responsiblity didn't sit well with some folks who went on to get a law made. There was variation both good and bad (as percieved by others).

 

This is actually very similar to this debate. We are not arguing "no permission" are are debating what level of it is enough.

 

In my profession if you get 30 of us together to solve a problem you will have 30 answers, even with all the laws that mandate aspects of what we do. It's a known issue and more than a few times the final answer comes down to "since I'm the one responsible, we will do it my way".

[+Too Tall John]

Let me build on this. The reason it's mandated by law is that the PDF result that came about from what people viewed as their personal responsiblity didn't sit well with some folks who went on to get a law made. There was variation both good and bad (as percieved by others).

The reason "personal responsibility" didn't sit well with others is because not all agreed with a standard that would keep everyone safe. So, rules were made to maintain a certain level of safety/security for those who don't follow common sense. Like you said, we are not arguing "no permission" we are debating what level of it is enough. While some might have been debating "no PFD's," the laws that are in place require a boat of a certain size to have a certain number of PFDs, regardless of the number of passengers, because you might unexpectedly have extras (I've plucked boaters out of the water after falling out of their own boats, some w/out a PFD). In a similar fashion, "adequate permission" should be adequate enough to keep a cacher out of trouble with the law, even in adverse circumstances.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I originally set out to approach my local WalMart manager to obtain explicit permission to place a Geocache on WalMart property.. Like any permission request I have ever made, some preparation was needed. In this preparation, I began to search the internet and Geocacing.com for any groundwork that had already been done and came up empty.

 

While there are several excellent policy resources available such as Geocaching Policies.org for obtaining permission to hide Geocaches on public lands, I quickly realized that very little reference material is available for Geocaches hidden in an urban environment but I could find nothing specifically for CPCs (Commercial Property Caches). After investing over 40 hours in preparation to my approach the store manager for permission, I am pretty convinced that it is the complexity of issues that surround this type of hide that makes it a common occurance for cache hiders to skip the required permission process. Because these hides seem to be gaining popularity, I have decided to chronicle my attempt in hopes that I might provide a starting place for others seeking to do this.

 

I am at a place now where I would like some input from other cachers before I proceed in actually asking the manager for permission.. I have put together a blog that details my research and fieldwork up to this point and I would like invite anyone who has an honest interest in this process to contact me via my GC.com profile to get the URL address to it. If you do not feel that obtaining specific permission from a local store manager of a big box retailer is in accordance with GC.com policy, of course you are welcome to post your thoughts here in this thread. However, I do not want to open this discussion up off line so I can stay on track. When the effort is over and I have reviewed my progress, or lack thereof, I will make the URL public if it is deemed to be useful.

 

Of course, I'd like to hear from -anyone- who has approached a national big box retailer for permission but anyone with good intentions is invited to review my work and offer input on the Blog itself.

 

After completing a collaboration with six interested geocachers and putting together a package and presentation that would rival a presentation to a Fortune 500 company in preparation, I set out to ask for explicit permission to place a geocache on the property of my local WalMart from the store manager.

 

After two attempts to drop in, I set up a meeting in his office and popped the question. Although he was very receptive to the idea of Geocaching and said he would like to bring his family out and give it a try, he did not, and said he could not, grant permission to place a cache on their property.

 

He said he did not have the authority to give permission to put a Geocache on his property because it is an organized activity. All organized activities need to be sent to corporate for review. Since this is something that I do not want to get involved in as it might cause more problems that it is worth, I declined. I asked him if this would be the case across the country and he said that only if it was a "corporate approved activity" then permission could be granted on a local level. He was 100% positive that Geocaching is not a corporate approved activity.

 

Although the attempt was not successful, I believe we were able to compile a very good foundation for a resource in obtaining permission to place a commercial property cache. So, the effort was not wasted. After going through all of this, it is my opinion that the single biggest hurdle to obtaining explicit permission for a hide of this nature is the complexity of the process.

 

I also think it is now safe to say that there is not one legal hide on WalMart property in existence.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[Trinity's Crew]

My cousin's uncle's friend's friend knows somebody who knows somebody that knows a Wal-mart manager. They know somebody who asked that manager for permission and he said yes. So I know you're wrong about your assertion that there are no legal Wal-mart hides.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

As mentioned earlier, much earlier, I know that the manager of one Wal-Mart is fully aware of a cache just outside his door and has no issue with it.

 

Can't imagine what you really thought this stunt would accomplish, nor why anyone would be surprised at your result.

 

Your conclusion, however, was proven faulty before you even made it.

[Trinity's Crew]

As mentioned earlier, much earlier, I know that the manager of one Wal-Mart is fully aware of a cache just outside his door and has no issue with it.

 

Can't imagine what you really thought this stunt would accomplish, nor why anyone would be surprised at your result.

 

Your conclusion, however, was proven faulty before you even made it.

I agree with TAR. There wasn't much (if anything) proven here. You got feedback from ONE manager who gave his opinion on whether geocaching could be approved at the local level without Corporate permission.

 

What I really believe is that this line achieved exactly what he needed it to. It let him off the hook while still allowing him to be the good guy.

 

I'm sure there are many Wal-Mart caches that have the blessing of the local manager, either as a result of being friends with the cacher who placed it, or because they would see no reason to involve Corporate with such a trivial thing.

 

Edit: Spelling

Edited April 6, 2007 by Trinity's Crew

[+Team GeoBlast]

As mentioned earlier, much earlier, I know that the manager of one Wal-Mart is fully aware of a cache just outside his door and has no issue with it.

 

Can't imagine what you really thought this stunt would accomplish, nor why anyone would be surprised at your result.

 

Your conclusion, however, was proven faulty before you even made it.

 

Myself and others worked many hours to document and place a cache protected by explicit permission. I personally have invested over 40 hours in this effort including three trips down to the WalMart to gather facts and to find the best location for the cache. I was told more than once that I was working too hard on this "stunt."

 

If I recall, the cache you are referring to was placed inside the wrong end of a coin operated horse in front of WalMart store. The store manager only found out when there was a commotion outside of his store. The commotion was a group of people watching the next person retrieve the cache. The store manager just shook his head and walked back inside the store. That's not permission, that is not wanting to associate with people that do things like that. It is this very attitude towards cachers that some would like to avoid, myself included.

 

The true test is that if a cacher was ever caught looking in the horse's arse and obtained for suspicious behavior, is that if the store manager would come forth and say he approved it and the cacher would not be in trouble, and the cache would be allow to stay there. I don't think that would be the case in the scenario you presented.

[+Knight2000]

Can't imagine what you really thought this stunt would accomplish, nor why anyone would be surprised at your result.

 

I am really shocked at comments like this. The OP is trying to do the right things and not place a bad light upon the geocaching community. I respect that.

 

Im new to the sport but already i am disgusted at the caches people place without permission. Often i am worried about causing trouble or being in a place i shouldnt all due to the fact that someone checked a little box when placing a cache. (Maybe they have read the guidelines- but dont follow them.) And where does that get us? Its each cacher for themselves.

 

If everyone cared as much as the OP does, then we would have a much more respectable sport.

 

Little can be done about the situation that exists now. When i go out to a cache site that is clearly marked "No Trespassing" yet cachers continually go to it- while making notations in their logs about the signs they saw- all a respectable law abiding cacher can do is pass, and skip that cache.

 

Sure, the site doesnt want caches that are placed against guidelines, but who is there to enforce it?

 

There are caches placed on commercial property with permission. (As well as those without permission.) I would much rather look for ones where permission is granted.

 

Thank you Team GeoBlast for trying to do the right thing. I only wished you placed caches in my area.

[+Team GeoBlast]

As mentioned earlier, much earlier, I know that the manager of one Wal-Mart is fully aware of a cache just outside his door and has no issue with it.

 

Can't imagine what you really thought this stunt would accomplish, nor why anyone would be surprised at your result.

 

Your conclusion, however, was proven faulty before you even made it.

 

 

I agree with TAR. There wasn't much (if anything) proven here. You got feedback from ONE manager who gave his OPINION on whether geocaching could be approved at tthe local level without Corporate permission.

 

What I really believe is that this line achieved exactly what he needed it to. It let him off the hook while still allowing him to be the good guy.

 

I'm sure there are many Wal-Mart caches that have the blessing of the local manager, either as a result of being friends with the cacher who placed it, or because they would see no reason to involve Corporate with such a trivial thing.

 

While it may be true that it has been done somewhere, someplace. I've looked at the other threads discussing this very issue and they have tens of thousands of views. Yet, not one person has come forward yet that has actually obtained explicit permission while I'd say the majority were at least aware of one WalMart CPC hide.

 

After going through what I did to be over prepared to ask permission. I think this is the true ostacle in asking for explicit permission is the time expended and will put yourself in a very uncomfortable situation. Even as prepared as I was, it was a pretty unnerving thing to do.

 

You are correct in that this is just one scenario in one WalMart. I think the interesting thing is, is that the manager loved the idea of caching and I hope to bring him and his family out and introduce them to it. We discussed and I'm pretty confident that they will underwrite our next CITO event if we want to go through their community grant process. Overall this was a very positive encounter, except that he said that he did not have the authority to give permission.

 

If anyone is willing to go to their local WalMart and obtain explicit permission, I could save them some time and offer all of the information that we compiled to save them time.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+Team GeoBlast]

I would be remiss if I did not thank all of the cachers that helped me by taking the time to review the blog and post your thoughts via email and on the blog itself. You know who you are as there were four regular posters of this forum that helped out. I'm not comfortable putting your names here because it looks like some will never see this as constructive.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[Mr.Yuck]

Can't imagine what you really thought this stunt would accomplish, nor why anyone would be surprised at your result.

 

I am really shocked at comments like this. The OP is trying to do the right things and not place a bad light upon the geocaching community. I respect that.

 

Im new to the sport but already i am disgusted at the caches people place without permission. Often i am worried about causing trouble or being in a place i shouldnt all due to the fact that someone checked a little box when placing a cache. (Maybe they have read the guidelines- but dont follow them.) And where does that get us? Its each cacher for themselves.

 

If everyone cared as much as the OP does, then we would have a much more respectable sport.

 

Little can be done about the situation that exists now. When i go out to a cache site that is clearly marked "No Trespassing" yet cachers continually go to it- while making notations in their logs about the signs they saw- all a respectable law abiding cacher can do is pass, and skip that cache.

 

Sure, the site doesnt want caches that are placed against guidelines, but who is there to enforce it?

 

There are caches placed on commercial property with permission. (As well as those without permission.) I would much rather look for ones where permission is granted.

 

Thank you Team GeoBlast for trying to do the right thing. I only wished you placed caches in my area.

 

Great post Knight2000! Awesome. And you just started last month? I've often wondered what I myself would think if I stumbled on this website after all the parking lot spew placed without permission started to overrun the listings in urban areas, which you obviously did. Believe it or not, it wasn't always like this. Great job Team Geoblast as well, but I think you can expect some flamage with the "I also think it is now safe to say that there is not one legal hide on WalMart property in existence" comment. Even I don't believe that, there has to be a some out there.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

.... but I think you can expect some flamage with the "I also think it is now safe to say that there is not one legal hide on WalMart property in existence" comment. Even I don't believe that, there has to be a some out there.

Not flames, just disagreement with that statement.

 

I don't know how many caches are hidden on how many Wal-Mart properties, suffice it to say 'a bunch'.

 

That being the case I have to believe that quite a few Wal-Mart managers are aware that they are there.

 

They being aware and making no move to prohibit them establishes tacit permission, which is adequate for the purpose of hiding and listing geocaches.

 

This whole stunt was supposedly aimed at achieving 'explicit' permission, something which, while possible to achieve, would not be easy to accomplish, nor is it required.

 

It is my belief that this was undertaken not to get permission, but to point out and emphasize the lack of 'explicit' permission, and perhaps to even achieve his ultimate goal of causing a ban of caches on Wal-Mart property.

 

All of this 'effort' and angst has done nothing to prove or accomplish a thing. I suppose everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame, I suppose he got that.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Can't imagine what you really thought this stunt would accomplish, nor why anyone would be surprised at your result.

 

I am really shocked at comments like this. The OP is trying to do the right things and not place a bad light upon the geocaching community. I respect that.

 

Im new to the sport but already i am disgusted at the caches people place without permission. Often i am worried about causing trouble or being in a place i shouldnt all due to the fact that someone checked a little box when placing a cache. (Maybe they have read the guidelines- but dont follow them.) And where does that get us? Its each cacher for themselves.

 

If everyone cared as much as the OP does, then we would have a much more respectable sport.

 

Little can be done about the situation that exists now. When i go out to a cache site that is clearly marked "No Trespassing" yet cachers continually go to it- while making notations in their logs about the signs they saw- all a respectable law abiding cacher can do is pass, and skip that cache.

 

Sure, the site doesnt want caches that are placed against guidelines, but who is there to enforce it?

 

There are caches placed on commercial property with permission. (As well as those without permission.) I would much rather look for ones where permission is granted.

 

Thank you Team GeoBlast for trying to do the right thing. I only wished you placed caches in my area.

 

Great post Knight2000! Awesome. And you just started last month? I've often wondered what I myself would think if I stumbled on this website after all the parking lot spew placed without permission started to overrun the listings in urban areas, which you obviously did. Believe it or not, it wasn't always like this. Great job Team Geoblast as well, but I think you can expect some flamage with the "I also think it is now safe to say that there is not one legal hide on WalMart property in existence" comment. Even I don't believe that, there has to be a some out there.

 

Thanks for your kind words and you are 100% correct and that last statement was made using my own personal definition of explicit permission. About a month ago, I decided not respond to the flamage. I have already been there and done that with nothing to show but the consumption of bandwith.

 

As for that last statement, I am going to say something that is probably going to surprise you. I'd love to be proved wrong on this. My interest is compiling data on how to request permission in a way that cachers won't be put in harms way seeking a cache on commercial property. I would email that person and want as much detail as possible. With the help of several others, I've got some good information that could provide a foundation for someone to put together a resource for people seeking to hide a cache on other commercial property.

[magellan315]

Having worked for a Wal-Mart sized company where its properties are open to the public I knew this was going to be wasted time. Once my former employer found out there were Geocaches on their properties they removed all caches and banned them nationally and internationally.

 

Given all of the wonderful parks and wilderness areas where you live, you would not have found all of this time wasted. If you had created a unique Geocaching experience utlizing an a place that most people would not normally go to.

 

All you have done is verify what most of us know, that a national or mutli-national corporation is not going to allow an activity without an extensive review at the coporate level.