Obtaining Permission for Placement on a Commercial Property

[+jAY miLLS]

[+kayak-cowboy]

Hi Team GeoBlast,

Now that you have had your visit with the "Big-Box Chain". Could you give us a link to the information that was presented.

[+Team GeoBlast]

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 utilizing 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 multi-national corporation is not going to allow an activity without an extensive review at the corporate level.

 

It was an honest and heartfelt effort that do not consider wasted time. I personally learned a ton and going through the process had me considering a lot of things that I probably would never have considered otherwise.

 

One of the motivations for putting this much effort into getting permission for a hide like this my own fear of exactly the scenario that you are spelling out above. I think that commercial property cache placement have a huge downside if protocol is not followed and a company like Walmart address it on a national or even international level.

 

What I don't understand is why GC.com leaves something like "permission" on a commercial property so open for interpretation. There are folks that honestly believe that if the public is allowed on Walmart property, it is okay to put a cache there. Then there's people like me that think that it means formally requesting it from a responsible person who can be contacted in case of problem. I am saying this with no claim of being right but it seems that the divide is so great among cachers that they would have addressed this in the recently released updated guidelines.

 

Also for your information, I've got several cache placements here in the islands and they all put you in amazing places. This cache would have been a multi that lead to a secret waterfall that I have been wanting to share with people. Bringing people to this WalMart is also a good service to visitors because it is not a tourist trap that abound here. The store offer great prices for things Geocachers need. Of course, that would have remain unsaid due the commerical cache guidelines, but I think that most would have figured it out.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Hi Team GeoBlast,

Now that you have had your visit with the "Big-Box Chain". Could you give us a link to the information that was presented.

 

Check your email.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

He said he did not have the authority to give permission to put a Geocache on his property because it is an organized activity. ....

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

 

A common mispercetpion about geocaching is that it's an organized actvity. An organized activity is running a student car wash to raise money for the band.

 

Parks often make the same mistake. I've even asked parks about geocaching that I KNEW had given explicit permission just like would make you proud only to be told that I need a permit and to pay a fee base on how many people would be involved in my organized event.

 

Perhaps wallmart has a different view on what organized events are than a park system, but by and large I would not make the stretch that No Wal Mart hides are legal because one manager has an apparent mis perception in his head.

[+Renegade Knight]

....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. ...

 

I don't worry about causing trouble. Trouble enough happens when you do the right thing.

 

As for going where you should not go because someone checked a box that you would not have checked. That's a crock. You should have sence enough from all the rest of your lifes experience to tell you where you should and should not go.

[+Renegade Knight]

....What I don't understand is why GC.com leaves something like "permission" on a commercial property so open for interpretation. There are folks that honestly believe that if the public is allowed on Walmart property, it is okay to put a cache there. Then there's people like me that think that it means formally requesting it from a responsible person who can be contacted in case of problem....

 

Let go of caching for a moment and picture a world where explicit permission is needed for all activities not already explicity approved by law or posting.

 

You could not play sand lot baseball.

You could not get to most of the beaches that you know how to get too.

You could not park at one store and walk next door to the other one even if you bought something.

 

Assumed, and presumed permission are used so very much more than you have ever thought of that I'm truly suprised that it has not come up in your investigation. But then your investigation is focused on one middle manager at wallmart.

 

Take Hawaii. Who the heck turned the islands into a bunch of private property? Did the orginal Hawaiians issue deeds to everone who came? Somewhere a government came along and assumed control of the property and then gave it back out in the form of 'private'. That government reserved police powers for itself. Police powers are why no man is king of his domain and all men have limits even in the plot of ground they call home and which they build their house on.

 

Explicit permission for all caches is as absurd of a concept as no permission for all caches.

[+Knight2000]

As for going where you should not go because someone checked a box that you would not have checked. That's a crock. You should have sence enough from all the rest of your lifes experience to tell you where you should and should not go.

 

So you think its okay to place caches where they shouldnt be? Its the finders responsibility to determine whether or not anyone should be there!

 

I think the responsibility is both.

 

In the instance of the cache i referred to that was clearly marked "no trespassing" we parked and traveled as instructed in the cache description to find the cache. After traveling over 500 feet toward the cache then the no trespassing signs are posted. We promptly left. But i should have had sense to know that they were there! I am psychic after all! We should have had sense to know that we shouldnt be there! Its not the cache hiders responsibility at all!

 

Is this what you are saying???

[+Knight2000]

Let go of caching for a moment and picture a world where explicit permission is needed for all activities not already explicity approved by law or posting.

 

You could not play sand lot baseball.

You could not get to most of the beaches that you know how to get too.

You could not park at one store and walk next door to the other one even if you bought something.

 

 

There is a difference between legally being somewhere, and leaving something behind for others to come find.

Edited April 6, 2007 by knight2000

[Mr.Yuck]

Explicit permission for all caches is as absurd of a concept as no permission for all caches.

 

Agreed. I'm in Team Geoblast's camp 100%, but yet I'm the biggest supporter of "the frisbee rule" as you'll ever find. If it's public property, and there is no existing geocaching policy, be it on the local, State or Federal level, I say go for it; if you don't need permission to play frisbee there, you don't need permission to place a geocache there. However, we don't have permission to play frisbee, skateboard, play paintball, or smoke crack in the Wally World parking lot. I for one was horrified the first time micros on private property started showing up in my area (around mid-2005). I was like, this is crazy!! We can't geocache there!! (not to mention the caches were all lame ) All while the website had, and continues to have, a "look the other way, and assume permission" policy.

Edited April 6, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+Renegade Knight]

As for going where you should not go because someone checked a box that you would not have checked. That's a crock. You should have sence enough from all the rest of your lifes experience to tell you where you should and should not go.

 

So you think its okay to place caches where they shouldnt be? Its the finders responsibility to determine whether or not anyone should be there!

 

I think the responsibility is both.

 

In the instance of the cache i referred to that was clearly marked "no trespassing" we parked and traveled as instructed in the cache description to find the cache. After traveling over 500 feet toward the cache then the no trespassing signs are posted. We promptly left. But i should have had sense to know that they were there! I am psychic after all! We should have had sense to know that we shouldnt be there! Its not the cache hiders responsibility at all!

 

Is this what you are saying???

 

I don't know any psychics but I do believe in giving my fellow cachers the benefit of the doubt. Just because I can't find the right way in doesn't mean there isn't one. One one cache I tried 3 different times and found three different ways I could not do the cache without trespassing. The 4th was the charm. Public land with public access. I'm not ready to follow you on the bandwagon you appear to be riding on.

 

Since you asked why the hell would I place a cache where I thought one should not be? I may very well place a cache where YOU think it shouldn't be. It is my responsiblity as the cache owner, but if it makes you cringe to think about seeking my cache you really shouldn't, but you also should not complain about it either until you know the full story.

 

In your example, you only needed sence enough to to not pass the no trespassing signs.

 

Locally we have a developer who owns a 5' strip of land. Behind the strip is BLM land. The developer is working to try and acquire the land from the BLM. He very smartly made sure he had the only reasonable access. He could post the living snot out of that 5' strip of land and many a cacher may walk away dejected. One side is his, one side is commercial and private, the other Interstate. But I know the access to the land. There is a single corner that touches a land owned by the state of idaho. No access for cars but...You could jump over and be good to go.

 

Maybe that cache of yours was a problem or maybe the problem you had was yours due to your approach. I have no way to know.

[+Renegade Knight]

....There is a difference between legally being somewhere, and leaving something behind for others to come find.

 

You have assumed you have a legal right to be somewhere. If you are not welcome you are already trespassing by the time you find out.

 

At some level we have the right to exist in this world by the fact that we are here. Hopefully we have more than the right to just exist.

 

If you own a home, there is a fair chance that you have appropriated public land for your own private use. I know for a fact that I have. Lets assume you have. Is that right? Should you not get permission to do so? What would happen if you tried? Who would you ask? How would you get it? Would it be valid? Should you even bother to ask? Actually lets explore this. Try and answer the questions.

[+Renegade Knight]

... All while the website had, and continues to have, a "look the other way, and assume permission" policy.

 

The frisbee rule is a good rule of thumb to work from. It narrows down the field from my stand that "any location of public accomodation is a valid place to consider placing a cache". The frisbee rule would rule out some of the more 'lame' locations.

 

As for the look the other way policy. It doesn't exist. Each and every cache owner is responsible for their cache. Each cache owner says they have adequate permission. Each cache owner will face the music if they don't have adequate permission. For some that's not enough and they want some kind of certification that the cache meets their own personal adequate permission policy. That's not reasonable.

 

Reasonable makes the world run, unreasonable brings things to a grinding halt.

 

Take a stab at the homeowner question in my post above.

[+Team GeoBlast]

...

He said he did not have the authority to give permission to put a Geocache on his property because it is an organized activity. ....

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

 

Perhaps wallmart has a different view on what organized events are than a park system, but by and large I would not make the stretch that No Wal Mart hides are legal because one manager has an apparent mis perception in his head.

 

Again, I'd love for someone to step forward and say that they have explained geocaching to a WalMart store manager (read the person that can be contacted if there is a problem and has the authority to grant permission to put it there) and they've said yes. The guy that I talked to was pretty experienced. He's worked at stores all across the country before coming to Hawaii and I would be very surprised if he was incorrect.

 

The best thing is that he's a nice guy and if it all works out I will have the opportunity to know him better. If that happens, maybe I can have an "off the record" discussion with him someday. What he told me was straight out of their manual and totally by the book, I can guarantee you that.

[+Team GeoBlast]

... All while the website had, and continues to have, a "look the other way, and assume permission" policy.

 

The frisbee rule is a good rule of thumb to work from. It narrows down the field from my stand that "any location of public accomodation is a valid place to consider placing a cache". The frisbee rule would rule out some of the more 'lame' locations.

 

As for the look the other way policy. It doesn't exist. Each and every cache owner is responsible for their cache. Each cache owner says they have adequate permission. Each cache owner will face the music if they don't have adequate permission. For some that's not enough and they want some kind of certification that the cache meets their own personal adequate permission policy. That's not reasonable.

 

Reasonable makes the world run, unreasonable brings things to a grinding halt.

 

Take a stab at the homeowner question in my post above.

 

I think there's room for GC.com to be more specific about their permission requirements for commercial property just the same as they have done in other areas. You seem like a very responsible cacher as are most people that post here but if you lay everyone's idea of what adequate permission is, you are going to have a pretty wide assortment of opinions. I don't think this is healthy for the game in the long term.

[+Renegade Knight]

....I think there's room for GC.com to be more specific about their permission requirements for commercial property just the same as they have done in other areas. You seem like a very responsible cacher as are most people that post here but if you lay everyone's idea of what adequate permission is, you are going to have a pretty wide assortment of opinions....

 

If you polled all the judges in the country and asked them what what the constitution means you would find just as much variation.

 

Adequate permission is enough. The variation's in what we all think it means is inevitable no matter how iron clad you try make it. The tighter the grip the more that slips through the fingers.

 

As for the manager. I'm sure he's a smart guy and knows Wal Mart and how to run a store. I also have no doubt the parks and recs person knows their parks. But it's still an easy misconception to think that geocaching is an organized event. Once that mistake is made it kicks in a train of thought that doesn't fit and it's hard to get them back on the right track.

 

Oh Wal Mart is in the news for spying. They need positive PR. What a great time to obtain blanket permission from Corporate HQ.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+Team GeoBlast]

Oh Wal Mart is in the news for spying. They need positive PR. What a great time to obtain blanket permission from Corporate HQ.

 

I think you are kidding but just in case... I think it was you who said to make way for a more qualified party when I began this thread. I decided going in that I did not want to go past my local store level for various reasons. But essentially this is what he was telling me had to happen for him to have the authority to grant permission. He started to list a lot of things that are allowed and there is actually quite a lot that is permissible.

I didn't feel it was my place nor was I qualified to step into those channels.

[Clan Riffster]

GeoBlast, thank you for your efforts. I applaud you even louder for making the effort whilst facing scorn from others. Kudos! That being said, I'm only about 90% in the TGB camp. My couple decades of law enforcement experience has led me to believe that a soggy log film canister plopped into a shrub at Wally World is perfectly "legal" under Florida law. However, being legal doesn't necessarily make it right. It is my personal opinion that any cache hidden on a commercial property should have explicit permission, and I'd like to see Groundspeak taking steps to ensure explicit permission on CPC's, as they do on public lands where permits are required.

[Mushtang]

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.

I don't quite see how following your example would lead to a manager giving explicit permission. If I ever decide to do this, I'll pass on using your biased approach as an example to follow.

 

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.

I'll save time and come up with my own way to present it and save time.

[Stephen2]

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.

I don't quite see how following your example would lead to a manager giving explicit permission. If I ever decide to do this, I'll pass on using your biased approach as an example to follow.

 

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.

I'll save time and come up with my own way to present it and save time.

 

Why are you so rude? Your going to kick a guy for trying to do what he feels right?

[+Team GeoBlast]

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.

I don't quite see how following your example would lead to a manager giving explicit permission. If I ever decide to do this, I'll pass on using your biased approach as an example to follow.

 

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.

I'll save time and come up with my own way to present it and save time.

 

Why are you so rude? Your going to kick a guy for trying to do what he feels right?

 

I appreciate your saying this but it was expected and thus ignored.

[Mushtang]

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.

I don't quite see how following your example would lead to a manager giving explicit permission. If I ever decide to do this, I'll pass on using your biased approach as an example to follow.

 

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.

I'll save time and come up with my own way to present it and save time.

 

Why are you so rude? Your going to kick a guy for trying to do what he feels right?

I'm only giving him back what he's given out plenty of.

 

.

[Clan Riffster]

Why are you so rude? Your going to kick a guy for trying to do what he feels right?

Stephen, that's actually pretty tame for Mushtang.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

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.

I don't quite see how following your example would lead to a manager giving explicit permission. If I ever decide to do this, I'll pass on using your biased approach as an example to follow.

 

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.

I'll save time and come up with my own way to present it and save time.

 

Why are you so rude? Your going to kick a guy for trying to do what he feels right?

I'm only giving him back what he's given out plenty of.

 

.

 

Whether you agree with him or not, I don't see how TGB has been impolite or rude. What has he "given out plenty of"?

 

Personally, I wouldn't go out of my way to hide a cache type that I personally didn't like just to test the methods or procedures for gaining adequate attention. But I can't fault TGB for the way he's carried himself in these conversations.

[+Team GeoBlast]

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.

I don't quite see how following your example would lead to a manager giving explicit permission. If I ever decide to do this, I'll pass on using your biased approach as an example to follow.

 

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.

I'll save time and come up with my own way to present it and save time.

 

Why are you so rude? Your going to kick a guy for trying to do what he feels right?

I'm only giving him back what he's given out plenty of.

 

.

 

Whether you agree with him or not, I don't see how TGB has been impolite or rude. What has he "given out plenty of"?

 

Personally, I wouldn't go out of my way to hide a cache type that I personally didn't like just to test the methods or procedures for gaining adequate attention. But I can't fault TGB for the way he's carried himself in these conversations.

 

We disagreed awhile ago in another thread but it is over now as far as I am concerned.

[+Team GeoBlast]

GeoBlast, thank you for your efforts. I applaud you even louder for making the effort whilst facing scorn from others. Kudos! That being said, I'm only about 90% in the TGB camp. My couple decades of law enforcement experience has led me to believe that a soggy log film canister plopped into a shrub at Wally World is perfectly "legal" under Florida law. However, being legal doesn't necessarily make it right. It is my personal opinion that any cache hidden on a commercial property should have explicit permission, and I'd like to see Groundspeak taking steps to ensure explicit permission on CPC's, as they do on public lands where permits are required.

 

You rock Riffster. I will take 90% anyday.

[Mushtang]

Hi Team GeoBlast,

Now that you have had your visit with the "Big-Box Chain". Could you give us a link to the information that was presented.

 

Check your email.

Not going to make it open to the public now that you're done?

[+Team GeoBlast]

Hi Team GeoBlast,

Now that you have had your visit with the "Big-Box Chain". Could you give us a link to the information that was presented.

 

Check your email.

Not going to make it open to the public now that you're done?

 

I have sent the URL to anyone that is interested in it for the right reasons.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The funny thing about this thread is that for the most part I agree with TGB and those who support his basic ideas.

 

Yes, I am vocally opposed to his method and question his motive - that's not the same as flames and insults at all. I have tried to present logical arguments why this stunt (for that's how I see it) could not have but a bad ending.

 

Hopefully disagreeing with his methods, motives and actions in this case is not construed to be a personal attack. Is it rude? I don't try to be. Derisive? Sometimes, not of him but of his actions, if that makes any sense.

 

That said, I am a strong believer in adequate permission. I preach it in my local forums regularly and stress it in the talks I am invited to give at events and presentations.

 

I had the privilege to be invited to invest a year as a Groundspeak Volunteer Cache Reviewer, and adequate permission was one of the tenets of all of the caches I listed.

 

As others have mentioned here and in many other related threads adequate permission is a difficult concept, but is the banner under which the vast majority of caches are hidden.

 

I sometimes refer to "Geocaching's dirty little secret" being the fact that most caches have no permission at all... many cachers simply assume it wherever they want to hide a cache and many never even consider it, much less research and ask for it.

 

This game is based on trust. Unless they know differently Groundspeak has no choice but to accept the geocacher's word, given by checking the 'I will abide by the rules' check box on the listing page. There will never be need or resources to examine every cache for compliance.

 

All that being said, the express permission sought in this thread is not, in my opinion, a real issue.

 

I know a cacher in Arkansas who was arrested, charged with criminal criminal trespass, fined and put on probation for one year, and told not to geocache, when he was stopped while hunting a cache in a tree on a business' property that was hidden without permission.

 

No one wants that to happen again.

 

On the other hand, for years I had a cache in a creek bank at a local ball field, now archived due to muggles, that was 10' past a no trespassing sign. My cache was hidden with the full permission of the park superintendent and local police - not written but given verbally by the superintendent and police chief, who told his force not to worry about geocachers going there. I told cachers on the listing that permission had been granted, still perhaps 3 of 100 finders fussed at me for putting it beyond the sign (though they did hunt and find it!).

 

So it is hard for a cacher to know what level of permission, if any, a cache has.

 

The bottom line on this, as I see it, is for each cacher to determine the level of permission required and obtain it, and for each cacher to avoid caches they have any uncomfortable feelings about.

 

There is no blanket permission for Wal-Mart caches, as there is for Cracker Barrel hides. There is a precedent that Wal-Mart managers are aware of caches on their property and have made no move to prohibit them.

 

Cars for sale placed in the Wal-Mart parking lot are expressly forbidden by that company, yet you see it over and over again on many of their properties. The manager of that location chooses to turn a blind eye. It is not rightfully his decision which company policies to enforce, but he does it every day.

 

I go back to 'If it ain't broke don't fix it' on this particular thread, even if that seems to fly in the face of my belief that all caches need adequate permission.

 

I believe that the current tacit permission, where our activities are known but neither permitted nor banned, is adequate.

 

The concept of plausible deniability weighs heavily on the adequate permission issue. Without permitting or denying caching on their property landowners make it a non-issue, and if it ever becomes an issue they can say they knew nothing about it.

[Trinity's Crew]

Hi Team GeoBlast,

Now that you have had your visit with the "Big-Box Chain". Could you give us a link to the information that was presented.

 

Check your email.

Not going to make it open to the public now that you're done?

 

I have sent the URL to anyone that is interested in it for the right reasons.

At the beginning of this thread you said;

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). (My emphasis.)

 

Seeing as you had such a difficult time with source material, I would think you would be more open with the information you HAVE gathered.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I think you are kidding but just in case... I think it was you who said to make way for a more qualified party when I began this thread. I decided going in that I did not want to go past my local store level for various reasons. But essentially this is what he was telling me had to happen for him to have the authority to grant permission. He started to list a lot of things that are allowed and there is actually quite a lot that is permissible.

I didn't feel it was my place nor was I qualified to step into those channels.

 

Actually I'm not kidding about it being a good time for someone to tackle corporate. WalMart is taking a beating and they are in the news for spying. Who should do it is another thing. That's something that would take face time from the right person, or someone who's better known already.

 

Keep your blog of your efforts available. It's good information. If you can I'd make sure the Wal Mart policy that covers events is quoted. It's relevant.

 

Lastly my comments in this thread on permission were generic. You got my more specific comments direclty (you can cut and paste them in the Blog). That said, You have handled yourself well. and I'd cache with you any day.

Edited April 7, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+Team GeoBlast]

The funny thing about this thread is that for the most part I agree with TGB and those who support his basic ideas.

 

Yes, I am vocally opposed to his method and question his motive - that's not the same as flames and insults at all. I have tried to present logical arguments why this stunt (for that's how I see it) could not have but a bad ending.

 

Hopefully disagreeing with his methods, motives and actions in this case is not construed to be a personal attack. Is it rude? I don't try to be. Derisive? Sometimes, not of him but of his actions, if that makes any sense.

 

That said, I am a strong believer in adequate permission. I preach it in my local forums regularly and stress it in the talks I am invited to give at events and presentations.

 

I had the privilege to be invited to invest a year as a Groundspeak Volunteer Cache Reviewer, and adequate permission was one of the tenets of all of the caches I listed.

 

As others have mentioned here and in many other related threads adequate permission is a difficult concept, but is the banner under which the vast majority of caches are hidden.

 

I sometimes refer to "Geocaching's dirty little secret" being the fact that most caches have no permission at all... many cachers simply assume it wherever they want to hide a cache and many never even consider it, much less research and ask for it.

 

This game is based on trust. Unless they know differently Groundspeak has no choice but to accept the geocacher's word, given by checking the 'I will abide by the rules' check box on the listing page. There will never be need or resources to examine every cache for compliance.

 

All that being said, the express permission sought in this thread is not, in my opinion, a real issue.

 

I know a cacher in Arkansas who was arrested, charged with criminal criminal trespass, fined and put on probation for one year, and told not to geocache, when he was stopped while hunting a cache in a tree on a business' property that was hidden without permission.

 

No one wants that to happen again.

 

On the other hand, for years I had a cache in a creek bank at a local ball field, now archived due to muggles, that was 10' past a no trespassing sign. My cache was hidden with the full permission of the park superintendent and local police - not written but given verbally by the superintendent and police chief, who told his force not to worry about geocachers going there. I told cachers on the listing that permission had been granted, still perhaps 3 of 100 finders fussed at me for putting it beyond the sign (though they did hunt and find it!).

 

So it is hard for a cacher to know what level of permission, if any, a cache has.

 

The bottom line on this, as I see it, is for each cacher to determine the level of permission required and obtain it, and for each cacher to avoid caches they have any uncomfortable feelings about.

 

There is no blanket permission for Wal-Mart caches, as there is for Cracker Barrel hides. There is a precedent that Wal-Mart managers are aware of caches on their property and have made no move to prohibit them.

 

Cars for sale placed in the Wal-Mart parking lot are expressly forbidden by that company, yet you see it over and over again on many of their properties. The manager of that location chooses to turn a blind eye. It is not rightfully his decision which company policies to enforce, but he does it every day.

 

I go back to 'If it ain't broke don't fix it' on this particular thread, even if that seems to fly in the face of my belief that all caches need adequate permission.

 

I believe that the current tacit permission, where our activities are known but neither permitted nor banned, is adequate.

 

The concept of plausible deniability weighs heavily on the adequate permission issue. Without permitting or denying caching on their property landowners make it a non-issue, and if it ever becomes an issue they can say they knew nothing about it.

 

I can appreciate most of this as well. I think our only glaring difference is how proactive GC.com should be in some perceived problem areas like caches being placed at WalMart and other Big Box Stores and my strong feeling that there will be a day soon where it geocaching is addressed on a global corporate scale. I believe it is to the advantage of the game (not me personally) to present it in the most positive light possible instead of it coming to light because of a bomb scare. Using your own words:

 

The bottom line on this, as I see it, is for each cacher to determine the level of permission required and obtain it, and for each cacher to avoid caches they have any uncomfortable feelings about.

 

WalMart will never, ever, buy off on a concept like this if was presented to them on a corporate level. The more I looked into how they operate, the more evidence I found that they are all about policy that can be uniformly enforced. They've got too big of an investment to accept things like that.

 

As for my motives, you are certainly entitled your opinion and I do not think there is anything I can do to change this. We had a very heated and passionate discussion that got out of hand on both ends. I've personally moved past it and very sorry that it escalated to the level it did.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Hi Team GeoBlast,

Now that you have had your visit with the "Big-Box Chain". Could you give us a link to the information that was presented.

 

Check your email.

Not going to make it open to the public now that you're done?

 

I have sent the URL to anyone that is interested in it for the right reasons.

At the beginning of this thread you said;

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). (My emphasis.)

 

Seeing as you had such a difficult time with source material, I would think you would be more open with the information you HAVE gathered.

 

There's two reasons for changing my mind about this.

 

1. I didn't expect this to become the administrative chore that it turned out to be. I had a lot of very good input coming in from a lot of different directions. I had set up the blog to try and organize all of it in one place but it didn't work out that way. I got about 50% of the outside input entered on the blog and about 50% that still needs to be assimilated that was sent to me in various random formats. Although there's a lot on the blog, the information is still not all in one place and no where close to being organized enough for public consumption. Because I was starting from scratch, there's still a lot of work to do. Way more than I had anticipated.

 

2. I think anyone who has seen the material on the blog can attest to it being void of any perceived personal agenda. However, it was written from the perspective that GC.com guidelines clearly requires a cacher to ask for permission if a cache is placed on private property and that explicit permission is not only necessary per GC.com guidelines but grounded in common sense with respect to private commercial property. As you can see by some of the posts trickling in here, this is not the consensus in this forum and for this reason, I no longer see it as productive to make the resource material a topic of discussion here.

 

All that said, if you are interested in seeing the blog in a raw format, please send me an email. It will always be open to for anyone with constructive comments.

Edited April 7, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+Team GeoBlast]

...I think you are kidding but just in case... I think it was you who said to make way for a more qualified party when I began this thread. I decided going in that I did not want to go past my local store level for various reasons. But essentially this is what he was telling me had to happen for him to have the authority to grant permission. He started to list a lot of things that are allowed and there is actually quite a lot that is permissible.

I didn't feel it was my place nor was I qualified to step into those channels.

 

Actually I'm not kidding about it being a good time for someone to tackle corporate. WalMart is taking a beating and they are in the news for spying. Who should do it is another thing. That's something that would take face time from the right person, or someone who's better known already.

 

Keep your blog of your efforts available. It's good information. If you can I'd make sure the Wal Mart policy that covers events is quoted. It's relevant.

 

Lastly my comments in this thread on permission were generic. You got my more specific comments direclty (you can cut and paste them in the Blog). That said, You have handled yourself well. and I'd cache with you any day.

 

Thanks.. same here.

 

Oh, I completely agree that it is relevant especially since that was his reason for denial. In my discussion, I alluded to wanting to get a copy of the store policy on organized events and I didn't get very far with that. Apparently this is not public information or at least I could not find it printed anywhere before I met with him. Although he quoted it pretty regularly, but he never produced it.

 

I haven't recapped the discussion I had with the manager yet but I am very hesitant to quote him on store policy. Mostly because he didn't give me permission to do so and I do not want to violate his confidence. But also, I don't want to paraphrase it and put something down that is not 100% accurate.

[Mushtang]

So has the WalMart manager had time to contact corporate headquarters yet and make them aware of the cancer that is geocaching, growing in their parking lots ?

 

I'm curious how long we still have before the big news story breaks that geocaching is taking place on private property without permission, with full knowledge and approval of the website.

 

Any guess as to how long we have before the Groundspeak is served with a lawsuit and the website has to close down?

[Clan Riffster]

Unless they know differently Groundspeak has no choice but to accept the geocacher's word, given by checking the 'I will abide by the rules' check box on the listing page.

Ed, I often agree with your perspective, and even when I don't, I enjoy reading your replies. They are typically well thought out, and steeped in common wisdom. Kinda reminds me of John Wayne movies. Now that I'm done sucking up, let me address this particular sentence:

 

Groundspeak has no qualms about not accepting my checking of these boxes for caches hidden on certain properties. Trust becomes irrelevant. If I want them to list a cache hidden there, I better be able to provide proof that my cache has permission. What I would like to see is this particular policy extended to cover commercial properties. While this won't guarantee that a CPC has explicit permission, it would certainly help.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Groundspeak has no qualms about not accepting my checking of these boxes for caches hidden on certain properties. Trust becomes irrelevant. If I want them to list a cache hidden there, I better be able to provide proof that my cache has permission. What I would like to see is this particular policy extended to cover commercial properties. While this won't guarantee that a CPC has explicit permission, it would certainly help.

Trust IS relevant - the Reviewers accept those checkboxes as a promise from the cache lister, but practice what Reagan called "Trust, but verify" to a certain extent. They use the Guidelines, maps and tools to look at the location, they keep records of land restrictions, and they check most if not all listings before publication.

 

Where trust really comes in is when a cache lister becomes know for pushing the envelope, for breaking the rules intentionally or otherwise. Then his listings get a lot more scrutiny. Your checkbox promise is accepted until a few of your caches are proven to be hidden without adequate permission, after that you may well have to have a note from the land-owner!

 

On the other hand an active cacher with hides known to be responsible may get only cursory inspection.

 

The Guidelines for permission DO extend to CPCs. The difference here is that Groundspeak and the Reviewers are comfortable with such hides having adequate permission, while certain cachers want explicit permission.

 

Remembering that I don't speak for Groundspeak, but as just another geocacher; As far as Groundspeak is concerned a LPC at Wal-Mart is covered under the adequate permission phrase. It isn't Groundspeak or Wal-Mart that has a problem here - it's gloom-and-doom foretellers of the end of geocaching if we don't do things their way that have the problem!

 

Note that neither Groundspeak nor Wal-Mart has weighed in on this issue, and you can rest assured both are aware of it.

 

Throwing rocks at this hornet's nest until we get stung by one or both of those entities is probably not in any of our best interests.

 

Let me rephrase my "If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It" advice:

 

If Groundspeak and Wal-Mart don't see it as an issue, let's don't try to make it one!

[Clan Riffster]

Trust IS relevant

Here's where we disagree. I have a good relationship with my local reviewers, Florida Cacher, Palmetto, BoJaB and Crow T Robot. They know what kind of effort I put into making sure everything about my hides is hunky-dory. All the T's are crossed & all the I's are dotted. Yet, when I submit a cache on a property known to have permission requirements, they will not simply assume I have said permission. If I don't list on the cache page that I have obtained explicit permission, and who issued said permission, you can bet it won't get published until I can provide those details. Contrary to your translation of Reagan's philosophy, "Trust but Verify" translates directly to "Don't Trust". I'm OK with that. Because this game is played by a hugely diverse number of players, there are certainly some who would misuse any trust given on those properties.

 

The Guidelines for permission DO extend to CPCs.

Nobody is arguing otherwise. The guidelines cover all caches, including CPC's.

 

Throwing rocks at this hornet's nest until we get stung by one or both of those entities is probably not in any of our best interests.

That's pretty scary language. Referring to anything as a hornet's nest implies latent and/or potential dangers. What would those dangers be? Wally World publicly announcing a geocaching ban on their properties? If you perceive that Wally World might not want us playing in their sandbox, why the heck would you support doing so? Would a Wally World cache ban hurt the game? I'm sure there are hordes of other sweltering, trash strewn parking lots to hide soggy log film canisters in. Could the "danger" be Groundspeak requiring explicit permission for CPC's? How would that have a negative impact on the game? Either a commercial entity accepts our game on their property or they do not. If they do, then obtaining permission is just a formality. If they do not, then we shouldn't be playing there.

 

If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It

If it is broke, let's fix it now, before the "hornets" start flying.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

If it is broke, let's fix it now, before the "hornets" start flying.

IF being the key word, I do not believe that it is.

 

I don't know what else I might say that would be constructive, except ask that all of you consider The Law of Unintended Consequences.

 

The Law of Unintended Consequences

The Law of Unintended Consequences is not a law in the strict scientific sense, but it is often quoted to encapsulate the idea that almost all human actions have at least one unintended consequence. In other words, each cause has more than one effect, including unforeseen effects. The idea dates to the Scottish Enlightenment.

 

In the twentieth century, sociologist Robert K. Merton once again popularized the concept, sometimes referred to as the Law of Unforeseen Consequences. Merton (1936) spoke of the "unanticipated consequences" of "purposive social action", emphasizing that his term "purposive action… [is exclusively] concerned with 'conduct' as distinct from 'behavior.' That is, with action that involves motives and consequently a choice between various alternatives" (p.895).

 

Causes

Possible causes of unintended consequences include the world's inherent complexity (parts of a system responding to changes in the environment), perverse incentives, human stupidity, self-deception or other cognitive or emotional biases.

 

Robert K. Merton listed five causes of unanticipated consequences[1]:

- Ignorance (It is impossible to anticipate everything)

- Error (Incomplete analysis of the problem, or following habits that worked in the past but may not apply to the current situation)

- Immediate interest, which may override long-term interests

- Basic values may require or prohibit certain actions, even if the long-term result might be unfavorable (these long-term consequences may eventually cause changes in basic values)

- Self-defeating prophecy (Fear of some consequence drives people to find solutions before the problem occurs, thus the non-occurrence of the problem is unanticipated)

 

Merton is also said to have stated that "no blanket statement categorically affirming or denying the practical feasibility of all social planning is warranted."

 

Good luck with the express permission for CPCs campaign... I believe that it will result in more restrictions than permissions, simply because 'no' is easier to say.

[+Renegade Knight]

....If it is broke, let's fix it now, before the "hornets" start flying.

 

The permission debate is one of individual cacher ethics. not policy.

 

When your reviewers ask for more detail on a hide in a location known to have a policy they are doing the land manager a favor to keep up good relations. Nothing more. Same reasons as the ban on pocket knives in caches. This site, nor any other, would ever certify that you have adequate permission. They will leave that up to you.

 

If they ever do start obtaining more and more detailed information on the exact nature and type of permission that we have, then this site would start taking on increasing responsibltiy for the caches themselves and not just the listing of them.

 

That separation of listing site and cache owner is vital. This site can only exercise control over listings. We owners our caches. The separation is criticallly important. If a Boston Light Bright incident happens to a cacher, geocaching may take a beating, that cacher may go bankrupt but geocaching goes on. If the listing sites go down due to a nice stiff fine on a cross listed cache. So much for caching as we know it.

 

Back on the ethics of caching. Is the creed broken?

http://www.geocreed.info/

[Clan Riffster]

When your reviewers ask for more detail on a hide in a location known to have a policy they are doing the land manager a favor to keep up good relations. Nothing more.

Testify, Brother! I agree completely. What I'm suggesting is that Groundspeak extend this "favor" to commercial property owners.

 

Is the creed broken?

http://www.geocreed.info/

I think the Creed is still alive & well, although it takes a good beating every time a CPC is placed without explicit permission.

From the Creed:

When placing or seeking geocaches, I will:

 

3 Respect Property Rights and Seek Permission Where Appropriate

Check if permission is required before placing a cache on private property, and respect the landowner's wishes.

 

If we, as cachers, are hiding caches on commercial property, when we believe the owner or designated representative of said property would not allow it, can we honestly claim that we are respecting property rights? How can we respect the landowner's wishes by hiding an unwanted cache there? I know that this is just a Creed, and not the guidelines, but it's the rules I govern my caching by. Apparently, I'm part of a dwindling minority. Could we suggest the Creed get an update to match what seems to be common consensus?

 

Something to the effect of:

3 Ignore the wishes of commercial property owners

Since most state laws do not specifically prohibit geocaching on commercial properties, treat the owner's of these properties as non entities.

Commercial properties exist to serve us. There is no need to ask anyone for permission when hiding a CPC

[+sbell111]

...

He said he did not have the authority to give permission to put a Geocache on his property because it is an organized activity. ....

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

Perhaps wallmart has a different view on what organized events are than a park system, but by and large I would not make the stretch that No Wal Mart hides are legal because one manager has an apparent mis perception in his head.

Again, I'd love for someone to step forward and say that they have explained geocaching to a WalMart store manager (read the person that can be contacted if there is a problem and has the authority to grant permission to put it there) and they've said yes. The guy that I talked to was pretty experienced. He's worked at stores all across the country before coming to Hawaii and I would be very surprised if he was incorrect.

 

The best thing is that he's a nice guy and if it all works out I will have the opportunity to know him better. If that happens, maybe I can have an "off the record" discussion with him someday. What he told me was straight out of their manual and totally by the book, I can guarantee you that.

RK's position was not that the manager didn't know his manual. It was that he perhaps didn't understand this game (or that you did not fully explain away his concerns).

[+sbell111]

... I didn't feel it was my place nor was I qualified to step into those channels.

I completely agree with you on this point.

[+sbell111]

2. I think anyone who has seen the material on the blog can attest to it being void of any perceived personal agenda. However, it was written from the perspective that GC.com guidelines clearly requires a cacher to ask for permission if a cache is placed on private property and that explicit permission is not only necessary per GC.com guidelines but grounded in common sense with respect to private commercial property. As you can see by some of the posts trickling in here, this is not the consensus in this forum and for this reason, I no longer see it as productive to make the resource material a topic of discussion here.

shenanigans.

[+sbell111]

Oh, I completely agree that it is relevant especially since that was his reason for denial. In my discussion, I alluded to wanting to get a copy of the store policy on organized events and I didn't get very far with that. Apparently this is not public information or at least I could not find it printed anywhere before I met with him. Although he quoted it pretty regularly, but he never produced it.

This is sometimes an indicator that you are being lied to. Some managers are not going to give approval for a cache because they don't want to get in trouble later. Some of these managers will pin their reason on some nebulous corporate policy that likely doesn't actually exist.

 

It's human nature.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Oh, I completely agree that it is relevant especially since that was his reason for denial. In my discussion, I alluded to wanting to get a copy of the store policy on organized events and I didn't get very far with that. Apparently this is not public information or at least I could not find it printed anywhere before I met with him. Although he quoted it pretty regularly, but he never produced it.

This is sometimes an indicator that you are being lied to. Some managers are not going to give approval for a cache because they don't want to get in trouble later. Some of these managers will pin their reason on some nebulous corporate policy that likely doesn't actually exist.

 

It's human nature.

 

This did cross my mind and I have not ruled it out as a possibility. I wish that there was 10 or so people stepping forward that I could compare notes with. Comparing information about actually requesting permission or locating more people like Too Tall that are in the inside of the corporate structure are really the only ways to know for sure.

 

Although I am not at all a stranger to asking or permission to place a cache from people who have never heard of geocaching, I was flying blind in a lot ways in this request due to the lack of information available to ground my effort. I only could do what had worked in the past. He was presented with detailed information of how the game is played and a very well thought out and interesting cache concept. After assimilating what he was presented with he did ask some very intelligent questions. I do believe he was being honest about wanting to try the game but as for sticking his professional neck out, I am not so sure. He very well could have been erring on the side of caution. If it was me, I would probably have done the same thing.

Edited April 9, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+Team GeoBlast]

When your reviewers ask for more detail on a hide in a location known to have a policy they are doing the land manager a favor to keep up good relations. Nothing more.

Testify, Brother! I agree completely. What I'm suggesting is that Groundspeak extend this "favor" to commercial property owners.

 

Is the creed broken?

http://www.geocreed.info/

I think the Creed is still alive & well, although it takes a good beating every time a CPC is placed without explicit permission.

From the Creed:

When placing or seeking geocaches, I will:

 

3 Respect Property Rights and Seek Permission Where Appropriate

Check if permission is required before placing a cache on private property, and respect the landowner's wishes.

 

If we, as cachers, are hiding caches on commercial property, when we believe the owner or designated representative of said property would not allow it, can we honestly claim that we are respecting property rights? How can we respect the landowner's wishes by hiding an unwanted cache there? I know that this is just a Creed, and not the guidelines, but it's the rules I govern my caching by. Apparently, I'm part of a dwindling minority. Could we suggest the Creed get an update to match what seems to be common consensus?

 

Something to the effect of:

3 Ignore the wishes of commercial property owners, what they don't know won't hurt them. If fact, the would prefer not to know so they are not responsible

Since most state laws do not specifically prohibit geocaching on commercial properties, treat the owner's of these properties as non entities.

Commercial properties exist to serve us. There is no need to ask anyone for permission when hiding a CPC

 

Re: #3 Very well put, I added a little bit in bold letters and underlined for emphasis one of the strongest points made on this subject. Little by little, unpermissioned CPC hide by unpermissioned CPC hide the possibility of the general public viewing geocaching this way becomes more and more real.

[+sbell111]

... Little by little, unpermissioned CPC hide by unpermissioned CPC hide the possibility of the general public viewing geocaching this way becomes more and more real.

Huh?

[+Team GeoBlast]

I said I wasn't going to meet you at your level...

Edited April 9, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+Team GeoBlast]

... Little by little, unpermissioned CPC hide by unpermissioned CPC hide the possibility of the general public viewing geocaching this way becomes more and more real.

Huh?

 

Geocaching is only one WalMart bomb scare away from the same bad PR that other incidents like it have generated, except on a larger more national stage.

 

sbell111...please try to be a little more constructive with your posts.