Are there any great public locations you do not need permision to place a new cache?

[mrbeachroach]

Are there any public places that are just a given that you do not need permission to start a cache here?

 

If so what are these areas.

[+StarBrand]

In General.....

 

On private property - always get permission.

 

On public lands - ask and find out if they have any rules or a policy - if they do then follow the rules and policies.

[+Snoogans]

Permission is implied on BLM land. I'm sure someone can link to the document.

[+briansnat]

Are there any public places that are just a given that you do not need permission to start a cache here?

 

If so what are these areas.

 

Most lands managed by NY state's DEC.

Edited January 2, 2008 by briansnat

[+Confucius' Cat]

Are there any public places that are just a given that you do not need permission to start a cache here?

 

If so what are these areas.

I suspect not too many where you could truly say "just a given" unless they have published a specific policy to that effect. But in general if it is public land, it is reasonable to "assume" permission unless the land manager or agency has a specific policy.

 

Some sure-fire clues that it is NOT a "given" are signs like "unlawful to leave marked trails" or "sensitive geological/botanical area" or "geocachers will be shot."

 

Is there a "QBQ?" (Question behind the question)

 

When I first started I was anxious to place a cache or two and I felt like all the cool places were taken. Indeed cache density was much less in those days. i imagine a newbie now finds it even more frustrating. Add to that the perceived "hassle" of asking permission and it seems like newcomers can't participate in the hiding, at least not in any way beyond the lame.

 

Actually, I have found that asking permission isn't really that hard once one finds out who is in charge of a given land. You should routinely do so BEFORE you go to the trouble of finding that ideal hiding spot. This will minimize your disappointment if the answer is "no."

 

As to "what are those areas," I think you have the proverbial cart in front of the horse. It will be much better in general to find a cool place and THEN determine if permission is needed rather than just go place a cache somewhere the primary reason that you picked the location being that you didn't need to get permission.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Are there any public places that are just a given that you do not need permission to start a cache here?

 

If so what are these areas.

 

Most places that people imply permission are private property, such as big box store parking lots, etc. Putting a magnet on a light post on a street corner is what I think of as public property. There's no one you need to ask. Managed parks and such, I agree, find out if there's a policy and then follow the policy if it exists.

[mrbeachroach]

Are there any public places that are just a given that you do not need permission to start a cache here?

 

If so what are these areas.

I suspect not too many where you could truly say "just a given" unless they have published a specific policy to that effect. But in general if it is public land, it is reasonable to "assume" permission unless the land manager or agency has a specific policy.

 

Some sure-fire clues that it is NOT a "given" are signs like "unlawful to leave marked trails" or "sensitive geological/botanical area" or "geocachers will be shot."

 

Is there a "QBQ?" (Question behind the question)

 

When I first started I was anxious to place a cache or two and I felt like all the cool places were taken. Indeed cache density was much less in those days. i imagine a newbie now finds it even more frustrating. Add to that the perceived "hassle" of asking permission and it seems like newcomers can't participate in the hiding, at least not in any way beyond the lame.

 

Actually, I have found that asking permission isn't really that hard once one finds out who is in charge of a given land. You should routinely do so BEFORE you go to the trouble of finding that ideal hiding spot. This will minimize your disappointment if the answer is "no."

 

As to "what are those areas," I think you have the proverbial cart in front of the horse. It will be much better in general to find a cool place and THEN determine if permission is needed rather than just go place a cache somewhere the primary reason that you picked the location being that you didn't need to get permission.

there is always a qbq!!!! Thanks for bringing it up. I recently placed a cache 100 ft from a cemitary and the publisher wanted more information on the cache before he would list it, but he did not list why he wanted more information on the cache, he just said can you please tell me a little more about the area the cache is in? -mrbeachroach

[+briansnat]

there is always a qbq!!!! Thanks for bringing it up. I recently placed a cache 100 ft from a cemitary and the publisher wanted more information on the cache before he would list it, but he did not list why he wanted more information on the cache, he just said can you please tell me a little more about the area the cache is in? -mrbeachroach

 

You might not be aware of the issues a few years back with caches in cemeteries. In short, SC legislators moved to ban geocaching in cemeteries and historic sites. In the end cooler heads ruled the day and

the legislation was defeated, but reviewers are now very sensitive about caches in or near cemeteries.

 

If it's in the cemetery they usually expect permission, being that most cemeteries are private property.

[+ironman114]

Are there any public places that are just a given that you do not need permission to start a cache here?

 

If so what are these areas.

 

Most places that people imply permission are private property, such as big box store parking lots, etc. Putting a magnet on a light post on a street corner is what I think of as public property. There's no one you need to ask. Managed parks and such, I agree, find out if there's a policy and then follow the policy if it exists.

 

There are more places than that that are public property. Your state has thousands upon thousands of acres of National Forest, State lands and BLM lands. More than the size of some whole states even.

[+Serial007]

I think that implying permission in any situation can place you on shaky ground. Even though on unmanaged land most of the time no one specifically owns them, responsibility of them is still held by someone. In one of the cities I have lived in caches were placed public parks that were not managed. The city officially were responsible for the parks and were the ones that ended up making an official ban on geocaches in the area.

 

In my opinion, the chances of getting an area banned is higher in areas that permission is assumed than when permission is requested. A lot of the time, finding the governing body for the land can be hard. Geocaching organizations can usually help in getting that approval for you and usually know of who the contacts are for getting permission. The most that can happen when asking for permission is an answer of no. The most that can happen when not asking for permission is banning of all geocaches, fines, etc.

 

To the OP, I would recommend joining or asking an area geocaching association for help. They will most likely know the areas that have geocaching guidelines, and who to contact, for where you are and can lead to you getting your cache posted and out there quickly with no worry or guilt.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Serial007

[+kwikstix]

This is a timely discussion, indeed!

 

I recently placed a cache on the property of a state university. The property on which I placed it used to be owned by my family, but was recently purchased by the university for use as a theater. (The property is an old dairy barn that my family preserved and converted to a live productions theater. The barn/theater is sitting in the middle of a very developed commercial area, which used to be a farm that my family owned, so it seems very out of place and has cultural/historical value in the area.)

 

There are no fences, gates, or any signage indicating that access is restricted, and there is a nice size parking lot. The cache is hidden outside, immediately adjacent to a pedestrian-accessible area (a finder doesn't need to go to look conspicuous while searching for and retrieving the cache). The university does not have any policy on geocaching that I'm aware of (I searched their website and have spoken to someone in their police department).

 

The barn/theater property is patrolled by a hired security firm - not by the university police. A recent cacher was approached by a security guard, who was nice about it, but asked them to leave because it was "private property". Is a state university considered "private property"? I live in a city with several college/universities, some of which are state-run and some of which are private. Caches are hidden on the campuses of all of them, none of them have an official "geocaching policy", and none of them have the "feel" of private property (members of the community - myself included - walk through campus for exercise, take my children on campus to play, etc.).

 

When I saw the log by the cacher who was approached by the security guard, I disabled the cache and contacted the university police department, who told me that they didn't have the authority to grant permission to leave the cache in place, but the officer I spoke with gave me the name of the facilities manager of their theater department, whom I have contacted (but not yet heard back from). Of course, if he specifically requests that I remove the cache, I will honor his request. However, is there a precedent set for this kind of thing? Are state universities legally public or private? I understand that there are certain rules that they can set, such as carrying weapons on campus, etc, but in general, can it legally be considered trespassing to be on (what I would consider) public property?

[Keystone]

Did you know about the law in Tennessee that prohibits playing games in cemeteries? I think the reviewers in that state are even more cautious than elsewhere, for good reason.

 

Your cache description doesn't say much about the cache location, but instead is devoted to a short tale. The maps show a cemetery close by.

 

You should provide details as requested by the reviewer.

[+egami]

This is a timely discussion, indeed!

 

...

 

However, is there a precedent set for this kind of thing? Are state universities legally public or private? I understand that there are certain rules that they can set, such as carrying weapons on campus, etc, but in general, can it legally be considered trespassing to be on (what I would consider) public property?

 

You'll find varying degrees of answers from people on this board. Many people here have a cavalier attitude toward "public" property and will do anything, and make any excuse, not to obtain actual permission due to the nature of the property being public. Then, there are people like me, who would argue that if there is known controlling entity then that person or persons should be contacted.

 

The only exceptions would be obvious "public" property created for recreational purposes. These includes parks, state forests and ROW's whose purpose is recreational among others and even then only in areas designated for such activity...people will use these as an excuse to place a cache in an endagered species nest or other sensitive areas of such places it seems.

 

This, of course, is my opinion...someone will surely come in right behind and assert that "public" property is a free-for-all. To which person I would challenge them to place and publish a cache on the perimeter of a nearby prison yard or on the front lawn of their local law enforcement office without obtaining permission.

Edited January 3, 2008 by egami

[+Confucius' Cat]

There are no fences, gates, or any signage indicating that access is restricted, and there is a nice size parking lot. The cache is hidden outside, immediately adjacent to a pedestrian-accessible area (a finder doesn't need to go to look conspicuous while searching for and retrieving the cache).

 

The barn/theater property is patrolled by a hired security firm - not by the university police. A recent cacher was approached by a security guard, who was nice about it, but asked them to leave because it was "private property". Is a state university considered "private property"?

 

but in general, can it legally be considered trespassing to be on (what I would consider) public property?

From your description i would think the security guard might have been out of line, but perhaps there are further details that would change my opinion.

 

Assuming the cache is in a place that is provided with the purpose and intent of the general public being there, I can't see how it could be considered trespassing.

 

The university property would probably be considered private property given for public use. It is private in the sense that, even though it is maintained with public funds, it is so maintained for specific purposes, i.e. education of tuition paying students. The public funding of the university does not confer any right of the public to use the university property for any other purpose than that for which it was established.

 

That jogging and dog-walking are ALLOWED does not mean that the joggers and dog-walkers have a "right" to pursue their activities. They could be at any time prohibited from doing so if the university management so decided. A simple ferinstance would be if they put a construction fence around the sidewalk the joggers have been using for years. the joggers would have no right to break down or climb the fence so they could use their usual jogging path.

 

As in almost all "private" property which is open to public use, the managers of the property can, within limits, restrict what kinds of activities are taking place on the property. For example, the Whitehouse is public property, but you won't get very far if you try to get in without an invitation (or a majority of electoral votes lol).

 

I would say that the university has the right to limit or prohibit geocaching on the property, but if the cache was indeed where you indicate and the seeker was not doing anything destructive or illegal (like tampering with sprinkler heads, smoking, skateboarding, etc) while looking for the cache, the security guard probably had no "right" to tell the cacher to leave the public sidewalk or parking lot.

 

You stated the guard was very nice about it. To me this indicates that there really wasn't any problem but the guard considered the cacher's actions suspicious and simply made the "suggestion" that he "move along" and thus take whatever problem the guard might have sensed to someone else's bailiwick. That is really not an indication that there might be a trespassing charge- at least at that point.

 

Asking someone politely to "move on" is way different from arrest for trespass.

 

Could you challenge his authority? Sure. Would it be wise to do so on the street? I don't know, you tell me, here is a guy with a minimum wage job that gets pertineer no respect who mainly just wants to go home to his family at the end of the shift with as little hassle as possible. is it really worth messing up his day and yours?

 

The only way to properly determine if the cache is allowed there is to find the person in charge and get permission. And that is the cache owner's responsibility, no one else's.

[+egami]

There are no fences, gates, or any signage indicating that access is restricted, and there is a nice size parking lot. The cache is hidden outside, immediately adjacent to a pedestrian-accessible area (a finder doesn't need to go to look conspicuous while searching for and retrieving the cache).

 

The barn/theater property is patrolled by a hired security firm - not by the university police. A recent cacher was approached by a security guard, who was nice about it, but asked them to leave because it was "private property". Is a state university considered "private property"?

 

but in general, can it legally be considered trespassing to be on (what I would consider) public property?

From your description i would think the security guard might have been out of line, but perhaps there are further details that would change my opinion.

 

Like the fact that the security guard works for the entity controlling the property?

[+kwikstix]

There are no fences, gates, or any signage indicating that access is restricted, and there is a nice size parking lot. The cache is hidden outside, immediately adjacent to a pedestrian-accessible area (a finder doesn't need to go to look conspicuous while searching for and retrieving the cache).

 

The barn/theater property is patrolled by a hired security firm - not by the university police. A recent cacher was approached by a security guard, who was nice about it, but asked them to leave because it was "private property". Is a state university considered "private property"?

 

but in general, can it legally be considered trespassing to be on (what I would consider) public property?

From your description i would think the security guard might have been out of line, but perhaps there are further details that would change my opinion.

 

Like the fact that the security guard works for the entity controlling the property?

 

Well, according to the university police officer I spoke with, the security guard is your basic "rent-a-cop", due to the fact that the barn/theater property is located away from the main university campus (by a mile or two). I'm assuming that in that situation the security guard took the CYA approach of better safe than sorry and just asked them to leave rather than risk making an informed decision on the spot regarding whether they were really harming anything by being there. I suppose in that situation I may have done the same thing. Regardless, as the cache owner, I don't want to risk other cachers running into a similar situation, or even worse if another security guard is less friendly.

[+Sapience Trek]

Are there any public places that are just a given that you do not need permission to start a cache here?

 

If so what are these areas.

 

Most lands managed by NY state's DEC.

 

One notable exception are Wildlife Management Areas.

[+Confucius' Cat]

There are no fences, gates, or any signage indicating that access is restricted, and there is a nice size parking lot. The cache is hidden outside, immediately adjacent to a pedestrian-accessible area (a finder doesn't need to go to look conspicuous while searching for and retrieving the cache).

 

The barn/theater property is patrolled by a hired security firm - not by the university police. A recent cacher was approached by a security guard, who was nice about it, but asked them to leave because it was "private property". Is a state university considered "private property"?

 

but in general, can it legally be considered trespassing to be on (what I would consider) public property?

From your description i would think the security guard might have been out of line, but perhaps there are further details that would change my opinion.

 

Like the fact that the security guard works for the entity controlling the property?

The fact that one works for the property owner does not give one the right to exclude persons who are lawfully on the premises doing lawful activities. No matter who one works for, one cannot make up the rules as one goes.

 

Legislators MAKE the laws, cops ENFORCE the laws. When a "cop" (rental or otherwise) takes it upon himself to MAKE his own laws, he is out of line.

 

If he "shooed" someone off for no lawful reason, he was out of line. If he HAD a lawful reason, then he wasn't out of line. That is the way it is with a word like "might."

 

Hope that clarifies.

[+egami]

The fact that one works for the property owner does not give one the right to exclude persons who are lawfully on the premises doing lawful activities. No matter who one works for, one cannot make up the rules as one goes.

 

Legislators MAKE the laws, cops ENFORCE the laws. When a "cop" (rental or otherwise) takes it upon himself to MAKE his own laws, he is out of line.

 

If he "shooed" someone off for no lawful reason, he was out of line. If he HAD a lawful reason, then he wasn't out of line. That is the way it is with a word like "might."

 

Hope that clarifies.

 

Legislators do not have to make laws for geocaching on university property. If a security guard feels a suspicious activity is questionable he has the authority to make that decision at the time if no policy is in place. If subsequently the university chooses to allow it, then there is no harm done. If they choose not to, then that is also within their rights.

 

Public property is not a free for all and just because it's state owned it does not give you an inherent right to do whatever you please, regardless of legality.

 

This isn't about legality...universities, and other controlling entities of public land, post rules that must be followed with legislation all the time and enforce them and they are well within their rights as the controlling entity.

 

If you question this, go pitch a tent on state university property on their front lawn and see if they can't legally move you off public property...for a "legal" activity. It's not a question of legality. It's the fundamental difference between a "right" and a "privilege".

Edited January 4, 2008 by egami

[+Confucius' Cat]

The fact that one works for the property owner does not give one the right to exclude persons who are lawfully on the premises doing lawful activities. No matter who one works for, one cannot make up the rules as one goes.

 

Legislators MAKE the laws, cops ENFORCE the laws. When a "cop" (rental or otherwise) takes it upon himself to MAKE his own laws, he is out of line.

 

If he "shooed" someone off for no lawful reason, he was out of line. If he HAD a lawful reason, then he wasn't out of line. That is the way it is with a word like "might."

 

Hope that clarifies.

 

Legislators do not have to make laws for geocaching on university property. If a security guard feels a suspicious activity is questionable he has the authority to make that decision at the time if no policy is in place. If subsequently the university chooses to allow it, then there is no harm done. If they choose not to, then that is also within their rights.

 

Public property is not a free for all and just because it's state owned it does not give you an inherent right to do whatever you please.

 

This isn't about legality...universities, and other controlling entities of public land, post rules that must be followed with legislation all the time and enforce them and they are well within their rights as the controlling entity.

 

If you question this, go pitch a tent on state university property on their front lawn and see if they can't legally move off public property...

To somehow get the idea from actually reading any of my posts that public property is a "free for all" is patently absurd.

 

i searched my posts pretty carefully and the words "free for all" are found not at all in mine (up till this post of course) but only in yours.

 

Actually i figured you were setting a trap and waiting to put words in someone else's mouth when i read those words in your earlier post. Nice set-up. I knew I was walking into it when I posted, substantially AGREEING with you, in the next post.

 

Universities and other entities can and do "post" various rules that are specific to their operation, not necessarily with signage but always at least with some official decree by a person having the authority to make the decree.

 

After these rules are made by the person or persons of authority, the security guards then and only then have the authority to enforce them. Nowhere in the good ol' U S of A does any law enforcement person have the AUTHORITY to make up their own rules. often the DO, but it is not by their AUTHORITY, hence when they do so they are "out of line." The phrase "out of line" as used here means "acting beyond or outside of the scope of their authority."

 

Furthermore, even the university cannot make just ANY rule they please. Rules made by the university are subject to the laws of the land. Ferinstance, a university cannot make a rule that discriminates against anyone by race or religion. That would violate Federal law.

 

Bottom line: If a person is in a public place and doing nothing illegal, NO ONE has the right to make that person move on. That is covered in the US 1st amendment: "the right of the people peaceably to assemble."

 

If you question this, go pitch a tent on state university property on their front lawn and see if they can't legally move off public property...

 

In this politically correct world, which is most vehemently defended by whom? That's right, the universities of course! Do you honestly think anyone would roust a homeless person on a college campus? Talk about inciting a student revolt! The university would most likely give the squatter a brand spanking new shopping cart and use it for a photo op! LOOK HOW MUCH WE CARE!

 

Can you imagine the STINK if they rousted him? The ACLU would have a field day.

[+kwikstix]

I agree largely with Confucius' Cat, although I would add that pitching a tent on a university property (if you're not a student), could be described as loitering, which very well could be illegal, or at the very least against the rules of the university. I'm from Virginia, and many of the schools here (as well as across the US) have tightened their security quite a bit since the Virginia Tech massacre, with good reason. I can understand the sensitivity to having potentially "sneaky" activity going on near a dorm or classroom facility, especially. I also went to a relatively small, private university (around 1000 students), so my perspective may be a bit skewed, I admit, with regard to being able to recognize people who don't "belong" on campus.

 

However, my particular cache placement is on the property of a theater, which is designed for public use. The university hosts and puts on performances to which the public is invited to come, so it would not be unusual for non-university related folks to be on that property. Not squatting, mind you, but attending a show, or browsing the posters hung in the windows, which I'm sure are designed to advertise upcoming shows to the general public. This is property for public use roughly equivalent to an amphitheater in a park. My perspective is that, setting aside for a moment the actual act of placing the cache, people who are on the property merely searching for and finding the cache could (from the perspective of a security guard or other public observers) very well also just be curious about why a barn is in the middle of a bustling city, or browsing the posters of upcoming shows.

[+egami]

Having worked campus security I can tell you first hand you are wrong. We did this numerous time with individuals doing perfectly "legal" things that we didn't have specific policy for.

 

There were numerous times we had to tell people they couldn't do something that on paper was "legal" to do on private property, but that we felt was potentially damaging, endangering or potentially created a safety issue. And we did not need a SPECIFIC rule about it to enforce it either.

 

And, I never state you said it was a free-for-all, I just made that comment.

 

So, I am sure you are well aware that I never said universities can make any rule they please.

 

And as far as your homeless person example...having worked campus security, again, if we had found someone doing this we would assist them in getting to a shelter or place designed to help this person. It didn't happen during my tenure, but it did actually happen on our campus the year after I left. He didn't even have a tent...he was sleeping under a bench, which is perfectly legal.

 

You can recite whatever you want to about 1st amendment rights, but I have practical firsthand experience with a very similar environment. I am not an expert, I am not a lawyer, but I know that much of your "perception" is blatantly incorrect on the issue.

 

Again, go place a cache on the front lawn of the local law enforcement office which is also "public" property and start a lawsuit when they remove it. I'll bet a paycheck on it that you don't win. Same thing on a campus...the university is not obligated to allow a cache to exist if they deem it a potential problem for any one of several basic reasons previously mentioned.

 

If they do, great...it's a non-issue when you get permission, which it the point.

Edited January 4, 2008 by egami

[+egami]

However, my particular cache placement is on the property of a theater, which is designed for public use. The university hosts and puts on performances to which the public is invited to come, so it would not be unusual for non-university related folks to be on that property. Not squatting, mind you, but attending a show, or browsing the posters hung in the windows, which I'm sure are designed to advertise upcoming shows to the general public. This is property for public use roughly equivalent to an amphitheater in a park. My perspective is that, setting aside for a moment the actual act of placing the cache, people who are on the property merely searching for and finding the cache could (from the perspective of a security guard or other public observers) very well also just be curious about why a barn is in the middle of a bustling city, or browsing the posters of upcoming shows.

 

I am not contesting the nature of placing a cache there.

 

If you are so confident in your assertion about the existence of a cache being perfectly legal to begin with then it should be no problem verifying this with campus authorities.

 

More than likely you'll get permission anyway. I know at least one of the local campuses here has given permission. I know the head of the security and I'll be asking him regarding the "legality" aspect of it, but I am fairly confident that if the university controls the property they'd be well within their authority to deny a cache based on similar experiences when I was working with campus security many years ago.

Edited January 4, 2008 by egami

[+Glenn]

Public property is not a free for all and just because it's state owned it does not give you an inherent right to do whatever you please, regardless of legality.

By definition military bases are public property and not all military property is fenced in. I don't see people using the it's public property argument in claiming to have to have the right to place caches on military controlled property.

[+egami]

Public property is not a free for all and just because it's state owned it does not give you an inherent right to do whatever you please, regardless of legality.

By definition military bases are public property and not all military property is fenced in. I don't see people using the it's public property argument in claiming to have to have the right to place caches on military controlled property.

 

True, but I deliberately avoided that example per current limitations in place with military installations.

[+Renegade Knight]

Are there any public places that are just a given that you do not need permission to start a cache here?

 

If so what are these areas.

 

The rule of thumb is that you always need adequate permission.

 

The next rule of thumb is that if you feel that means you need to go find someone to ask, odds are you do.

[+Renegade Knight]

Having worked campus security I can tell you first hand you are wrong. We did this numerous time with individuals doing perfectly "legal" things that we didn't have specific policy for.

 

There were numerous times we had to tell people they couldn't do something that on paper was "legal" to do on private property, but that we felt was potentially damaging, endangering or potentially created a safety issue. And we did not need a SPECIFIC rule about it to enforce it either....

The charter that gives you your athority very likely has a "rule" in it that allows for your judgment regarding the items I put in bold in your post. That's the law or regulation you are going to stand on if challenged and it's what lets you do your job in circumstances that are not so clear cut. These weasel words are a part of a lot of the rules that folks with authority to enforce laws and regulations are given to work with. Needed, but potentially abused.

 

I'm thinking that I should have addressed this responce to Confucius' Cat, since this is nothing you don't already know.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The fact that one works for the property owner does not give one the right to exclude persons who are lawfully on the premises doing lawful activities. No matter who one works for, one cannot make up the rules as one goes.

 

Legislators MAKE the laws, cops ENFORCE the laws. When a "cop" (rental or otherwise) takes it upon himself to MAKE his own laws, he is out of line....

 

Rights vs. Real World.

If you are doing something that security feels is an issue, you will be escorted away and you will go peacefully or you will be assisted. That is what will happen most every time.

 

It's only after the fact that you could invoke your rights and make a case. What you will be fighing though are the laws and regulations that give security and police broad powers to deal with immediate threats to the public saftey. Your case is one of showing that the officer or guard acticed outside this general authority. That's not so easy to do.

 

You are right, they don't make laws. They make professional judgments in the field.

[+egami]

Having worked campus security I can tell you first hand you are wrong. We did this numerous time with individuals doing perfectly "legal" things that we didn't have specific policy for.

 

There were numerous times we had to tell people they couldn't do something that on paper was "legal" to do on private property, but that we felt was potentially damaging, endangering or potentially created a safety issue. And we did not need a SPECIFIC rule about it to enforce it either....

The charter that gives you your athority very likely has a "rule" in it that allows for your judgment regarding the items I put in bold in your post. That's the law or regulation you are going to stand on if challenged and it's what lets you do your job in circumstances that are not so clear cut. These weasel words are a part of a lot of the rules that folks with authority to enforce laws and regulations are given to work with. Needed, but potentially abused.

 

I'm thinking that I should have addressed this responce to Confucius' Cat, since this is nothing you don't already know.

 

Well, just to clarify, that was years ago...I haven't actively been in any type of law enforcement or security for over 10 years. And I will carefully admit, as I did before, that I am no expert on the "legality" side of it. However, it seemed to me that CC was essentially arguing that if it's "legal" and if there is no "official rule" by a university then any action by security averting a geocacher was likely an infringement on their rights.

 

I think from you previous post to this one that we probably agree on this particular situation.

 

And, you bring up a fair point about abuse...I am not trying to imply the security or law enforcement can do as they please or even rule on whether caching can be allowed on the premises of a university or not. Their job, in it's simplest form, is safety.

 

I think in most cases public universities, and private for that matter, would willingly work hand in had with geocachers to help allow this activity on the premises. I know Iowa State does. I assume University of Iowa does. I know a couple local private colleges that do. I am sure there are probably some limitations as well...like not in the stadiums for example.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Ok, who has the most "smileys?" their argument will thus be considered the best.

 

I have never worked university security but I have served as a sworn police officer in an actual real (albeit tiny) city and as an Auxiliary officer in an actual real County. I probably didn't get PAID as much as a typical rent-a-cop but i had quite a few training classes amounting to a few hundred hours at least. This was 20 years ago and in the Commonwealth of Kentucky so thus my limited training and experience is out of date and not relevant to the campus in question.

 

Anyway we pretty much all agree on what happens if you decide to "contest" an officer on the street (even if the officer does not have any real authority). We also agree, believe it or not that an officer does have the authority to make field judgments regarding the law.

 

Furthermore, i would add that the ability to enforce one's rights depends largely on the size of one's bank account or how much publicity one can muster for one's case. Ferinstance,

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that in general curfews are unconstitutional. But still many jurisdictions have and enforce curfews. How do they get away with that? Simple: the people who are generally rousted or arrested for curfew violations RARELY are people with enough resources to make an appeal. The local court goes along with the ordinance knowing full well an appeals court will throw out the case, but it is super unlikely that the local derelict is going to pursue an appeals case. When the rich man's son is arrested for the curfew violation, the judge rules not guilty.

 

The issue we have been discussing is not whether the cache is legal on the campus, but we are on a slightly off-topic spur regarding whether the CACHE HUNTER'S actions are legal.

 

It is very clear to me, based on the presents of the discussion, that the CACHE HUNTERS in question were not doing anything out of the ordinary or illegal.

 

If this is the case, then I, Judge Cat, declare the security guard OUT OF LINE. *gavel bang*

 

legal disclaimer: I am not a real judge nor do i play one on TV but I did in fact judge a difficult word in a game of "Scrabble" and that judgement has not yet been overturned by a higher authority

[+egami]

It is very clear to me, based on the presents of the discussion, that the CACHE HUNTERS in question were not doing anything out of the ordinary or illegal.

 

legal disclaimer: I am not a real judge nor do i play one on TV but I did in fact judge a difficult word in a game of "Scrabble" and that judgement has not yet been overturned by a higher authority

 

I never contested that. That's not the point.

[+Confucius' Cat]

And as far as your homeless person example...having worked campus security, again, if we had found someone doing this we would assist them in getting to a shelter or place designed to help this person.

And you "got 'er done" just about five minutes before the campus TV crew arrived to film Hillary showing her compassion for the homeless by giving him a new shopping cart.

 

You people have GOT to start talking to each other from department to department! Hey, if she loses the election, it is YOUR fault!

[+Confucius' Cat]

It is very clear to me, based on the presents of the discussion, that the CACHE HUNTERS in question were not doing anything out of the ordinary or illegal.

 

legal disclaimer: I am not a real judge nor do i play one on TV but I did in fact judge a difficult word in a game of "Scrabble" and that judgement has not yet been overturned by a higher authority

 

I never contested that. That's not the point.

Ok, so if we have stipulated the only salient point, how do you conclude that the security guard was not out of line in "moving on" a person who was clearly not doing anything wrong and had every conceivable right to be there?

Edited January 6, 2008 by Confucius' Cat

[me_chris]

Are there any public places that are just a given that you do not need permission to start a cache here?

 

If so what are these areas.

I suspect not too many where you could truly say "just a given" unless they have published a specific policy to that effect. But in general if it is public land, it is reasonable to "assume" permission unless the land manager or agency has a specific policy.

 

Some sure-fire clues that it is NOT a "given" are signs like "unlawful to leave marked trails" or "sensitive geological/botanical area" or "geocachers will be shot."

 

Is there a "QBQ?" (Question behind the question)

 

When I first started I was anxious to place a cache or two and I felt like all the cool places were taken. Indeed cache density was much less in those days. i imagine a newbie now finds it even more frustrating. Add to that the perceived "hassle" of asking permission and it seems like newcomers can't participate in the hiding, at least not in any way beyond the lame.

 

Actually, I have found that asking permission isn't really that hard once one finds out who is in charge of a given land. You should routinely do so BEFORE you go to the trouble of finding that ideal hiding spot. This will minimize your disappointment if the answer is "no."

 

As to "what are those areas," I think you have the proverbial cart in front of the horse. It will be much better in general to find a cool place and THEN determine if permission is needed rather than just go place a cache somewhere the primary reason that you picked the location being that you didn't need to get permission.

 

I try to stay out of any areas that have signs warning that I might be shot...

[+egami]

It is very clear to me, based on the presents of the discussion, that the CACHE HUNTERS in question were not doing anything out of the ordinary or illegal.

 

legal disclaimer: I am not a real judge nor do i play one on TV but I did in fact judge a difficult word in a game of "Scrabble" and that judgement has not yet been overturned by a higher authority

 

I never contested that. That's not the point.

Ok, so if we have stipulated the only salient point, how do you conclude that the security guard was not out of line in "moving on" a person who was clearly not doing anything wrong and have every conceivable right to be there?

 

I am not going to argue this endlessly with you. I've made my point, you've yet to demonstrate how this is actually always a violation of the cachers right. You're entitled to your opinion, but you haven't proven anything.

 

And, it's a side point anyway, the fact remains that anytime anyone is placing a cache on "public" property and there is a known controlling entity like a university it's a good idea to get permission because not all "public" property is allowed for caching.

 

Have a great day.

[+Confucius' Cat]

It is very clear to me, based on the presents of the discussion, that the CACHE HUNTERS in question were not doing anything out of the ordinary or illegal.

 

legal disclaimer: I am not a real judge nor do i play one on TV but I did in fact judge a difficult word in a game of "Scrabble" and that judgement has not yet been overturned by a higher authority

 

I never contested that. That's not the point.

Ok, so if we have stipulated the only salient point, how do you conclude that the security guard was not out of line in "moving on" a person who was clearly not doing anything wrong and have every conceivable right to be there?

 

I am not going to argue this endlessly with you. I've made my point, you've yet to demonstrate how this is actually always a violation of the cachers right. You're entitled to your opinion, but you haven't proven anything.

 

And, it's a side point anyway, the fact remains that anytime anyone is placing a cache on "public" property and there is a known controlling entity like a university it's a good idea to get permission because not all "public" property is allowed for caching.

 

Have a great day.

Nor could I ever make a point satisfactorily for you if you continue to change important words and phrases like "might have been out of line" to "always a violation of the cacher's right."

 

Superlatives and hyperbole are rarely, if ever, "provable." That's why i avoid using them. They do make for good "straw men" however.

 

I'm done too.

Good day, sir.

[+egami]

I wasn't contesting your "might have been out of line" comment. It was your subsequent incorrect elaborations that I contested.

[+the pooks]

People scratching around under bushes looking for little boxes in this day and age with what is going on in the world looks highly suspicious, especially to sucurity guards who are paid to look out for suspicious activity. I always feel uncomfortable looking for caches within sight of security and that is enough reason to avoid placing caches there. If you want someone to visit the public spot place an offset cache - collect clues for the final at the spot and then hide the cache out of obvious sight.

 

In the campus example, explaining the game to the guard might also help - it might not help at the time, but the guard would learn something he did not know before. Usually people are quite interested and amused by the game. I can see the communication problems that an authority can have conveying the existence of a geocache to all their security people (especially if they are conract security).

Edited January 6, 2008 by the pooks

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

In general, due to the somewhat inter-related principle of "implied permission" and "implied public access due to taxpayer funding", I never bother to ask permission when placing geocaches in the following settings, and rather, I just go ahead and place the cache:

• in the main lobby of a police station
  
• outside the main doorway of a police station
  
• in the bushes just outside the main doorway of a bank
  
• in the bushes in front of high-security buildings located on military bases
  
• in the bushes just outside the main guardhouse at the main entrance of a high-security military base
  

So far, this policy has worked well for me!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+ReadyOrNot]

 

Ummm... Could you turn that cat about 180 degrees.. thanks!

[+Confucius' Cat]

In general, due to the somewhat inter-related principle of "implied permission" and "implied public access due to taxpayer funding", I never bother to ask permission when placing geocaches in the following settings, and rather, I just go ahead and place the cache:

• in the main lobby of a police station
  
• outside the main doorway of a police station
  
• in the bushes just outside the main doorway of a bank
  
• in the bushes in front of high-security buildings located on military bases
  
• in the bushes just outside the main guardhouse at the main entrance of a high-security military base
  

So far, this policy has worked well for me!

Back before they banned moving caches, some of the world class best were caches placed in bomb squad trucks. The trick was to place a lite-brite toy in a conspicuous location or stake out a highway department traffic counter, wait for the BS to come out, then sneak a cache into their truck. The best containers for these hides were made with iron pipe and two end caps.

 

Oh, for the GOOD OLD DAYS!

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

In general, due to the somewhat inter-related principle of "implied permission" and "implied public access due to taxpayer funding", I never bother to ask permission when placing geocaches in the following settings, and rather, I just go ahead and place the cache:

• in the main lobby of a police station
  
• outside the main doorway of a police station
  
• in the bushes just outside the main doorway of a bank
  
• in the bushes in front of high-security buildings located on military bases
  
• in the bushes just outside the main guardhouse at the main entrance of a high-security military base
  

So far, this policy has worked well for me!

Back before they banned moving caches, some of the world class best were caches placed in bomb squad trucks. The trick was to place a lite-brite toy in a conspicuous location or stake out a highway department traffic counter, wait for the BS to come out, then sneak a cache into their truck. The best containers for these hides were made with iron pipe and two end caps.

 

Oh, for the GOOD OLD DAYS!

Wow! That tale really warmed my heart, as my first two finds in the early days of geocaching were magnetic keyholder caches hidden under bomb squad trucks, and my third find was a keyholder cache container attached to the air cleaner housing of the official car used by the mayor of our city; at the time, she and her car were under armed 24-hour protection at the time due to the paranoia rampant in the aftermath of the 9/11 scare and also due to two death threats which had been issued against her by a local drifter. My fourth find was a microcache secreted in the ceiling of one of the three lavatories aboard a jumbo jet which regularly traveled a cross-country route from the East Coast USA to West Coast USA and back. The cache was rated a 5/5 and the challenges involved making sure that you really were aboard the right aircraft (luckily, the cache listing page disclosed the aircraft's N registration number), and then smuggling hand tools into each of the lavatories on the plane, one lavatory at a time, and then disassembling all the walls and ceilings (the walls needed to be removed in order to remove the ceiling) of each lavatory in order to find the cache hidden in the ceiling (of one of them), and to do it all quietly and quickly so as not to raise the suspicion of the flight attendants.

 

Oh, for the good old days!

Edited January 8, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+Confucius' Cat]

Are there any public places that are just a given that you do not need permission to start a cache here?

 

If so what are these areas.

Getting this back on topic:

 

Yes. In fact, you do not need permission to start a cache in ANY public place... or any private place for that matter.

 

Getting in, hiding the cache and getting out without getting caught, maintaining your freedom and the integrity of your body, and getting the cache listed here... well those are other matters entirely.

[WeRLegend]

Let me preface this by saying i am about as new to Geocaching as a person can be but one thing i have learned is that the people involved in this game/sport/hobby are a diverse group. Odds are some are even security guards and im sure most dont appreciate being refered to as rent-a-cops. Not trying to ruffle any feathers, just an observation.

 

Danny

[+Confucius' Cat]

Let me preface this by saying i am about as new to Geocaching as a person can be but one thing i have learned is that the people involved in this game/sport/hobby are a diverse group. Odds are some are even security guards and im sure most dont appreciate being refered to as rent-a-cops. Not trying to ruffle any feathers, just an observation.

 

Danny

I bet "conservation officers" don't like being called "duck dicks," "possum police," "fish fuzz," or even in some cases "game warden" but I'll bet most of them knew those names when they signed up for the job.

 

"Cop" has even been taken as a derogatory word by some.

 

These names are meant to be descriptive and humorous and do not necessarily mean disrespect.

 

Our language is flamboyant and earthy and sometimes provocative, but that keeps the boredom in check. Can you imagine if we only had the "true scientific" names for every body part, every bodily function, every hobby, every food, every critter... a four-year-old's vocabulary?

 

In this life, all of us must learn to laugh at ourselves or we are doomed to sulk and complain about our miserable dreary existence, finding offence at every turn.

[+kwikstix]

"Cop" has even been taken as a derogatory word by some.

 

I think I read somewhere that the nick name "Cop" comes from "Copper", which is the nickname they received in the "wild west" due to the fact that their badges were made of copper.

 

Also, the cache I was referring to earlier in this discussion has been granted permission by TPTB at the university. The man I spoke with had actually recently read an article in the local newspaper regarding Geocaching, and was intrigued, so when I requested permission for the cache, he already knew a little bit about the sport.

[+Confucius' Cat]

"Cop" has even been taken as a derogatory word by some.

 

I think I read somewhere that the nick name "Cop" comes from "Copper", which is the nickname they received in the "wild west" due to the fact that their badges were made of copper.

 

Also, the cache I was referring to earlier in this discussion has been granted permission by TPTB at the university. The man I spoke with had actually recently read an article in the local newspaper regarding Geocaching, and was intrigued, so when I requested permission for the cache, he already knew a little bit about the sport.

Good job!

Now it would be doubly cool to post that information on the cache page.

Permission: the RIGHT way to place a cache.

Probably won't completely stop LE encounters altogether, but at least seekers can "cache with confidence"

 

[+kwikstix]

Thanks! I did mention that I had received permission in the Enable Listing log, as well as in a note that was posted subsequently. I also relayed TPTB's request that the cache only be sought during the day, and additionally specifically requested that all cachers respect the instructions of any LEO they encounter, even if asked to leave. Seeing as how the security company is an outside agency, not all their employees may be aware of the cache's existence, and its permission to be there. Do you folks think that stating something like that (view log here) discourage some cachers from seeking the cache?

Edited January 9, 2008 by kwikstix

[+kwikstix]

 

Where is this from? I'd be interested in using a "seal" graphic like this. However, if I use it on some of my caches and not on others, wouldn't that imply that the ones on which it isn't used were placed without permission?

[+Confucius' Cat]

 

Where is this from? I'd be interested in using a "seal" graphic like this. However, if I use it on some of my caches and not on others, wouldn't that imply that the ones on which it isn't used were placed without permission?

I got it from a forum thread. the author gave permission to use it.

 

EDIT: there have been so MANY permission threads that i figured searching for the thread would be "needle in haystack" but search using a significant part of the graphic URL produced the thread reference from whence it came.

 

Its source is "DocDitto" from This Thread.

 

The location is :

http://img.Groundspeak.com/cache/88f943d1-...4f672d0199d.jpg

 

And yes, that would seem to imply that the others did not have permission. That was one of the objections raised in the thread.

 

There are a LOT of places where it simply isn't necessary to ask anyone for permission to place a cache. (Though this is a matter of constant debate)

 

The nature of permission in this sport is that there is "implied" permission and "actual given" permission. The "seal" indicates, in an unofficial but graphic manner, that "real actual asked for and granted" permission was given by someone to have the cache where it is.

 

Since the seal is unofficial, it doesn't really indicate that any cache without it is placed without permission. It is also no better overall than simply typing something to the effect of "so and so gave permission to place this cache." In fact if "so and so" is named by name, that would be better than the graphic.

 

i like the graphic and i use it on my caches where I have actual "asked for and granted" permission. Those that don't have it are "assumed" or "implied" permission, either of which were deemed adequate by the reviewers.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Confucius' Cat