Quick question

[+sbell111]

Kind of hard to have adequate permission without actually having received any permission.

True. But I don't think a county park that is opened to the public can be considered not giving permission to the public to enjoy the park for recreational activities.

 

There's a large difference between not having received any permission and having received adequate permission.

I was more referring to the Wal-mart reference.

Either way.

 

Let's imagine that we're driving my RV across country because we want to find some of those awesome caches in Iowa. I pull into an empty area of WalMart's parking lot and drop anchor for the night. Would it be OK for us to toss a frisbee, or should I go in the store and ask permission?

Apples, meet oranges.

yet one more thing that we disagree on.

[+egami]

yet one more thing that we disagree on.

 

I don't keep score.

[+jipow]

Kind of hard to have adequate permission without actually having received any permission.

True. But I don't think a county park that is opened to the public can be considered not giving permission to the public to enjoy the park for recreational activities.

 

There's a large difference between not having received any permission and having received adequate permission.

I was more referring to the Wal-mart reference.

Either way.

 

Let's imagine that we're driving my RV across country because we want to find some of those awesome caches in Iowa. I pull into an empty area of WalMart's parking lot and drop anchor for the night. Would it be OK for us to toss a frisbee, or should I go in the store and ask permission?

 

sbell111, as a fellow RV'er, do you not go inside to ask the manager permission before spending the night in the WM parking lot?

[Mushtang]

I think Sbell was asking if he should get permission from the manager if it would be okay to play Frisbee in the parking lot, not if he could park his RV there all night.

 

For some reason (and I'm pretty sure I know what that reason is) folks are avoiding answering the question about Frisbee, and if they feel required to ask permission to play in parks or parking lots.

[+sbell111]

Kind of hard to have adequate permission without actually having received any permission.

True. But I don't think a county park that is opened to the public can be considered not giving permission to the public to enjoy the park for recreational activities.

 

There's a large difference between not having received any permission and having received adequate permission.

I was more referring to the Wal-mart reference.

Either way.

 

Let's imagine that we're driving my RV across country because we want to find some of those awesome caches in Iowa. I pull into an empty area of WalMart's parking lot and drop anchor for the night. Would it be OK for us to toss a frisbee, or should I go in the store and ask permission?

sbell111, as a fellow RV'er, do you not go inside to ask the manager permission before spending the night in the WM parking lot?

I'm not an RVer, but if I were the answer would be 'it depends'.

 

For instance, if you were already parked in the lot, I would assume that it was OK and not ask.

 

Also, even if I did ask, I wouldn't ask if I could throw a frisbee at egami.

Edited January 8, 2008 by sbell111

[+egami]

Also, even if I did ask, I wouldn't ask if I could throw a frisbee at egami.

 

I never stated you should ask permission to throw a frisbee.

[+egami]

I think Sbell was asking if he should get permission from the manager if it would be okay to play Frisbee in the parking lot, not if he could park his RV there all night.

 

For some reason (and I'm pretty sure I know what that reason is) folks are avoiding answering the question about Frisbee, and if they feel required to ask permission to play in parks or parking lots.

 

I am not deliberately avoiding it. It's apples and oranges. The GC.com rules do not state anything about frisbees. They state things about placing geocaches on private property.

[+sbell111]

I think Sbell was asking if he should get permission from the manager if it would be okay to play Frisbee in the parking lot, not if he could park his RV there all night.

 

For some reason (and I'm pretty sure I know what that reason is) folks are avoiding answering the question about Frisbee, and if they feel required to ask permission to play in parks or parking lots.

I am not deliberately avoiding it. It's apples and oranges. The GC.com rules do not state anything about frisbees. They state things about placing geocaches on private property.

True. The guidelines state that adequate permission must be obtained.

[+egami]

I think Sbell was asking if he should get permission from the manager if it would be okay to play Frisbee in the parking lot, not if he could park his RV there all night.

 

For some reason (and I'm pretty sure I know what that reason is) folks are avoiding answering the question about Frisbee, and if they feel required to ask permission to play in parks or parking lots.

I am not deliberately avoiding it. It's apples and oranges. The GC.com rules do not state anything about frisbees. They state things about placing geocaches on private property.

True. The guidelines state that adequate permission must be obtained.

 

Which gets right back to my main point in reply #44:

 

Kind of hard to have adequate permission without actually having received any permission.

[+sbell111]

I think Sbell was asking if he should get permission from the manager if it would be okay to play Frisbee in the parking lot, not if he could park his RV there all night.

 

For some reason (and I'm pretty sure I know what that reason is) folks are avoiding answering the question about Frisbee, and if they feel required to ask permission to play in parks or parking lots.

I am not deliberately avoiding it. It's apples and oranges. The GC.com rules do not state anything about frisbees. They state things about placing geocaches on private property.

True. The guidelines state that adequate permission must be obtained.

Which gets right back to my main point in reply #44:

 

Kind of hard to have adequate permission without actually having received any permission.

Which gets right back to my point in post #47.

[+egami]

I think Sbell was asking if he should get permission from the manager if it would be okay to play Frisbee in the parking lot, not if he could park his RV there all night.

 

For some reason (and I'm pretty sure I know what that reason is) folks are avoiding answering the question about Frisbee, and if they feel required to ask permission to play in parks or parking lots.

I am not deliberately avoiding it. It's apples and oranges. The GC.com rules do not state anything about frisbees. They state things about placing geocaches on private property.

True. The guidelines state that adequate permission must be obtained.

Which gets right back to my main point in reply #44:

 

Kind of hard to have adequate permission without actually having received any permission.

Which gets right back to my point in post #47.

 

Which does not address the point.

 

Again, explain how one obtains adequate permission without obtaining permission.

[+sbell111]

I think Sbell was asking if he should get permission from the manager if it would be okay to play Frisbee in the parking lot, not if he could park his RV there all night.

 

For some reason (and I'm pretty sure I know what that reason is) folks are avoiding answering the question about Frisbee, and if they feel required to ask permission to play in parks or parking lots.

I am not deliberately avoiding it. It's apples and oranges. The GC.com rules do not state anything about frisbees. They state things about placing geocaches on private property.

True. The guidelines state that adequate permission must be obtained.

Which gets right back to my main point in reply #44:

 

Kind of hard to have adequate permission without actually having received any permission.

Which gets right back to my point in post #47.

Which does not address the point.

 

Again, explain how one obtains adequate permission without obtaining permission.

Simple.

 

Adequate position is a wide continuum. It ranges from 'no permission needed' to 'express written permission from the commissioner of baseball'. The level of permission required varies along this continuum.

Edited January 8, 2008 by sbell111

[Mushtang]

I think Sbell was asking if he should get permission from the manager if it would be okay to play Frisbee in the parking lot, not if he could park his RV there all night.

 

For some reason (and I'm pretty sure I know what that reason is) folks are avoiding answering the question about Frisbee, and if they feel required to ask permission to play in parks or parking lots.

I am not deliberately avoiding it. It's apples and oranges. The GC.com rules do not state anything about frisbees. They state things about placing geocaches on private property.

True. The guidelines state that adequate permission must be obtained.

Which gets right back to my main point in reply #44:

 

Kind of hard to have adequate permission without actually having received any permission.

Which gets right back to my point in post #47.

 

Which does not address the point.

 

Again, explain how one obtains adequate permission without obtaining permission.

The definition of adequate should explain it.

 

Another example, not using Frisbees... you go to a public park to jog, but need to change into your running shorts in their bathrooms (pretend you're coming from work, or somewhere that you didn't want to walk out of wearing shorts). The bathrooms were not installed to be used for a changing room, but they could be used as one if you needed. Nowhere would any sign indicate that changing clothes is acceptable. Would you just go ahead and change clothes in the stall, or would you get permission to do so first?

 

Something tells me that you'd feel okay to do so without getting express permission. I also have the feeling that if you went around making sure obtained express permission to do everything you do, you'd never get anything done.

[+egami]

Simple.

 

Adequate position is a wide continuum. It ranges from 'no permission needed' to 'express written permission from the commissioner of baseball'. The level of permission required varies along this continuum.

 

This is logically flawed, but using the example...if 'no permission needed' is the end of the "continuum" you are on you can not knowing have adequate permission until you've asked.

 

The verbage states: By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.

 

You can't assure them you have adequate permission by assuming you have permission.

 

You're playing word games to skirt the issue of actually obtaining permission. No level of permission can be obtained on the continuum without asking for it or perhaps finding a published policy on it.

[+sbell111]

Simple.

 

Adequate position is a wide continuum. It ranges from 'no permission needed' to 'express written permission from the commissioner of baseball'. The level of permission required varies along this continuum.

This is logically flawed, but using the example...if 'no permission needed' is the end of the "continuum" you are on you can not knowing have adequate permission until you've asked.

 

The verbage states: By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.

 

You can't assure them you have adequate permission by assuming you have permission.

 

You're playing word games to skirt the issue of actually obtaining permission. No level of permission can be obtained on the continuum without asking for it or perhaps finding a published policy on it.

In my opinion, my logic is fine and your position is flawed.

 

If your position was correct, why don't the guidelines simply say 'By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have permission to hide your cache in the selected location'. By your logic, the only permission that is adequate is 'express' permission. Therefore, the word 'adequate' is confusing and unnecessary.

 

I rather believe that the guideline is worded as it was meant to be. 'Adequate' permission is required. This permission requirement will be different from cache to cache, location to location.

Edited January 8, 2008 by sbell111

[+egami]

If your position was correct, why don't the guidelines simply say 'By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have permission to hide your cache in the selected location'. By your logic, the only permission that is adequate is 'express' permission. Therefore, the word 'adequate' is confusing and unnecessary.

 

I rather believe that the guideline is worded as it was meant to be. 'Adequate' permission is required. This permission requirement will be different from cache to cache, location to location.

 

You can not assure permission if you are assuming you have it. Period.

[+sbell111]

If your position was correct, why don't the guidelines simply say 'By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have permission to hide your cache in the selected location'. By your logic, the only permission that is adequate is 'express' permission. Therefore, the word 'adequate' is confusing and unnecessary.

 

I rather believe that the guideline is worded as it was meant to be. 'Adequate' permission is required. This permission requirement will be different from cache to cache, location to location.

You can not assure permission if you are assuming you have it. Period.

Pssst. You forgot a word from the guidelines.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I think Sbell was asking if he should get permission from the manager if it would be okay to play Frisbee in the parking lot, not if he could park his RV there all night.

 

For some reason (and I'm pretty sure I know what that reason is) folks are avoiding answering the question about Frisbee, and if they feel required to ask permission to play in parks or parking lots.

I am not deliberately avoiding it. It's apples and oranges. The GC.com rules do not state anything about frisbees. They state things about placing geocaches on private property.

True. The guidelines state that adequate permission must be obtained.

Which gets right back to my main point in reply #44:

 

Kind of hard to have adequate permission without actually having received any permission.

Which gets right back to my point in post #47.

 

Which does not address the point.

 

Again, explain how one obtains adequate permission without obtaining permission.

The definition of adequate should explain it.

 

Another example, not using Frisbees... you go to a public park to jog, but need to change into your running shorts in their bathrooms (pretend you're coming from work, or somewhere that you didn't want to walk out of wearing shorts). The bathrooms were not installed to be used for a changing room, but they could be used as one if you needed. Nowhere would any sign indicate that changing clothes is acceptable. Would you just go ahead and change clothes in the stall, or would you get permission to do so first?

 

Something tells me that you'd feel okay to do so without getting express permission. I also have the feeling that if you went around making sure obtained express permission to do everything you do, you'd never get anything done.

Really? You're using this as an argument against the permission issue? SERIOUSLY????

 

Bathrooms are designed to be used in ANY manner which is appropriate (comb your hair if you wish, brush your teeth, change your clothes etc), do you HONESTLY think permission to use a bathroom as intended is needed? Now, if a sign stated the bathroom wasn't intended for this use...

 

Land use is FAR different in case you didn't realize. Try coming onto my golf course wanting to 4 wheel...you'll be arrested on sight (and believe me, my dad is REALLY quick with his gun, so you'll likely be held at gunpoint while awaiting the LEOs). The golf course, while being land, isn't free use! Similarly, the LPS are owned by someone. That someone COULD just let you use them as you wish...or you could run into someone who isn't as free with their property. How will you know (unlike the golf course which has signs)?? ASK!!

[+egami]

If your position was correct, why don't the guidelines simply say 'By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have permission to hide your cache in the selected location'. By your logic, the only permission that is adequate is 'express' permission. Therefore, the word 'adequate' is confusing and unnecessary.

 

I rather believe that the guideline is worded as it was meant to be. 'Adequate' permission is required. This permission requirement will be different from cache to cache, location to location.

You can not assure permission if you are assuming you have it. Period.

Pssst. You forgot a word from the guidelines.

 

It doesn't matter. Adequate, explicit, or whatever...you can't assure it.

[+sbell111]

If your position was correct, why don't the guidelines simply say 'By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have permission to hide your cache in the selected location'. By your logic, the only permission that is adequate is 'express' permission. Therefore, the word 'adequate' is confusing and unnecessary.

 

I rather believe that the guideline is worded as it was meant to be. 'Adequate' permission is required. This permission requirement will be different from cache to cache, location to location.

You can not assure permission if you are assuming you have it. Period.

Pssst. You forgot a word from the guidelines.

It doesn't matter. Adequate, explicit, or whatever...you can't assure it.

Surely, you agree that if it is a location that requires no permission, then no permission needs to be requested in order to meet the guidelines, correct?

[+Rockin Roddy]

If your position was correct, why don't the guidelines simply say 'By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have permission to hide your cache in the selected location'. By your logic, the only permission that is adequate is 'express' permission. Therefore, the word 'adequate' is confusing and unnecessary.

 

I rather believe that the guideline is worded as it was meant to be. 'Adequate' permission is required. This permission requirement will be different from cache to cache, location to location.

You can not assure permission if you are assuming you have it. Period.

Pssst. You forgot a word from the guidelines.

It doesn't matter. Adequate, explicit, or whatever...you can't assure it.

Surely, you agree that if it is a location that requires no permission, then no permission needs to be requested in order to meet the guidelines, correct?

 

Sure...but where is that?

[+egami]

If your position was correct, why don't the guidelines simply say 'By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have permission to hide your cache in the selected location'. By your logic, the only permission that is adequate is 'express' permission. Therefore, the word 'adequate' is confusing and unnecessary.

 

I rather believe that the guideline is worded as it was meant to be. 'Adequate' permission is required. This permission requirement will be different from cache to cache, location to location.

You can not assure permission if you are assuming you have it. Period.

Pssst. You forgot a word from the guidelines.

It doesn't matter. Adequate, explicit, or whatever...you can't assure it.

Surely, you agree that if it is a location that requires no permission, then no permission needs to be requested in order to meet the guidelines, correct?

 

I believe you always need to assure them you have adequate permission.

[+sbell111]

If your position was correct, why don't the guidelines simply say 'By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have permission to hide your cache in the selected location'. By your logic, the only permission that is adequate is 'express' permission. Therefore, the word 'adequate' is confusing and unnecessary.

 

I rather believe that the guideline is worded as it was meant to be. 'Adequate' permission is required. This permission requirement will be different from cache to cache, location to location.

You can not assure permission if you are assuming you have it. Period.

Pssst. You forgot a word from the guidelines.

It doesn't matter. Adequate, explicit, or whatever...you can't assure it.

Surely, you agree that if it is a location that requires no permission, then no permission needs to be requested in order to meet the guidelines, correct?

Sure...but where is that?

Many places.

 

If you agree that if no permission is needed then you don't have to ask permission, why are you having trouble with the overall concept of 'adequate permission'.

I believe you always need to assure them you have adequate permission.

You assure them of this by checking a box.

[+egami]

You assure them of this by checking a box.

 

No, by checking the box you are doing no more than agreeing to the terms. That doesn't mean you aren't deliberately, or accidentally, violating them.

[+sbell111]

You assure them of this by checking a box.

No, by checking the box you are doing no more than agreeing to the terms. That doesn't mean you aren't deliberately, or accidentally, violating them.

You are kind of correct. If I assure you that I have done something, that certainly doesn't mean that I'm not lying, but I am giving you my assurance. If a reviewer believes that a cacher has lied about this in the past, you can bet that he'll take a closer look at the cacher's future submissions. Edited January 8, 2008 by sbell111

[+Team Cotati]

You assure them of this by checking a box.

 

No, by checking the box you are doing no more than agreeing to the terms. That doesn't mean you aren't deliberately, or accidentally, violating them.

 

If your position and opinion were being followed, do we think that what is going on down at Anza-Borrego today would in fact be occurring? The answer to that I think, is fairly clear.

[+egami]

You assure them of this by checking a box.

No, by checking the box you are doing no more than agreeing to the terms. That doesn't mean you aren't deliberately, or accidentally, violating them.

You are kind of correct. If I assure you that I have done something, that certainly doesn't mean that I'm not lying, but I am giving you my assurance.

 

I could give you my assurance the world is flat...that doesn't assure it is.

[Mushtang]

Really? You're using this as an argument against the permission issue? SERIOUSLY????

Yes, seriously. Nobody would answer the questions I asked about the Frisbee so I tried to come up with another question that would make the same point.

 

Bathrooms are designed to be used in ANY manner which is appropriate (comb your hair if you wish, brush your teeth, change your clothes etc), do you HONESTLY think permission to use a bathroom as intended is needed? Now, if a sign stated the bathroom wasn't intended for this use...

EXACTLY! And thanks for making my point for me. To answer your question I do NOT think permission is needed to use the bathroom stall to change clothes in, and never said that I did. I only asked if he thought he did (which he failed to even address). Bathrooms are for doing things that people do in bathrooms, and in a public park or Walmart it could probably be argued that they weren't specifically designed to be used as changing areas (no lockers, benches, etc) but they wouldn't care if you used them as such. No need to get express permission to change clothes, you can assume adequate permission has already been given.

 

Land use is FAR different in case you didn't realize.

This is a general statement, we're talking about public parks and Walmart parking lots, not a blanket statement about all land use. I wouldn't suggest that it's okay to hide a geocache on your golf course without getting express permission from you.

 

Try coming onto my golf course wanting to 4 wheel...you'll be arrested on sight (and believe me, my dad is REALLY quick with his gun, so you'll likely be held at gunpoint while awaiting the LEOs). The golf course, while being land, isn't free use!

This is an obvious straw man. Nobody is suggesting that we're allowed to go 4 wheeling on a golf course. I have, on the other hand, suggested that hiding caches in public parks and in Walmart parking lots is similar to playing Frisbee in public parks and Walmart parking lots. I've suggested that express permission for either is not required, because adequate permission is assumed.

 

Similarly, the LPS are owned by someone. That someone COULD just let you use them as you wish...or you could run into someone who isn't as free with their property. How will you know (unlike the golf course which has signs)?? ASK!!

So, back to my example. I'm NOT going to ask if I can play Frisbee in a public park. I'm NOT going to ask if I can change into my running shorts in the bathroom stall in a public park. And I don't feel that it's required, for the same reasons, for me to ask if I can hide a geocache in a pubic park or a Walmart parking lot.

 

So Roddy, let me ask you about the Frisbee. Do you feel it's required to get express permission to play Frisbee in a public park, or in an empty corner of a Walmart parking lot, or would you be okay doing so and just assuming it's okay?

[+sbell111]

You assure them of this by checking a box.

No, by checking the box you are doing no more than agreeing to the terms. That doesn't mean you aren't deliberately, or accidentally, violating them.

If your position and opinion were being followed, do we think that what is going on down at Anza-Borrego today would in fact be occurring? The answer to that I think, is fairly clear.

I have no idea what you are referring to, but I assume that it has nothing to do with this thread.

[+sbell111]

You assure them of this by checking a box.

No, by checking the box you are doing no more than agreeing to the terms. That doesn't mean you aren't deliberately, or accidentally, violating them.

You are kind of correct. If I assure you that I have done something, that certainly doesn't mean that I'm not lying, but I am giving you my assurance.

I could give you my assurance the world is flat...that doesn't assure it is.

It is what it is.

 

In most situations, the cache owner determines what level of permission is required and assures TPTB that it has been recieved by checking the box.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Keep in mind that this 'adequate permission' thing is undefinable and mostly pertains to identifiably private property.

 

Forest lands, shopping mall parking lots, city parks and the like generally fall under 'adequate permission' as the public is welcome there.

 

My only issue with permission is with places that are obvious... the gutter downspout behind a store where it would be unusual for the public to be poking around, the rail fence around someone's pasture, places like that, to my mind, require a higher level of permission than just assuming that being there is okay. The land-owner's permission is almost always adequate... but is that of a cashier or even a manager at a store? Sometimes. There's just a lot of judgment involved in a gray world!

 

If in doubt, ask!

 

This business about it's okay for folks to be there but do they have express permission to geocache is a red herring to me... if folks can be there then any legal activity is generally okay, barring posted notice to the contrary.

 

The Frisbee rule makes sense to me, for example. I wouldn't play Frisbee on someone's golf course without asking, but I wouldn't hesitate to play it in an empty area of a mall parking lot.

 

Adequate is a gray word for a gray world, and can only be interpreted on a case-by-case basis.

 

Most caches have adequate permission simply by right of being in a place that is open to the public, no actual permission need be obtained if the assumption that public access is acceptable is correct.

 

My 'dirty-little-secret' claim is often misquoted and mis-applied... it states that most caches that REQUIRE express permission do not have it, and generally has only to do with hides on private or access-restricted property where it is not common for folks to be, or at times when it is not common to be there.

[+egami]

Keep in mind that this 'adequate permission' thing is undefinable and mostly pertains to identifiably private property.

 

Forest lands, shopping mall parking lots, city parks and the like generally fall under 'adequate permission' as the public is welcome there.

 

My only issue with permission is with places that are obvious... the gutter downspout behind a store where it would be unusual for the public to be poking around, the rail fence around someone's pasture, places like that, to my mind, require a higher level of permission than just assuming that being there is okay. The land-owner's permission is almost always adequate... but is that of a cashier or even a manager at a store? Sometimes. There's just a lot of judgment involved in a gray world!

 

If in doubt, ask!

 

This business about it's okay for folks to be there but do they have express permission to geocache is a red herring to me... if folks can be there then any legal activity is generally okay, barring posted notice to the contrary.

 

The Frisbee rule makes sense to me, for example. I wouldn't play Frisbee on someone's golf course without asking, but I wouldn't hesitate to play it in an empty area of a mall parking lot.

 

Adequate is a gray word for a gray world, and can only be interpreted on a case-by-case basis.

 

Most caches have adequate permission simply by right of being in a place that is open to the public, no actual permission need be obtained if the assumption that public access is acceptable is correct.

 

My 'dirty-little-secret' claim is often misquoted and mis-applied... it states that most caches that REQUIRE express permission do not have it, and generally has only to do with hides on private or access-restricted property where it is not common for folks to be, or at times when it is not common to be there.

 

By and large I agree with you. For the most part I was trying to see how far these guys were trying to take it.

 

My problem with their argument is that they'll pound their chest about the cache owner being the one that determines permission and new_cacher_01 will come on here and interpret that as "well, sweet, really TPTB just care that I check the box and I can pretty much put a cache anywhere I think is cool".

 

If most of these people were willing to state it as you have...I'd have less problem.

 

That being said...the bolded part is still interesting to me. Most people I know that aren't cachers would probably have an issue with a person hanging out in the parking lot of Wal-Mart near parked cars acting suspiciously. I still think you have to exercise a level of caution in these places...I agree it's gray, but some people place these types of caches from a caching perspective without considering what a muggle would perceive.

 

It's just interesting to me to see how far people will take the liberty to decide their permission is enough.

Edited January 8, 2008 by egami

[+Rockin Roddy]

Really? You're using this as an argument against the permission issue? SERIOUSLY????

Yes, seriously. Nobody would answer the questions I asked about the Frisbee so I tried to come up with another question that would make the same point.

 

Bathrooms are designed to be used in ANY manner which is appropriate (comb your hair if you wish, brush your teeth, change your clothes etc), do you HONESTLY think permission to use a bathroom as intended is needed? Now, if a sign stated the bathroom wasn't intended for this use...

EXACTLY! And thanks for making my point for me. To answer your question I do NOT think permission is needed to use the bathroom stall to change clothes in, and never said that I did. I only asked if he thought he did (which he failed to even address). Bathrooms are for doing things that people do in bathrooms, and in a public park or Walmart it could probably be argued that they weren't specifically designed to be used as changing areas (no lockers, benches, etc) but they wouldn't care if you used them as such. No need to get express permission to change clothes, you can assume adequate permission has already been given.

 

Land use is FAR different in case you didn't realize.

This is a general statement, we're talking about public parks and Walmart parking lots, not a blanket statement about all land use. I wouldn't suggest that it's okay to hide a geocache on your golf course without getting express permission from you.

 

Try coming onto my golf course wanting to 4 wheel...you'll be arrested on sight (and believe me, my dad is REALLY quick with his gun, so you'll likely be held at gunpoint while awaiting the LEOs). The golf course, while being land, isn't free use!

This is an obvious straw man. Nobody is suggesting that we're allowed to go 4 wheeling on a golf course. I have, on the other hand, suggested that hiding caches in public parks and in Walmart parking lots is similar to playing Frisbee in public parks and Walmart parking lots. I've suggested that express permission for either is not required, because adequate permission is assumed.

 

Similarly, the LPS are owned by someone. That someone COULD just let you use them as you wish...or you could run into someone who isn't as free with their property. How will you know (unlike the golf course which has signs)?? ASK!!

So, back to my example. I'm NOT going to ask if I can play Frisbee in a public park. I'm NOT going to ask if I can change into my running shorts in the bathroom stall in a public park. And I don't feel that it's required, for the same reasons, for me to ask if I can hide a geocache in a pubic park or a Walmart parking lot.

 

So Roddy, let me ask you about the Frisbee. Do you feel it's required to get express permission to play Frisbee in a public park, or in an empty corner of a Walmart parking lot, or would you be okay doing so and just assuming it's okay?

 

Not a straw man when left in context, used to make the same type of point as your frisbee argument.

 

Frisbee is FAR different than caching, isn't it? When you're done with the frisbee, you take it home unlike the cache container. Can a frisbee be construed as trash or WORSE (like a bomb)?? (and you'll lilely say YES a frisbee CAN be trash...when someone picks up said "trash", they KNOW what they're picking up...right??) I'm pretty sure most of us understand that there's a need for permission to use the lands in such manners...would you just take the horses into a city park and start riding? You MIGHT get away with it once or twice, but I'll BET there'll be a ban on them as soon as it's found out! Similarly, ONE person complains of someone sneaking about in a park (or Wal-Mart lot) and there's bound to be problems!

 

Wal-Mart owns their LPS, you don't....it's fairly simple. And...do you want to seriously try the same argument?? "Using the lampost as it's intended"...really?? Is a lampost intended to be used to hide caches?? Wow, never knew that!!

 

There are plenty of places land is restricted to some uses and other uses are banned...trails for horses while mountain biking is banned, 4 wheel trails where horses are banned....lands can have MANY uses banned for any reason the owner feels! ASSuming you can just drive into a parking lot and use their lamp post....what next?

[+Rockin Roddy]

You should remember that YOU don't own the land. You might pay taxes but that doesn't give you free use. I liken it to renting an apartment...it's MY home, but I can't just do as I please with it!

 

That includes lamp posts or parks!

[+Too Tall John]

Let's imagine that we're driving my RV across country because we want to find some of those awesome caches in Iowa. I pull into an empty area of WalMart's parking lot and drop anchor for the night. Would it be OK for us to toss a frisbee, or should I go in the store and ask permission?

First off, many Wal-Marts across the nation do not allow overnight RVing. The local store here just had to turn RVers away due to local town ordinances. So, right from the start5, the fact that asking permission is important is brought up.

 

It doesn't matter if you have an RV or not, if you want to play Frisbee in a Wal-Mart parking lot, be ready to be approached by an associate asking you to stop. Why? Liability. They don't want the risk of you getting hurt or of you damaging a customer's car or hitting another customer. Not to mention you are taking up space where an actual paying customer may want to park or drive.

 

You aren't entitled to do anything in a Wal-Mart parking lot. They let you park there so you can spend money there. That is it.

[+sbell111]

Keep in mind that this 'adequate permission' thing is undefinable and mostly pertains to identifiably private property.

 

Forest lands, shopping mall parking lots, city parks and the like generally fall under 'adequate permission' as the public is welcome there.

 

My only issue with permission is with places that are obvious... the gutter downspout behind a store where it would be unusual for the public to be poking around, the rail fence around someone's pasture, places like that, to my mind, require a higher level of permission than just assuming that being there is okay. The land-owner's permission is almost always adequate... but is that of a cashier or even a manager at a store? Sometimes. There's just a lot of judgment involved in a gray world!

 

If in doubt, ask!

 

This business about it's okay for folks to be there but do they have express permission to geocache is a red herring to me... if folks can be there then any legal activity is generally okay, barring posted notice to the contrary.

 

The Frisbee rule makes sense to me, for example. I wouldn't play Frisbee on someone's golf course without asking, but I wouldn't hesitate to play it in an empty area of a mall parking lot.

 

Adequate is a gray word for a gray world, and can only be interpreted on a case-by-case basis.

 

Most caches have adequate permission simply by right of being in a place that is open to the public, no actual permission need be obtained if the assumption that public access is acceptable is correct.

 

My 'dirty-little-secret' claim is often misquoted and mis-applied... it states that most caches that REQUIRE express permission do not have it, and generally has only to do with hides on private or access-restricted property where it is not common for folks to be, or at times when it is not common to be there.

By and large I agree with you. For the most part I was trying to see how far these guys were trying to take it.

 

My problem with their argument is that they'll pound their chest about the cache owner being the one that determines permission and new_cacher_01 will come on here and interpret that as "well, sweet, really TPTB just care that I check the box and I can pretty much put a cache anywhere I think is cool".

 

If most of these people were willing to state it as you have...I'd have less problem.

 

That being said...the bolded part is still interesting to me. Most people I know that aren't cachers would probably have an issue with a person hanging out in the parking lot of Wal-Mart near parked cars acting suspiciously. I still think you have to exercise a level of caution in these places...I agree it's gray, but some people place these types of caches from a caching perspective without considering what a muggle would perceive.

 

It's just interesting to me to see how far people will take the liberty to decide their permission is enough.

So basically, you were just trolling. Gotcha.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Let's imagine that we're driving my RV across country because we want to find some of those awesome caches in Iowa. I pull into an empty area of WalMart's parking lot and drop anchor for the night. Would it be OK for us to toss a frisbee, or should I go in the store and ask permission?

First off, many Wal-Marts across the nation do not allow overnight RVing. The local store here just had to turn RVers away due to local town ordinances. So, right from the start5, the fact that asking permission is important is brought up.

 

It doesn't matter if you have an RV or not, if you want to play Frisbee in a Wal-Mart parking lot, be ready to be approached by an associate asking you to stop. Why? Liability. They don't want the risk of you getting hurt or of you damaging a customer's car or hitting another customer. Not to mention you are taking up space where an actual paying customer may want to park or drive.

 

You aren't entitled to do anything in a Wal-Mart parking lot. They let you park there so you can spend money there. That is it.

I often wonder why people think they are entitled to do what they will, it's crazy to me. But then, I suppose it's far easier to plead ignorance if they never try and are asked about it.

 

And Egami...it's not grey at all...if you don't own it and you don't know of a policy allowing what you propose...ASK!

[+egami]

So basically, you were just trolling. Gotcha.

 

No.

[+egami]

And Egami...it's not grey at all...if you don't own it and you don't know of a policy allowing what you propose...ASK!

 

By and large I agree with that regarding private land, but I know of situations where privately held land is open to the public and I would treat that similarly to public parks for recreation.

Edited January 8, 2008 by egami

[Ferreter5]

Playing Frisbee -- This often works as a decent first-pass rough guideline. However, with geocaching we're intentionally leaving something behind on the property. This is materially different.

 

Do I have default permission to store something on Walmart's property? Probably not.

 

Do I have default permission to store something on most pieces of property? Probably not, unless there's a blanket policy from the property manager covering things like geocaches.

 

Could I get cited for littering? Probably, if a prosecutor wanted to take it that far.

 

I've negotiated blanked permission policies with three towns around here. They are all happy to have geocaching in their park/trail systems. Do they want geocaches hidden in the dumpter behind the police station? No. Note, not every place is going to be exactly like these three towns.

 

Personally, I think the word "adequate" in the guidelines is used because it is a broad term that can be applied to a lot of situations without having to enumerate them all.

[+sbell111]

...I've negotiated blanked permission policies with three towns around here. They are all happy to have geocaching in their park/trail systems. Do they want geocaches hidden in the dumpter behind the police station? No. Note, not every place is going to be exactly like these three towns.

 

Personally, I think the word "adequate" in the guidelines is used because it is a broad term that can be applied to a lot of situations without having to enumerate them all.

Your police station is the perfect example of why there isn't a one rule fits all view of permission.

[Mushtang]

Not a straw man when left in context, used to make the same type of point as your frisbee argument.

Oh really? A Frisbee is a benign recreational activity, very similar to caching. 4 Wheeling on a golf course is the same type of point? I think not.

 

Frisbee is FAR different than caching, isn't it? When you're done with the frisbee, you take it home unlike the cache container. Can a frisbee be construed as trash or WORSE (like a bomb)?? (and you'll lilely say YES a frisbee CAN be trash...when someone picks up said "trash", they KNOW what they're picking up...right??) I'm pretty sure most of us understand that there's a need for permission to use the lands in such manners...would you just take the horses into a city park and start riding? You MIGHT get away with it once or twice, but I'll BET there'll be a ban on them as soon as it's found out! Similarly, ONE person complains of someone sneaking about in a park (or Wal-Mart lot) and there's bound to be problems!

I wouldn't take horses into a city park and start riding either, this is another straw man, just like your 4 Wheeling on a golf course example. Both of them are things that would damage the area and permission could not be assumed. A recreational activity, such as Frisbee, in a public recreational park, is completely different than a damaging activity, such as 4 wheeling or horseback riding, on a private golf course.

 

Wal-Mart owns their LPS, you don't....it's fairly simple.

The parks department owns the trees that I might hide a cache behind. They own the bathrooms that I might change my clothes in. They own the land that I might throw a Frisbee on.

 

And...do you want to seriously try the same argument?? "Using the lampost as it's intended"...really?? Is a lampost intended to be used to hide caches?? Wow, never knew that!!

Yes, I'll use the same argument. Keep in mind that I'm not arguing that you shouldn't change clothes in a bathroom that wasn't intended to be a changing room, I'm saying that it's okay. You can assume that they wouldn't care if you changed clothes and you don't need to ask express permission to change your clothes there. If I were to hide an LPC in Walmart I wouldn't think that I'd need express permission to do so. I'd check the boxes and claim that I had adequate permission.

 

There are plenty of places land is restricted to some uses and other uses are banned...trails for horses while mountain biking is banned, 4 wheel trails where horses are banned....lands can have MANY uses banned for any reason the owner feels! ASSuming you can just drive into a parking lot and use their lamp post....what next?

I'm not sure what you're leading to, but it's probably against forum guidelines to capitalize the letters like you did. What's next?

 

If public trails are off limits for horses, they'll have signs posted that they're off limits for horses. If so, I wouldn't take a horse on one. If for some reason I wanted to ride my horse on public trails through forest area and didn't see a sign, I'd assume it was okay, and wouldn't feel the need for express permission. I wouldn't feel it was okay to ride a horse through trails in a county park however, because I'd know that the horses can be damaging to trails as well as leave piles on the trail that aren't acceptable in a busy park.

 

This is why the Frisbee test works really well. It's usually a benign recreational activity. Horseback riding and 4 wheeling are usually not.

[Mushtang]

For the most part I was trying to see how far these guys were trying to take it.

Sounds like a troll to me. Not that you were responding to any of my posts anyway, but we're done now. I don't respond to self admitted trolling behavior. Up until that post I assumed you were discussing this in good faith, trying to show your viewpoint, not just trying to see how far we would take it.

[+Renegade Knight]

...sbell111, as a fellow RV'er, do you not go inside to ask the manager permission before spending the night in the WM parking lot?

 

No, I got in to buy Beer & Food while I'm there.

[+Bunganator]

http://www.courier-gazette.com/articles/20...0000001news.txt

[+sbell111]

http://www.courier-gazette.com/articles/20...0000001news.txt

As stated in the other thread (or maybe it was this one), the game's played by Boy Scouts, how bad could it be?

[Ferreter5]

If I were to hide an LPC in Walmart I wouldn't think that I'd need express permission to do so. I'd check the boxes and claim that I had adequate permission.

 

...

 

This is why the Frisbee test works really well. It's usually a benign recreational activity.

 

I agree that geocaching is a benign (and fun) recreational activity. We can partake in our hobby in the vast majority of park/trail systems without causing any problems while at the same time there are some valid reasons for no geocaching (or other activities) in certain limited areas.

 

When it comes to private property (even private property on to which the public has been invited such as Walmart), my understanding is that this can be tricky in a legal sense. As an example, there are things the general public can legally do on my land because it is not currently POSTED in any way. However, there are also legal limits to what they can do, and I can impose further limits at my own whim. Worse yet, the legal stance on all of this will most likely vary from one legal juristiction to another. Private property rights are not necessarily straight forward.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I often wonder why people think they are entitled to do what they will, it's crazy to me. But then, I suppose it's far easier to plead ignorance if they never try and are asked about it.

 

And Egami...it's not grey at all...if you don't own it and you don't know of a policy allowing what you propose...ASK!

We are entitled to live in this world. Much of the world spends a lot of time putting limitations on what live means. At one time our ancestors could roam the lands. Nobody owned the land, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say we all owned the land. Somewhere along the way someone claimed to own all the land and had the force to back it up. Then Nobles managed the lands on their behalf and serfs worked it. Same land the former free men lived on before but now it belongs to someone else and they are just peasants.

 

Toss in a bunch of history and now you have the working class trying to both own land their own small plot and recreate on a much larger area with geocaching, fishing, and other activities that take up more space than our own dinky lot we rent or own.

 

Geocaching is a fair use of publicly accessable lands. One of many fair uses. A world of private property with fences and no trespassing signs on every last bit of ground is no world to live in. I don't yell at the neighbor kids if they stop and pick a rose from my yard. Why would I? I mostly ignore my roses. They grow like weeds. Besides, I was once that kid playing hide and seek in the neighborhood and not just the yards of the kids participating that day.

 

It pays to remember our roots while we debate the issue of adequate permission.

[+Renegade Knight]

http://www.courier-gazette.com/articles/20...0000001news.txt

 

Step 1. Oh My people build bombs and blow things up! Save us! Save us!

Step 2. "We have now trained key people to work on what we will all a bomb squad to respond to these very real threats of bombs". Please call in anything suspicious. Their vigulance will allow you to go about your normal life in comfort and safety.

Step 3. Our bomb squads waste a lot of time and money investigating things that are not actually bombs.

Step 4. "What should we do about all this wasted time and money"

Step 5. Because of all this wasted time and money we are now banning key items and activiteies from your formerly comfortable and safe life so that our bomb squads can spend less time responding to false reports. Keep on calling in anything suspiciouse we will investigate everthing, but we will arrest your butt if any of the now banned items or activites are found. You can now go about the parts of your life that we have not banned in safety and comfort.

 

The real goal is real bombs. If you have folks call in anything that looks suspicous you will get calls on anything and everthing. Training on when to call tells people "Don't think, just call, let the professinoals figure out if there is a threat". Random objects like flashlights then will get called in just like the system was designed to do. False alarms are a simple fact of life. You can't have people call in everthing suspicouse and not have false alarms.

 

I've seen calls on flashlights, woopie cushions, Star Wars toys, personal effects in a box, exotic foods and such. There is nothing wrong with any of these things, nor the responce. The wrong creeps in when people start thinking in terms of "wasted time" and then want to ban these things. Something else will come along to fill the slot of suspicious and the calls will still come in and the time will still be 'wasted'. Except it's not a waste. The thinking is just off.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Again, explain how one obtains adequate permission without obtaining permission.

 

Obtain is the trick word in the mix.

Adequate permission may not require obtaining any permission.

It's a simple test. Do you have it? Or not?