getting permission

[Neos2]

Huh. I do try to read Groundspeak each week, and have never seen anything. Are the events posted there?

The events are posted in the weekly email. If I remember right the order is general news then mega events by date, then the next section is the local events (I can't remember if it's by date or by increasing distance from your home cords) and then caches (by distance from your home cords).

 

There is one near you on the 8th of June about 15 miles (straightline) from the last cache you logged.

 

Early Summer Get Together by Cornflakes (GC1C24J)

 

Thanks for pointing this out. I incorrectly thought the list was in increasing distance from my home location, as the Recently Published Caches are. I wonder why some sections of that email are in increasing distance, and others aren't...

I think it's because some things you will do no matter the distance--like going to geowoodstock--and would want to know about them no matter how far away they are, while other things you would probably prefer to do based on how convenient it is to you (like running out for a new cache).

[+gpsfun]

I am the Groundspeak volunteer for the area in question. The OP and I have established e-mail communication and we will work through the specific issues with the caches and land area involved.

[Ferreter5]

Easements for trails on private land negotiated with landowners often contain specific references to activities allowed on the trails. A geocache placed on one of these trails (or ATV use, mountain bike use, going off trail, or anything else that might not be allowed as per the easement) can jeopardize that easement and end access for all.

 

So in that vein I totally agree with VTcathy that these caches are inappropriate and she has a right to be concerned.

In my experience so far in working with parks departments, trails committees, etc in my part of New York State, the above statement is correct.

 

Easements are usually fairly specific, and each and every one can potentially be different, which makes it difficult to apply a one-size-fits-all type of conclusion when evaluating them. Some trails development around here has used a fairly standardized easement agreement, but they're still not all exactly the same.

[+OReviewer]

Ha, ha. That's funny. Reading every week's Groundspeak email, I've never seen an event anywhere in my state.

 

Just an FYI, using this page is an easy way to see upcoming events since they will be at the top. The list is sorted by "placed date" so all events in the future should be at the top.

[+Renegade Knight]

...My problem is that I've got FOUR cachers who all assumed that it was public land (despite LOTS of evidence to the contrary), and they also assume they don't need to get permission for public land. So how do we prevent this from happening in the future, either on the same land in question, or on other private-but-open-to-the-public land that exists in my town?

 

Revers the question.

How do we ensure that kids won't play on those private lands that accomodate the public?

Do we even want to go there?

 

I don't understand what you are saying. Could you clarify? Kids (and anyone else) ARE allowed on the land. It is privately owned, but open to the public to use (OBVIOUSLY with restrictions - users can't cut down the land owner's trees, pitch a tent and camp overnight, etc.).

I'll expand when I get some time. Unfortunately I'm out of time today and there are larger concepts that apply.

[+Renegade Knight]

...All I want is to prevent this (placing caches on open to the public, but privately owned land, without permission) in the future. If people had to get permission for ALL caches, that would solve the problem of people incorrectly assuming it is public. But OK, you don't want that. Fine. But then how do we stop people who do absolutely zero research on the land and assume it is public if it isn't?

 

Nothing happens in a vacuum. There is always a larger context. Yesterday I spent much of the afternoon with the Parks & Recs director for a small town. We were going to look at some potential sidewalk and pathway projects. Enroute his phone rang about 3 times over three blocks. He put it on silence so we could talk about the project. When we were done, he then got back to work making the rosters for the local sports programs. There was an hour left in the work day. I have no doubt he spend a lot longer than that doing those rosters. After all, he had about 30 phone calls to return by the time we were done, plus the summer crews had just started and he was coordinating them. That part of the puzzle is why it’s a valid consideration to not bother someone over something trivial**. Caching is trivial.

 

When I said geocaching is a casual land use I meant it. I’m defining casual as activities which don’t harm the land beyond normal wear and tear. Normal wear and tear are what the land can recover from quickly. Have a picnic and you flatten the grass. Come back in a day and you can’t tell. Leave a picnic table in one spot and you kill the grass where the legs touch. Move it and soon enough you can’t tell it was ever there. That’s casual use. That’s why geocaching as a whole, is casual use.

 

Trails, Parks, Openspace have a longstanding tradition of casual use going back to before private property was invented*. The use of surrounding lands for our daily lives, recreation, and even our livelihoods is a cultural tradition. It’s not going away. Even if caching goes away, everything it consists of will still be played out on all these lands. This is why most people don’t ask permission to do the kinds of things they have always done. They never needed too before, they really don’t need to change what’s been working. The box, the cache pages, and the written logs have some folks wondering though. That’s fair. Just understand the roots of casual use, and don’t blame the majority for doing what’s always been ok. It didn’t just change one idle Tuesday afternoon.

 

You talk about a trail and the private property it runs through. In my town we also have a greenway. They request that you don’t leave the trail system so as to protect adjoining non trail private property. They also have given blanket permission for caching on the trail system. True some of the trail is private property, but the owners gave permission for the greenway to use that property as a trail and thus allowed any and all casual uses for which a trail is enjoyed. That includes caches since getting out in the world and enjoying the trail in various ways is part of their mission. They want their trials used. The more they are used the more support they get from the community.

 

Your sticking point is the rights that the trail system has and the rights of the property owner. That’s always going to come back to the wording of the easement. If the easement that allows the trail limits the trails usage to specific activities rather than as a trail, then yes, it’s appropriate to get specific permission from that property owner since the easement only gave permission for a specific use and caching wasn’t the use identified. Most times folks understand that a trail will see casual use of all kinds. Best of all they understand that, that’s why they built it, so there is no specific restriction on casual activities. That means the “Public” nature of the trail wins out and the policy of the greenway or park system that creates it (or the lack of policy since they are too busy to worry, or flat out don’t care since it’s a casual use) rules the day.

 

* Private property is a recent invention in the time span the human race has been on earth.

** I actually would like to talk to the Parks & Recs director about caching but he flat out doesn’t have the time. The topic will come up in a round about way, or he will broach it.

[vermontcathy]

You talk about a trail and the private property it runs through. In my town we also have a greenway. They request that you don’t leave the trail system so as to protect adjoining non trail private property. They also have given blanket permission for caching on the trail system. True some of the trail is private property, but the owners gave permission for the greenway to use that property as a trail and thus allowed any and all casual uses for which a trail is enjoyed. That includes caches since getting out in the world and enjoying the trail in various ways is part of their mission.

 

Two points. First, you said "They also have given blanket permission for caching" That's my point - someone gave permission, so now you don't need to ask every time you want to place a cache. But someone gave permission at some point.

 

I must strongly disagree with your assumption that if someone gives permission to use their private property for a trail, then it is a given that people can place caches without further permission. Your statement - "the owners gave permission for the greenway to use that property as a trail and thus allowed any and all casual uses for which a trail is enjoyed. That includes caches..." Involving someone's private property in an online (and on-the-ground), clandestine game is not a traditional trail use. BUT even if you could somehow legally argue that it is, it is IRRELEVANT! If the owner does not feel it is a normal trail use, and isn't happy that someone did it without permission, they can revoke permission for the public to use their land. Then, all your arguing about what is a casual trail use is a moot point - you've caused all users, cachers, walkers, etc., to loose the right to use that land.

 

I also must point out that in this particular situation (in my town), the trail does not simply pass through someone's land - the ENTIRE 2 mile trail system is on private land.

[+StarBrand]

...clandestine game ...

 

I object to that characterization on geocaching. I see it as neither game nor clandestine. As stated before, I see it is a low impact casual activity.

 

I think I more clearly see your position. You see geocaching as some much bigger deal. Something that does have a significant impact. Many of us simply do not approach the activity that way. I think having the walkway exist there and folks using it for walking, running, biking, etc will have much more of an impact than will any amount of geocaching. Having said that, I respect private land and would support the removal of caches placed without the landowners permission.

[+sbell111]

...clandestine game ...

 

I object to that characterization on geocaching. I see it as neither game nor clandestine. As stated before, I see it is a low impact casual activity.

 

I think I more clearly see your position. You see geocaching as some much bigger deal. Something that does have a significant impact. Many of us simply do not approach the activity that way. I think having the walkway exist there and folks using it for walking, running, biking, etc will have much more of an impact than will any amount of geocaching. Having said that, I respect private land and would support the removal of caches placed without the landowners permission.

I agree.

 

I think the OP's issues are a reflection of the fact that she has a different perception of the activity from most people who have been involved with it for a year and a half. A quick glance at her caching history supports this theory. Or perhaps she is trolling.

Edited June 3, 2008 by sbell111

[+flask]

 

I also must point out that in this particular situation (in my town), the trail does not simply pass through someone's land - the ENTIRE 2 mile trail system is on private land.

 

i think you have firmly established that the particular trails about which you are concerned required more permission than was issued and therefore need to be removed or given explicit permission.

 

i don't think anyone is disputing that point.

 

what i think people are trying to say is that acceptable and common practice varies widely from place to place, even within a single town. i notice that you have found fewer than twenty caches and have not been in contact with our local cachers even to ask questions about common practice and landowner contact before you have made a rather inflexible and conservative stand.

 

before you take such a strident tone, you may wish to gather more information. otherwise you'll be sitting alone at the parties.

 

...if you can find them.

[+Team GeoBlast]

And I think it would be a great idea to go to a local event and talk this over with other cachers who live in your area.

 

Ha, ha. That's funny. Reading every week's Groundspeak email, I've never seen an event anywhere in my state.

 

I was wading through this thread hoping that this would come up. While you have general (and very legitimate) concerns about the guidelines stated on GC.com, your concern is a very specific local issue. I don't think that you can find the answer you want in the guidelines which are used worldwide or even the forums from people not familiar with your area. I honestly don't think your reviewer is even going to give you the satisfaction you seek.

 

This is a very local issue and to come to any accord, a real life conversation among local cachers is needed. You say you've contacted folks regarding permission through the website, this is not a conversation, it's text. There is a real danger of coming off as a cache cop and getting the cold shoulder. To get the results you want you need a face to face.

 

Why not hold a CITO event that helps maintain the trails in question? It's easy to do. Contact the family that owns it, ask if there is anything specific you can do to help out, contact everyone that has anything to do with the park and invite them. Personally invite the cachers that have hidden caches in the area of concern.

 

At this event, start the conversation you want and need to have. You may be surprised on how things will come together when you are all around the same picnic table.

 

edit to add: This suggestion is assuming that you support Geocaching in your area at all.

Edited June 3, 2008 by Team GeoBlast

[+Renegade Knight]

You talk about a trail and the private property it runs through. In my town we also have a greenway. They request that you don’t leave the trail system so as to protect adjoining non trail private property. They also have given blanket permission for caching on the trail system. True some of the trail is private property, but the owners gave permission for the greenway to use that property as a trail and thus allowed any and all casual uses for which a trail is enjoyed. That includes caches since getting out in the world and enjoying the trail in various ways is part of their mission.

 

Two points. First, you said "They also have given blanket permission for caching" That's my point - someone gave permission, so now you don't need to ask every time you want to place a cache. But someone gave permission at some point. ...

 

Yes and no.

In this case. The board looked at me like I was daft for even asking. There was NEVER any formal permission given. Just an "ok you met with us, but why? Go caching sounds like fun" atmosphere.

 

Later I did some more legwork with the new director just to make sure they had the same "I can't believe you would even ask" attitude.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

Edited June 3, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

...I must strongly disagree with your assumption that if someone gives permission to use their private property for a trail, then it is a given that people can place caches without further permission. Your statement - "the owners gave permission for the greenway to use that property as a trail and thus allowed any and all casual uses for which a trail is enjoyed. That includes caches..." Involving someone's private property in an online (and on-the-ground), clandestine game is not a traditional trail use. BUT even if you could somehow legally argue that it is, it is IRRELEVANT! If the owner does not feel it is a normal trail use, and isn't happy that someone did it without permission, they can revoke permission for the public to use their land....

 

You have a lot more than two points with your second point.

First, the trail should have an easment. If the easement allowed the trail organization discression as to allowed activites on the trail then what the owner thingks is a moot point legally. It's a nice thing to consider but that's it. The trail organization has the legal say on the issue. That's how the law and easements work.

 

Second, If the trail doesn't have an easment...then they really should not be building a trail there. Unless morons run the trail system, or they think they can make a claim via adverse posession...(that's a calculated risk and not automaticly moronic).

 

Third, nothing is a given. However there are general rules people play by. Public trails on private property get easments allowing the land to be used for the trail and associated rectional purposes is normal. Thus caching following the permission (or none needed don't bother us boy) policy of the trail organization is the norm. The private property owner who has negoitated a "I can dictate who, what, and how, the public trail is used like it's my own backyard" are the exception.

 

Lastly trails are corredors. A cache placed off the trail and on the adjoning private property without the protection of the trail easment are another thing.

[+gpsfun]

The OP has had a relationship with the property owners that predates the cache placements, and she has communicated directly with each of the involved cache owners as well as with me. I am respectfully asking that the speculation about this specific situation be discontinued.

[+Team GeoBlast]

The OP has had a relationship with the property owners that predates the cache placements, and she has communicated directly with each of the involved cache owners as well as with me. I am respectfully asking that the speculation about this specific situation be discontinued.

 

Request for respectful halting of speculation noted but not understood. If she had already contacted the cache owners and you ... why did she start this thread?

[+Renegade Knight]

The OP has had a relationship with the property owners that predates the cache placements, and she has communicated directly with each of the involved cache owners as well as with me. I am respectfully asking that the speculation about this specific situation be discontinued.

 

Speculation is trying to fill in the blanks when no real information exists. Very little actual information has been posted. Thankfully I haven't seen much if any speculation about the specifics. However I do look forward to specific information posted from those involved so we all can quit talking about paths in general.

 

I'm looking forward to both your and the orginal posters follow up.

[+flask]

most of the OP's discussion seemed to have been related to the larger concept of placement guidelines and is therefore fit for public discussion. the specifics of the Four Rogue Caches appeared to have been undisputed right from the outset.

 

if you'll excuse me, i have to go put a glass mayonnaise jar full of live ammo on the railroad ROW between camp johnson and the Burlington International Airport befoere i head off the a super-secret nonexistent meeting of the VT geocaching elite, which for convenience, we are holding down at Lantman's.

[+gpsfun]

The OP has had a relationship with the property owners that predates the cache placements, and she has communicated directly with each of the involved cache owners as well as with me. I am respectfully asking that the speculation about this specific situation be discontinued.

 

Request for respectful halting of speculation noted but not understood. If she had already contacted the cache owners and you ... why did she start this thread?

Sorry to be unclear but the situation has evolved in what is hopefully a positive direction since the thread was started. The caches in question have been temporarily disabled by their owners and there are discussions in progress with the property owners. I'll be assisting however requested, bearing in mind that property owner rights are always respected.

[Clan Riffster]

I argue that even if it WAS public, you need to get permission from the managing agency.

I would disagree. Geocaching, in and of itself, is a lawful activity. If there is lawful public access to a piece of property, then I already have permission to play this game there, just as I already have permission to hike there, unless there are rules in place dictating how this game can/cannot be played on said property. Our legal system is based upon the English system of law, where any activity that is not specifically prohibited by law, must therefor be legal.

[vtmtnman]

 

if you'll excuse me, i have to go put a glass mayonnaise jar full of live ammo on the railroad ROW between camp johnson and the Burlington International Airport befoere i head off the a super-secret nonexistent meeting of the VT geocaching elite, which for convenience, we are holding down at Lantman's.

AH HA! I knew there was a top secret northern VT organization!You've slipped it out and now I know!Wait till the southern VT Cachers find out!

 

Seriously though,do tell about that park?Which one is it?

[vtmtnman]

And I have to laugh about the OP not seeing any events listed on her weekly notification email.There was one on there that had to be listed for like two months I believe.

[+briansnat]

...clandestine game ...

 

I object to that characterization on geocaching. I see it as neither game nor clandestine. As stated before, I see it is a low impact casual activity.

 

I think I more clearly see your position. You see geocaching as some much bigger deal. Something that does have a significant impact. Many of us simply do not approach the activity that way. I think having the walkway exist there and folks using it for walking, running, biking, etc will have much more of an impact than will any amount of geocaching. Having said that, I respect private land and would support the removal of caches placed without the landowners permission.

I agree.

 

I think the OP's issues are a reflection of the fact that she has a different perception of the activity from most people who have been involved with it for a year and a half. A quick glance at her caching history supports this theory. Or perhaps she is trolling.

 

I doubt the OP is trolling. She seems to have an earnest and valid concern, regardless of her caching history.

Caches like the ones in question can create problems for our sport and need to be addressed. That doesn't change if you have 5 finds or 5,000.

[+briansnat]

And I have to laugh about the OP not seeing any events listed on her weekly notification email.There was one on there that had to be listed for like two months I believe.

 

That e-mail does tend to be quite cluttered. Unless you want to sit down for a few minutes and read it, its easy to miss things.

[+roostersting]

YIKES!!!!! I was made aware of this thread this morning and I am one of the "four rogue cache owners". The four of us were contacted by vermontcathy on May 30, 2008 (Friday) to see if any of us obtained any formal permission for placing our caches on this trail. The answer from all of us was no. Within hours, all of us temporarily disabled our caches until we could figure out more of what was going on here.

 

BEFORE we placed our caches, some research was done, contrary to what is being shared here. The first cache that was placed followed the guidelines listed on the HART - Hinesburg Area Recreation Trails website. There are other geocaches placed on several other trails within the HART system. "All trails are open to the public. Information regarding specific appropriate use (walking, skiing, shoeshoeing, biking and horseback riding) can be found on the Information and Driving Directions page for each area." We did access the specifics for the Russell Family Trails from this site HART - Russell Family Trails. We all respected the specifics given - 1. -"Please do not park in the Lantman's parking lot, as there are an insufficient number of parking spaces for the Lantman's customers." 2.- "The Russell Family has generously conserved these trails for public use - please respect the farming operation, as farm animals may be grazing in the fields." We made a mistake in assuming that public use included geocaching.

 

Vermontcathy stated that she would be contacting the land owner and "would let us know". We had not heard back from her so one of us made a collective call to Mr. Russell on June 2nd (Monday - the same day this thread was started) and had a very pleasant conversation about the geocaches in question. The conversation included a detailed description of where the caches are located. Mr. Russell stated that he had heard about geocaching and knows a few cachers. The only request that he had was for a telephone number in case he had any concerns in the future. He can contact us directly. I’m sure you will see some of us helping out with trail maintenance and with the maple sugaring operation that he opens up to for public participation next spring. See The Russell Family Farm Conservation Project at the bottom of the page.

 

One of us also contacted Mr. Twarog, the chair of the HART committee, to open a dialog about geocaching in Hinesburg. He was not aware of the specifics of geocaching and was given some general information should the committee wish to discuss guidelines further.

 

In my opinion, there will be far more of an impact on these trails from mountain bikes than from the geocacher with the worst caching etiquette. These trails are listed on the Local Motion website.

 

A little bit more about "the four" of us. There was a recent CITO held at Mobbs Park (aka Mobbs Farm) in Jericho hosted by one us. These trails are open to the public. "Mobbs Farm is open to all forms of non-motorized recreation, including: hiking, running, cross-county skiing, horseback riding, and mountain biking." The Mobbs Committee posted their annual Green-Up Day in the local paper and the only group of trail users that showed up to help out were - yup - you guessed it - the geocachers. Even my 4-year-old was raking the trails.

 

Just to provide another example of 'doing our homework before we place a cache'. Two of "the four" of us are working on a CITO coming up on June 22nd at Bolton Valley. (We hope to see you there Cathy!!!) Bolton Valley is on private property and we have had several meetings with our contact there. We are adhering to the very strict guidelines including getting the cache locations and the cache containers themselves approved before hiding them along with several photos of each cache placement site.

 

The point – please do not assume that we are “clueless” after making this mistake. To err is human after all… The reason for the ‘cache series’ is to encourage cachers to walk the entire trail not to trash up the place. It is a lovely area.

Edited June 4, 2008 by roostersting

[+flask]

hey, hey, hey. easy on the mountain bikers.

 

just one example: it was Fellowship Of The Weel (you guessed it) mountain bikers who designed and built many of the trails of which you speak, mobb valley and hill in particular. they hold their own regularly scheduled organized trail maintenance days and therefore may not feel a need to attend other maintenance days.

 

if you're walking on a trail that's open to mountain bike use in chittenden county, chances are very good that the trail is built and maintained by FOTW. outside of chittenden county FOTW has some trails and many more are maintained by VMBA. mountain bikers in this state are responsible for the opening of an awful lot of public and private trails for general use and you might want to tone it down a little.

 

geocachers with poor trail etiquette will do just as much damage as mountain bikers, you can bet on it.

 

there's no sense pitting one group of trail users against another.

[+roostersting]

I'm sorry about that flask. I did a ton of mountain biking around Killington before landing in Chittenden County. My bike tires leave more of a trace than my hiking boots was all that I meant. My oldest is just about ready to hit the trail - yipee! My youngest can ride a bike now so that I can stop toting the kiddy bike trailer behind my mountain bike!

[+flask]

I'm sorry about that flask. I did a ton of mountain biking around Killington before landing in Chittenden County. My bike tires leave more of a trace than my hiking boots was all that I meant. My oldest is just about ready to hit the trail - yipee! My youngest can ride a bike now so that I can stop toting the kiddy bike trailer behind my mountain bike!

 

so- the crashcos and i will see you on the racecourse tonight?

[+roostersting]

I'm sorry about that flask. I did a ton of mountain biking around Killington before landing in Chittenden County. My bike tires leave more of a trace than my hiking boots was all that I meant. My oldest is just about ready to hit the trail - yipee! My youngest can ride a bike now so that I can stop toting the kiddy bike trailer behind my mountain bike!

 

so- the crashcos and i will see you on the racecourse tonight?

 

Probably next week as this is the last week of Little League. The kids love the races last year - especially on rainy days.

Edited June 4, 2008 by roostersting

[+Too Tall John]

Several people have mentioned that the reviewer for their area often maintains a list of areas with special rules. The reviewer for my area covers 7 states! - DE, GA, ME, MA, NH, RI & VT ...

Point of order:

 

GPSFun is no longer the main cache reviewer in NH, MA or ME. Not sure about the others. Even while he still was, I never saw any evidence that what he was covering was beyond his abilities. In fact, it seemed to me that he was always right on top of issues that arose, at least here in NH.

 

Even if he were still the reviewer for these states, so what? Just means a longer list...

[+wimseyguy]

I sense a disturbance in the force. This is at least the second thread in recent times where the unnamed clueless cache owner has been notified of the thread discussing their actions. They have joined the thread and made informative and positive posts that seem to sew up the loose ends, and put caching in a good light.

 

Boy does that kind of action kill the angst buzz or what?

 

Thanks for joining in roostersting and filling in the blanks and most of all for doing the right thing!

[+flask]

I sense a disturbance in the force. This is at least the second thread in recent times where the unnamed clueless cache owner has been notified of the thread discussing their actions. They have joined the thread and made informative and positive posts that seem to sew up the loose ends, and put caching in a good light.

 

Boy does that kind of action kill the angst buzz or what?

 

Thanks for joining in roostersting and filling in the blanks and most of all for doing the right thing!

 

i was "in communication with" another of the rogue cache owners. had me a laugh.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The point – please do not assume that we are “clueless” after making this mistake. To err is human after all… The reason for the ‘cache series’ is to encourage cachers to walk the entire trail not to trash up the place. It is a lovely area.

 

Well done. Reading your larger post, I'm not sure you made any errors at all. The cache was fine going in. A question came up. You followed up. The caches are still fine.

 

I'm glad you posted. It's easy to talk 'in general' but the specifics help and then we can all learn from the real experience.

[vtmtnman]

And I have to laugh about the OP not seeing any events listed on her weekly notification email.There was one on there that had to be listed for like two months I believe.

 

That e-mail does tend to be quite cluttered. Unless you want to sit down for a few minutes and read it, its easy to miss things.

Very true.

[+Team GeoBlast]

The point – please do not assume that we are “clueless” after making this mistake. To err is human after all… The reason for the ‘cache series’ is to encourage cachers to walk the entire trail not to trash up the place. It is a lovely area.

 

I cannot see where you have done anything wrong either. Thank you for coming in and sharing the specific facts about the the situation with us here. You sound like a solid group of individuals whose caching conscious would be model for any Geocaching Community.

 

I stated earlier that this is a local issue that needs a local solution to it. I am glad that you are working towards that with everyone involved. I do, however, see a lot of heartache ahead for the OP if she decides to keep caching and once she gains a more global perspective of how far assumed permission is stretched with some cache placements.

[+gpsfun]

I am in receipt of a communication from one of the cache owners who states the following:

I want you to know that I have spoken to the land owner (once I realized it was private land) and he said he had no problem with geocaches on the land, no problem with people bushwhacking to get to the caches, and no problem with the number of caches that have been placed. He just wanted people to enjoy and respect his land, and to not bother his animals. He wanted to have a contact person in case any problems arise and I told him he could contact me. He has my phone number. By the way the land owner's name is Howard Russell.

 

There had been no indication that the land was private or we would have sought permission in advance. After learning that the land was private we all disabled our caches and then sought permission. We re-enabled them after obtaining permission.

[+briansnat]

I am in receipt of a communication from one of the cache owners who states the following:

I want you to know that I have spoken to the land owner (once I realized it was private land) and he said he had no problem with geocaches on the land, no problem with people bushwhacking to get to the caches, and no problem with the number of caches that have been placed. He just wanted people to enjoy and respect his land, and to not bother his animals. He wanted to have a contact person in case any problems arise and I told him he could contact me. He has my phone number. By the way the land owner's name is Howard Russell.

 

There had been no indication that the land was private or we would have sought permission in advance. After learning that the land was private we all disabled our caches and then sought permission. We re-enabled them after obtaining permission.

 

Jolly good!

[+Team GeoBlast]

I am in receipt of a communication from one of the cache owners who states the following:

I want you to know that I have spoken to the land owner (once I realized it was private land) and he said he had no problem with geocaches on the land, no problem with people bushwhacking to get to the caches, and no problem with the number of caches that have been placed. He just wanted people to enjoy and respect his land, and to not bother his animals. He wanted to have a contact person in case any problems arise and I told him he could contact me. He has my phone number. By the way the land owner's name is Howard Russell.

 

There had been no indication that the land was private or we would have sought permission in advance. After learning that the land was private we all disabled our caches and then sought permission. We re-enabled them after obtaining permission.

 

Great!

[+DeweyDoubleD]

Hate to chime in late on this particular thread, it was my suggestion actually to put more caches in this place that probably got this whole thing stirred up. I know the four caching rogues, consider them very good friends, and have spent many many many happy hours on the trail with them not to mention many hours spent at events, both CITO and not over the years in Chittenden, Addison and Washington Counties. If anybody doubts their commitment to our sport, please doubt no further. All of them have produced some of the best caches going, are committed to making sure our great sport is always seen in the best light and anyone of them would drop what they are doing to help a fellow cacher out. Not only that but they spend countless hours volunteering in various ways in their own communities. They always act as ambassadors to our sport. Between the four of them they have over 4000 finds and 200 hides. I for one consider myself lucky to have met them through geocaching.

[+flask]

Hate to chime in late on this particular thread, it was my suggestion actually to put more caches in this place that probably got this whole thing stirred up. I know the four caching rogues, consider them very good friends, and have spent many many many happy hours on the trail with them not to mention many hours spent at events, both CITO and not over the years in Chittenden, Addison and Washington Counties. If anybody doubts their commitment to our sport, please doubt no further. All of them have produced some of the best caches going, are committed to making sure our great sport is always seen in the best light and anyone of them would drop what they are doing to help a fellow cacher out. Not only that but they spend countless hours volunteering in various ways in their own communities. They always act as ambassadors to our sport. Between the four of them they have over 4000 finds and 200 hides. I for one consider myself lucky to have met them through geocaching.

 

i think the personal goodness of the hiders is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

stuff happens. caches go in. sometimes they require more permission than they have. solutions get found.

 

it wouldn't matter if the hiders were personal friends or not; the general narrative is the same.

[+Smokey Bear Collector]

....."All I want is to prevent this (placing caches on open to the public, but privately owned land, without permission) in the future. If people had to get permission for ALL caches, that would solve the problem of people incorrectly assuming it is public. But OK, you don't want that. Fine. But then how do we stop people who do absolutely zero research on the land and assume it is public if it isn't?"....

 

With due respect, it's not your responsibility to police the caching community and enforce Groundspeaks rules for the game. It is your responibility (and all of ours) to follow the rules and play fairly and ethically. You'll never get rule-breakers to do what you want. But you can set a good example and place your caches within the guidelines and play by the rules. Plus you can continue to encourage this, as you're doing here. Others will be motivated to follow the rules and practice ethical geocaching (including getting permission).

Edited June 7, 2008 by Smokey Bear Collector

[+KBI]

You talk about a trail and the private property it runs through. In my town we also have a greenway. They request that you don’t leave the trail system so as to protect adjoining non trail private property. They also have given blanket permission for caching on the trail system. True some of the trail is private property, but the owners gave permission for the greenway to use that property as a trail and thus allowed any and all casual uses for which a trail is enjoyed. That includes caches since getting out in the world and enjoying the trail in various ways is part of their mission.

Two points. First, you said "They also have given blanket permission for caching" That's my point - someone gave permission, so now you don't need to ask every time you want to place a cache. But someone gave permission at some point.

 

I must strongly disagree with your assumption that if someone gives permission to use their private property for a trail, then it is a given that people can place caches without further permission. Your statement - "the owners gave permission for the greenway to use that property as a trail and thus allowed any and all casual uses for which a trail is enjoyed. That includes caches..." Involving someone's private property in an online (and on-the-ground), clandestine game is not a traditional trail use.

It’s not?

 

Please clarify your post. Which part of Geocaching is bad: the ‘non-traditional’ part, the ‘on the ground’ part, the ‘clandestine’ part, or the ‘online’ (Internet) part?

 

Is the term “traditional trail use” defined somewhere?

 

For example, is it considered “traditional trail use” to talk on a cell phone while walking the trail? Making a phone call while on a trail in the woods sounds pretty ‘non-traditional’ to me.

 

Is it considered “traditional trail use” to get an itch in a sensitive place, look around to ensure you’re alone on the trail, and then enjoy a long and deeply satisfying scratch? That sounds pretty ‘clandestine’ to me.

 

And surely you don't really object to the ‘online’ part? What if I learn about the existence of the trail itself on the Internet? Should I then stay off the trail? That doesn’t even make any sense.

 

Consider this: If you were to hike the trail in question, would you carry a water bottle? Would you first ask the owner for permission to carry the water bottle? Do you suppose a land owner who provides public access for the purpose of trail hiking would mind if hikers carry water bottles without first asking his explicit permission? Do you suppose he would mind if a hiker were to set a bottle on the ground during a rest stop? How far away from that water bottle do you suppose the hiker could walk, before picking it up again, without upsetting the owner? Suppose the hiker stashed a water bottle somewhere out of sight along the trail for the purpose of retrieving and consuming it on the return hike later that day? Later that week? Later that summer? What if the hiker marked the location of the stashed bottle with his GPS so as not to lose it and create trash? Do you suppose such use of GPS on his trail would trouble the land owner? What if the bottle contained some legal substance other than water – say, a roll of paper and a cheap collection of trinkets? What if the coordinates of the bottle were posted on the internet? What if finding the bottle and signing the paper were part of a clandestine game, one that had not only been given a name, but also guidelines, some of which are designed to prevent the abandonment of gamepieces as trash?

 

Where, exactly, in that sequence of questions do you believe we as cachers cross the line between acceptable activity and unacceptable when no specific permission has been given? At what point do you think explicit permission is inherently required?

 

You say there are easements regarding the public use of these private lands. Is the full wording of each individual easement posted at each trail access point at each property line? Are all the specifically allowed activities posted? Are all the specifically prohibited activities posted? It seems to me that if a land owner gives permission for the public to use his land, via formal easement or otherwise, then the land owner should know intuitively that he is not likely to be able to enforce a list of thousands of individual specific picky rules regarding what is allowed and what isn’t – even if he does post his lengthy list of specific demands at the trail entrance.

 

Earlier in the thread you gave another poster a hard time for having assumed it was okay to walk his dog in a particular park based solely on the lack of a posted dog-walking prohibition. You suggested a more extreme example, that the mere lack of a posted prohibition against cutting down trees in the park, for instance, did not automatically imply permission for people to start clear-cutting without asking. Your point seemed to be that one cannot rely on every single possible activity being either specifically allowed or specifically prohibited, and that one must rely instead on common sense and good judgment. It was a good point you made, and I agreed with it.

 

Why, then, can’t you allow for the possibility that a cache owner has used such common sense when placing his or her cache? Why can’t you allow for the possibility that a cache seeker has used such common sense when seeking that cache?

 

BUT even if you could somehow legally argue that it is, it is IRRELEVANT! If the owner does not feel it is a normal trail use, and isn't happy that someone did it without permission, they can revoke permission for the public to use their land. Then, all your arguing about what is a casual trail use is a moot point - you've caused all users, cachers, walkers, etc., to loose the right to use that land.

I guess you’re right.

 

Suppose it also turns out that the land owner has a pet peeve about cell phones. Suppose I take a call while hiking his land. Suppose the land owner hears me. Suppose he isn't happy that I used my phone on his land without first asking him for specific permission. Suppose he responds by cancelling the easement. Then, all your arguing about which geocaches are good and which geocaches are bad is a moot point – I will have caused all users, cachers, walkers, etc., to lose the right to use that land simply by using my phone.

 

I prefer to depend on good judgment and common sense rather than ask permission for every activity that is not already specifically permitted.

 

You, on the other hand, seem to want to live in a world where nothing is legal unless it is specifically allowed in a detailed list and posted on a sign.

 

It seems to me that if a land owner wants to allow public access to his lands he must be prepared to recognize the realities of public activity and to accept all the reasonable consequences of allowing such access. There will be some noise. There will be some trash. There will be some unforeseen issues. There may even be some crime here and there. It’s ugly and it’s sad, but those are the realities of human existence.

 

Of all the things people can conceivably do that might cause a reasonable land owner to yank a public-access easement and kick folks off his hiking trails, I think Geocaching is WAY down the list.

 

I understand your concerns – and I may be wrong – but I think you are overreacting.

[+KBI]

Besides, and as someone else pointed out: Most land owners are normally happy to provide unspoken (adequate) permission as long as you don’t ask, but as soon as you insist on specific permission the owner will see that he must consider his own interests and protect himself from liability by specifically disallowing the requested activity.

 

If the existences of these caches on these private lands troubles you so much, you are of course free to contact the land owners directly and express your concerns. Keep in mind, however, that actions sometimes have unintended consequences, and that formally raising the issue may force the land owner into abandoning his look-the-other-way policy in favor of a prohibit-all-Geocaches-because-allowing-them-might-get-him-sued policy.