Jump to content

Obtaining permission to place on commercial property


Novac
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

I suspect that if every cache were examined for 'adequate' permission we'd have to archive 50% the caches out there... if examined for 'explicit' permission we'd have to archive 90%.

 

Leave it alone, the game's working fine.

 

Amen! (all is working fine except those pesky micro caches)

 

.

.

.

.

.

 

Ooops, did it again KBI... Shall I call a wambulance?

Link to comment

I can't speak to the OP's motivation.

 

It's an easy topic to target for folks who need a bit of drama however.

 

Like a politician choosing a safe stance on some issue he knows he can't easily be attacked for...

 

No smoking on city streets? He can jump all over that without fear of any serious resistance. Nobody can make a serious argument that they have a right to pollute your airspace.

 

No caches in cemeteries? An easy win... caching in cemeteries is hard to defend outside of a portion of the geocaching community.

 

No permission? Easy to score a win, nobody can stand up with a straight face and make a convincing argument that 'we don't need no steenkin' permission'.

 

Any time someone wants to show how virtuous, pure, blameless and politically-correct they are as opposed to the mass of us unwashed sinners then they can bring this one up.

 

This is true for sure! But I really don't think it gets brought up that often. :rolleyes: Not as often as say a "bring back virtuals" thread.

 

Oh, thanks to J-Way for the response in post #25 I'm too lazy to multi-quote.

Link to comment

This is true for sure! But I really don't think it gets brought up that often. ;) Not as often as say a "bring back virtuals" thread.

There deserves to be more threads on the tremendously important topic of restoring our constitutional right to virtuals!

 

Bring them back, they never should have done away with them.

 

I am here to fight for you. I will represent you. I will assure that your God-given right to hide virtuals is impeded by no man!

 

My fellow Americans, I solemnly swear to you that when I am elected King of Groundspeak I will restore your divine rights and virtuals will reign all over this great land!

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment

I suspect that if every cache were examined for 'adequate' permission we'd have to archive 50% the caches out there...

This is, and shall remain, a divisive issue, until Groundspeak decides to elevate themselves above their "dirty little secret" status. While I wouldn't use the words "virtuous, pure, blameless and politically-correct" to describe me, I have, what I believe to be a fair sense of what is right, and in retrospect, what is wrong. Adequate permission seems a perfectly acceptable standard when considering caches on public lands, that have been designated for recreation. However, I think a different standard should apply to private property. I don't think you do yourself a service by minimizing the issue with sound-bites. By standing shoulder to shoulder with the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more" crowd at Groundspeak, you dismiss the rights and concerns of private property owners. If you do so because you honestly believe that you have a right to play this game on someone else's property, then I'll respect your position while disagreeing with it. If you are taking this stance simply to preserve the gobs of film canisters stuffed under lamp post kilts, then can only shake my head in wonder.

 

If archiving the caches hidden on private property without explicit permission means losing 50% of the hides out there, I see it as a small sacrifice for the greater good.

 

I think it's an embarrasment that we play this game on people's private property, while the reviewers look the other way.

You're preaching to the choir, Brother.

 

I can't speak to the OP's motivation.

Neither can I, as I don't know the OP, and they haven't been back to clarify anything.

 

It's an easy topic to target for folks who need a bit of drama however.

I can tell you my motivation though, and I can assure you, it has nothing to do with drama.

 

No permission? Easy to score a win, nobody can stand up with a straight face and make a convincing argument that 'we don't need no steenkin' permission'.

Actually, I've made that exact argument several times.

 

My fellow Americans, I solemnly swear to you that when I am elected King of Groundspeak I will restore your divine rights and virtuals will reign all over this great land!

Whoo Hoo!! Gaia knows it's awfully dang hard to find a Burger King when you need one. Bring back the virts, and it'll be as easy as hitting the "Find" button! You got my vote!

 

*Post Script: The statements contained within this post are simply expressions of my opinion, which has no less, nor more, value, than your's*

Link to comment

I suspect that if every cache were examined for 'adequate' permission we'd have to archive 50% the caches out there...

This is, and shall remain, a divisive issue ....

Where to draw the line?

 

Between total prohibition (NO private property caches allowed) and total abandon (ALL private property caches allowed) there is a wide continuum of possibilities. There are an infinite number of options available to select from along that wide continuum; an unlimited number of possible places where Groundspeak and its army of reviewers may choose to draw their regulatory line.

 

I don’t know exactly what TPTB say when they talk to the many volunteer reviewers regarding policy, but I think I can reasonably guess that the situation is monitored closely as information comes in, and that the actual, working policy is constantly adjusted and tweaked just far enough toward the caution side to keep the inevitable complaints down to an acceptable level. That is pure speculation, but if it were me, in other words, that is how I would manage it.

 

There will always be complaints and problems – this hobby depends on the common sense and judgment of a wild group of amateurs, after all. The reviewer’s job is therefore to decide how many complaints and problems are acceptable, and therefore how far to go between lenient and strict. I have always liked the way TPTB have generally leaned toward giving players the benefit of the doubt in this area.

 

It’s a delicate balance: Not enough enforcement and folks will soon get silly with their placements and begin to give the hobby a bad name; enforce the permission thing too strictly, however, and you throw way too many good babies out with all that bathwater. It’s fair to opine that both problems exist to some extent already; the only question is ... where should the line be drawn?

 

I think Groundspeak is doing a pretty okay job, given the impossibility of satisfying everyone. The only other option is to give up and shut down the website – which will not, of course, make the hobby go away. Shutting down the website would only allow for another central repository of cache listings to rise to the job, and who knows whether the new group would do as good a job of drawing the line as the current administration?

Link to comment

I suspect that if every cache were examined for 'adequate' permission we'd have to archive 50% the caches out there...

This is, and shall remain, a divisive issue, until Groundspeak decides to elevate themselves above their "dirty little secret" status. While I wouldn't use the words "virtuous, pure, blameless and politically-correct" to describe me, I have, what I believe to be a fair sense of what is right, and in retrospect, what is wrong. ...

 

In another thread I posed far more grievous examples of "presumed permission" meaning ZERO explicit permission. One poster showed an interest. Most involving things more blatant than a hidden container. But talk about that container in a caching forum and OH MY FREAKING GOSH the debates start.

 

When I tried to work with the police on a maggot I could not get the time of day over the box. So far as I can tell it's so much of a non issue that nobody cares.

 

So here we have peopl;e talking about a dirty secrete when there is no secrete. WE have folks lamenting permission when others could give a ratts a** about the entire issue.

 

I'm going to join with the Shoshoni nation in claiming the entire USA as my traditional cultural area. I'm giving up no rights to recreate in that area. I wonder if I can get permission from the Shoshoni nation to cache in their cultural lands.

Link to comment

I suspect that if every cache were examined for 'adequate' permission we'd have to archive 50% the caches out there...

This is, and shall remain, a divisive issue ....

Where to draw the line?

 

Between total prohibition (NO private property caches allowed) and total abandon (ALL private property caches allowed) there is a wide continuum of possibilities. There are an infinite number of options available to select from along that wide continuum; an unlimited number of possible places where Groundspeak and its army of reviewers may choose to draw their regulatory line.

 

I don’t know exactly what TPTB say when they talk to the many volunteer reviewers regarding policy, but I think I can reasonably guess that the situation is monitored closely as information comes in, and that the actual, working policy is constantly adjusted and tweaked just far enough toward the caution side to keep the inevitable complaints down to an acceptable level. That is pure speculation, but if it were me, in other words, that is how I would manage it.

 

There will always be complaints and problems – this hobby depends on the common sense and judgment of a wild group of amateurs, after all. The reviewer’s job is therefore to decide how many complaints and problems are acceptable, and therefore how far to go between lenient and strict. I have always liked the way TPTB have generally leaned toward giving players the benefit of the doubt in this area.

 

It’s a delicate balance: Not enough enforcement and folks will soon get silly with their placements and begin to give the hobby a bad name; enforce the permission thing too strictly, however, and you throw way too many good babies out with all that bathwater. It’s fair to opine that both problems exist to some extent already; the only question is ... where should the line be drawn?

 

I think Groundspeak is doing a pretty okay job, given the impossibility of satisfying everyone. The only other option is to give up and shut down the website – which will not, of course, make the hobby go away. Shutting down the website would only allow for another central repository of cache listings to rise to the job, and who knows whether the new group would do as good a job of drawing the line as the current administration?

 

That is outstanding, KBI. It's true it's a delicate balance. How many people come in here complaining about the horrible treatment they receive from their local reviewer? (as they tow the line between lenient and strict) As you said, we're just a wild group of amateurs.

 

I dunno though, they could have nipped the whole parking lot thing in the bud early on when they first started appearing in Stuckey's parking lots and such in 2002-2003. I know when I started, there were exactly zero caches on commercial property within a 50 mile radius of my home coords. Believe me, there weren't that many caches, I know where they all were. I'm just sayin'. Oh, and it was cheap to drive to them, too. :rolleyes:

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

I suspect that if every cache were examined for 'adequate' permission we'd have to archive 50% the caches out there...

This is, and shall remain, a divisive issue, until Groundspeak decides to elevate themselves above their "dirty little secret" status. While I wouldn't use the words "virtuous, pure, blameless and politically-correct" to describe me...

Just want to clarify two things...

 

I coined the phrase 'geocaching's dirty little secret' years ago to describe an unfortunate side of geocachers; a propensity of geocachers to check the affirmation boxes that indicate that they have read the Guidelines and Terms of Use, thereby stating that they had adequate permission when in fact they had none, and hadn't really thought or cared much about whether it was needed.

 

It is NOT Groundspeak's problem, I have never referred to it as 'Groundspeak's dirty little secret' as it is in no way something that they can control. This game is based on trust. If a listing submitter claims to have adequate permission by checking the boxes that say he has it then that's all Groundspeak can do. The Reviewers cannot check permission of every hide, but they are pretty good about spotting the one's they think need further interrogation. If cachers regularly lie to Groundspeak that's the cacher's responsibility, not Groundspeak's. If anything needs elevating it is geocacher's honesty in this issue. Once Groundspeak learns that permission is not in fact adequate they archive the cache. Groundspeak can't be criticized for trusting geocachers.

 

Secondly, I never used the words "virtuous, pure, blameless and politically-correct" to describe you, I used them to describe the feelings I get from some people who start threads like this. I rarely address an issue by talking about the persons involved, I try to address the issue itself.

 

Sorry if you thought I was addressing you personally that way.

 

Edit to add:

By standing shoulder to shoulder with the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more" crowd at Groundspeak, you dismiss the rights and concerns of private property owners. If you do so because you honestly believe that you have a right to play this game on someone else's property, then I'll respect your position while disagreeing with it. If you are taking this stance simply to preserve the gobs of film canisters stuffed under lamp post kilts, then can only shake my head in wonder.

I'm not sure how recognizing a problem and giving it a name has me standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the offenders. I do not appreciate, support or promote the practice of placing caches without adequate permission nor of lying about permission, and cannot see how my recognizing that this goes on makes me one of the guilty parties! I take no "stance" by recognizing a reality.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment
I coined the phrase 'geocaching's dirty little secret' years ago to describe an unfortunate side of geocachers; a propensity of geocachers to check the affirmation boxes that indicate that they have read the Guidelines and Terms of Use, thereby stating that they had adequate permission when in fact they had none, and hadn't really thought or cared much about whether it was needed.

True. However, over time, folks have come to realize that Groundspeak cares not a whiff for the rights of private property owners. I.e: If I tried to hide a cache in the Chuluota Wilderness Area, (public land designated for recreation, with a geocaching policy in place), my reviewer would require that I demonstrate explicit permission. For areas bought & paid for with my tax dollars, checking the little box is clearly not sufficient. But if I wanted to hide a cache at my local Ace Hardware, (private property not designated for recreation), the reviewer would allow the adequate permission card to be played.

 

Ergo, your original "dirty little secret" has grown from being an issue of less reputable cachers, to being a Groundspeak issue.

 

It is NOT Groundspeak's problem, I have never referred to it as 'Groundspeak's dirty little secret' as it is in no way something that they can control.

Of course they can control it. All they need to do is advise their reviewers to follow the same standards for private property as they follow for many public lands. Would it be 100% effective? No. Unscrupulous cachers would surely find ways around it. Would creating such a policy help to show that Groundspeak cared about private property rights? Of course. Once word got out that private property caches required explicit permission, the occasional cache that slipped through the cracks could be dealt with by the community, as they see fit. By closing their eyes & plugging their ears, while shouting "I can't hear you", Groundspeak is actively demonstrating that it is unwilling to address private property rights, which, in my opinion, makes it their problem.

 

If a listing submitter claims to have adequate permission by checking the boxes that say he has it then that's all Groundspeak can do.

As you know, there's a lot more that they can do. If that were the case, then my aforementioned, imaginary Chuluota Wilderness Area hide would get published without a hitch. After all, I would've checked the box, as I honestly believe that, as a tax payer, engaging in a lawful recreational activity on lands designated for such, I already have adequate permission. Heck, it wouldn't even be a fib!

 

Sorry if you thought I was addressing you personally that way.

I didn't.

 

I'm not sure how recognizing a problem and giving it a name has me standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the offenders.

Because we disagree on what the problem is. You see the problem as hiders not having adequate permission, checking the little box claiming that they did. I see the problem as an interpretation of the term adequate. Just for my clarification, do you think caches should be hidden on commercial properties where the public is allowed and encouraged to travel, without explicit permission?

Link to comment
I'm not sure how recognizing a problem and giving it a name has me standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the offenders.

Because we disagree on what the problem is. You see the problem as hiders not having adequate permission, checking the little box claiming that they did. I see the problem as an interpretation of the term adequate. Just for my clarification, do you think caches should be hidden on commercial properties where the public is allowed and encouraged to travel, without explicit permission?

 

Keeping in mind that the answer can really only be decided on a case-by-case basis, in general yes I do.

 

Again speaking in generalities, that which is not prohibited is allowed.

 

Adequate permission means whatever level of permission is required for a particular hide. Except in a few explicit prohibitions there is no guideline, policy, law or practice that prohibits caches in public spaces... mall parking lots, for example. Not being prohibited they are thus allowed.

 

The private property guideline, in my interpretation, was never meant to be applied to public spaces. To interpret it literally, since there is as a percentage very little if any land in this country that is not owned, would mean requiring explicit permission for all hides, which I do not believe is the spirit nor intent of the guideline.

 

Yes, the definition of 'adequate' is fuzzy, since it can only be determined on a case-by-case basis, by the hider for the most part. That leaves it up to the cacher to determine what adequate permission is. Groundspeak, unless they have been alerted otherwise, has to trust that cacher's judgment and his statement that adequate permission has been obtained.

 

In a mall parking lot, that space has been provided to the public for use when they are doing business at that location. It rarely can be used for any other parking... as a place to sell your car or park while you go to a ball game down the street, unless you have permission. There likely exists a document somewhere that expressly prohibits parking for any other use than doing business there.

 

My bet is that document does not prohibit caching in their parking lot, nor does that prohibitions letter or intent prohibit short-term parking while hunting a geocache.

 

In the absence of a prohibition then the cacher has to decide if no permission is adequate permission. If the cacher determines that no permission is required, again, unless Groundspeak knows differently then they have to take that cacher's word.

 

Clear as mud, right? But that's how the world works... few things are black-or-white! :huh:

 

Please note the sig line disclaimer that I speak only my opinion, which is often worth just what you paid for it!

Link to comment
Again speaking in generalities, that which is not prohibited is allowed.

Naturally. As I indicated previously, my stance is not one based upon laws, rules or guidelines. As I interpret them, tossing a film can under a lamp post kilt in a Wally World parking lot is perfectly legal. Also, doing so without obtaining explicit permission is currently allowed by the current interpretation of the guidelines. I'm assuming that the current interpretation is at least somewhat related to the fact that the activity is lawful in most jurisdictions.

 

The private property guideline, in my interpretation, was never meant to be applied to public spaces. To interpret it literally, since there is as a percentage very little if any land in this country that is not owned, would mean requiring explicit permission for all hides, which I do not believe is the spirit nor intent of the guideline.

Wouldn't that require the assumption that any owned property also be private? After all, I'm only pushing for explicit permission for private property hides, (which is alluded to in the tips to hiding a cache page), not public property. The aforementioned Chuluota Wilderness Area is a good example. It is owned, yet it is public. The owner of record is Seminole County. This owner opted to open the property up for recreation.

 

In a mall parking lot, that space has been provided to the public for use when they are doing business at that location. It rarely can be used for any other parking... as a place to sell your car or park while you go to a ball game down the street, unless you have permission. There likely exists a document somewhere that expressly prohibits parking for any other use than doing business there.

 

My bet is that document does not prohibit caching in their parking lot, nor does that prohibitions letter or intent prohibit short-term parking while hunting a geocache.

But if there is such a document prohibiting folks from parking there for any reason other than doing business there, wouldn't caching fall under that rule? Unless the cache is extremely commercial in nature, seeking it does not qualify as doing business.

 

How would the Frisbee rule fare in a Wally World parking lot?

(assume the Frisbee players are skilled enough to avoid damaging anything)

How long would they be allowed to play their game before someone from the store started squawking?

 

If the cacher determines that no permission is required, unless Groundspeak knows differently then they have to take that cacher's word.

Agreed. That is the status quo. What I'm asking for is that Groundspeak take the moral high ground, demonstrating that they do, in fact, have at least a modicum of respect for private property owners, by changing how the reviewers interpret the guidelines.

 

Clear as mud, right?

Perfectly! :ph34r::unsure:

Link to comment

thread-hijacked.gif If this thread doesn't see the term "dirty little secret" again, that'd be fine by me!

 

Threads like this arise when someone wants to get attention and try to 'out' that well-known 'secret'.

Seriously??? :unsure: My question was directly and pointedly all about how to obtain permission from a business. I returned shortly thereafter to re-clarify that was exactly what I needed to know. Threads like this are hijacked when someone wants to get attention and try to 'out' that well-known 'secret'. In fact, the last useful answer to my question was Jul 10 2008, 05:40 PM (ironically, also by TheAlabamaRambler).

 

Here's some clarification for everyone regarding the OP (and thanks to TheWhiteUrkel for noticing that I'm new to hiding geocaches). I have placed one cache in a public park, for which I got general permission followed by explicit permission for that specific placement. I am always looking at new spots, and I found a couple spots on commercial property. Yes, I realize that many caches don't have explicit (or any) permission at all, and as a finder I just go look for what's posted. And yes, I realize this whole explicit vs. adequate debate because of the various other threads where it is discussed. As a hider, however, I couldn't care less what the guidelines or tips say. As a personal preference, I want to place caches only when the appropriate organization is fully aware of the placement and has given express permission for me to do so. This is NOT a commentary on hiders who do otherwise -- this is simply my preference. The level of permission required is completely irrelevant to my question. I know there are people who have received such permission, and I'm asking them about what methods they have found successful (or unsuccessful) in the past.

 

You can't blame me for asking this question that has nothing to do about how much permission is necessary, or about how many people don't get enough permission. I searched on permission in the forums before posting my own question, and I see you've argued all these same points before. If you want to argue, just go re-read those threads. If you want to answer my question, that would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks to WebChimp, Renegade Knight, Mudfrog, Creami Cannoli, KBI, J-Way, Mule Ears, and TheAlabamaRambler for post numbers 4, 8, 10, 11, 22, 23, 26, and 29, respectively.

Link to comment

My first recommendation to you was the passive option: to simply ignore the off-topic crusade-pushing gripers. You seem to have tried this, but unfortunately none of them took the hint. :unsure:

 

Another recommendation would be the more active option: click the “Report” button on each offending post, report your problem, and let the moderators sort it out. There is a good chance you'll get some welcome, and very effective, help. :ph34r:

Link to comment

Since I was apparently 'called out' early on in this hodge-podge of off-topic mis-direction, I would like to re-iterate my assertion that you should get the permission of all the business owners. Any one of them could cause trouble for someone looking for the cache.

 

I do not have an agenda against parking-lot micros.

I do have an agenda against pointless caches (of ANY size) hidden just because there wasn't one within 528 feet.

 

I have had a few LEO encounters myself, and all of them have been pleasant and ended on positive notes.

SOME cachers in our area, seeking certain parking-lot micros, HAVE been detained and subjected to rather pointed questioning, background checks, etc. Not everyone enjoys this kind of attention.

 

This has been discussed before...store parking lots ARE private property intended for the convenience of store customers. Some of the lots even have signs to this effect.

 

If you are not shopping, you are trespassing!

 

LEO: What are you doing here, son?

ME: Geocaching!

LEO: Geo-what? Is that some kind of code for looking for a car to steal?

ME: NO, SIR! It's a hide-and-seek game using a GPS receiver.

LEO: So where is this Geo-thingy?

ME: I don't know for sure, it's supposed to be right around here somewhere...

LEO: OK, it really doesn't matter, because Mr. Store owner over there says you are trespassing, and since you just admitted that you weren't patronizing any of the stores, I have to agree. He says he prefers to press charges, so I'm going to confiscate you GPS as evidence and take you downtown for booking.

 

Far-fetched? Sure.

 

Some locals have come pretty close, though, and probably only 'escaped' due to the hassle the store owner would have faced in pressing the issue.

Link to comment
As a hider, however, I couldn't care less what the guidelines or tips say.

Wow... :ph34r::unsure::ph34r::ph34r:

 

Uh.. er.. OK, back on topic:

Many of us in this debate feel that an appropriate response can only be given once the needs are identified. For instance, I prefer explicit permission for commercial property caches. For this, you should ask, in person, as you've already been told. Others honestly believe that you need no permission. An accurate answer from them would be to simply hide it and move on.

 

Both answers are accurate, in their own way, and are therefore valid.

 

If you continue to post in these forums, you should expect that some topics will tend to drift toward debate after the OP got their answer.

It's not a slight on you as the OP. It's merely a typed expression of people's passions for the game.

In this case, you got your answer before the thread drifted, so don't take offense. Everyone in here realized that you got your answer almost immediately, and as such, the thread was free to take its own course, so long as it remained on topic. Debating the need for permission, in a thread about acquiring permission, would certainly qualify as being on topic.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment
As a hider, however, I couldn't care less what the guidelines or tips say.

Wow... :ph34r::unsure::ph34r::ph34r:

Hm. Let's have a look at Novac’s comment again, but this time with a bit more of his original context intact:

 

As a hider, however, I couldn't care less what the guidelines or tips say. As a personal preference, I want to place caches only when the appropriate organization is fully aware of the placement and has given express permission for me to do so.

Sounds a little different now, eh?

 

He couldn't care less what the guidelines say because he goes beyond the guidelines. He holds himself to an even higher standard than the guidelines recommend regarding cache placement permission.

 

Your butchered and incriminating version, OTOH, was more than a little misleading, wouldn't you say?

 

You should be careful quoting folks out of context, CR. In fact, didn't someone criticize someone else recently for doing exactly that in another thread? :ph34r:

Edited by KBI
Link to comment
Your butchered and incriminating version, OTOH, was more than a little misleading, wouldn't you say?

Butchered? The sentance was quoted in its entirety. Incriminating? What exactly am I accusing them of? Misleading? No, I don't think so, but it apparently has your kilt in a wad. Where do you think I'm trying to lead the readers? Unless, of course, this post of yours is just a typical attempt to KBI something I posted, which, based upon your history, I'd say is entirely possible. Nice try though. I'd give it a 4. I think you can do a lot better. :blink:

 

Back on topic: If you hide a cache on commercial property, please follow Novac's example and get explicit permission. Thanx! :(

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment
Your butchered and incriminating version, OTOH, was more than a little misleading, wouldn't you say?

Butchered? The sentance was quoted in its entirety. Incriminating? What exactly am I accusing them of? Misleading? No, I don't think so, but it apparently has your kilt in a wad. Where do you think I'm trying to lead the readers? Unless, of course, this post of yours is just a typical attempt to KBI something I posted, which, based upon your history, I'd say is entirely possible. Nice try though. I'd give it a 4. I think you can do a lot better. :(

 

Back on topic: If you hide a cache on commercial property, please follow Novac's example and get explicit permission. Thanx! :blink:

In general, all sentences in a paragraph combine to build the entire thought being communicated. Taking only one sentence from a paragraph threatens to miss an important bit of the entire thought and butcher the writer's meaning.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Your butchered and incriminating version, OTOH, was more than a little misleading, wouldn't you say?

Butchered? The sentance was quoted in its entirety. Incriminating? What exactly am I accusing them of? Misleading? No, I don't think so, but it apparently has your kilt in a wad. Where do you think I'm trying to lead the readers? Unless, of course, this post of yours is just a typical attempt to KBI something I posted, which, based upon your history, I'd say is entirely possible. Nice try though. I'd give it a 4. I think you can do a lot better. :)

"No, KBI, my out-of context quote was in NO WAY misleading! I am INNOCENT!"

 

"And by the way KBI, let me insult you one more time, while I'm at it."

 

Nice backpedal. I give it a 7.

 

7 beats 4. I guess that means you win. :huh:

Link to comment
In general, all sentences in a paragraph combine to build the entire thought being communicated. Taking only one sentence from a paragraph threatens to miss an important bit of the entire thought and butcher the writer's meaning.

Agreed. My "Wow" was simply a reflection upon that particular sentence. I was surprised by it, and amused by the way it interacted with the rest of the post. Nothing more. Novac's views match mine almost exactly, with regards to this topic. As you can tell, I am a staunch proponent of explicit permission for commercial caches. Because Novac and I see eye to eye on this issue, my comment was not made to butcher any message he, (she?), was trying to convey, although in light of your comments, I can see how some folks might interpret it that way. Apparently, Novac was bright enough to deduce that my comment was not negative in nature. Since I was addressing him, (her?), that's good enough for me. :D

Link to comment
7 beats 4. I guess that means you win. :D

Whoo Hoo!! I win!! :D

 

Hmmmmm... Let's all take a few minutes to ponder the question of "Who has hi-jacked this thread".... I'll give you a hint... It starts with a "K" and ends with an "I"... A cookie to anyone who can guess the correct answer.

 

When I see suggestions in this thread that cachers get explicit permission from every store owner in a strip mall, I feel an obligation to give the opposing view, so the OP doesn't make a misinformed decision. I will continue posting my opinions on permission as long and as often as I want, regardless of KBI de-railing and hi-jacking threads because of his disagreement.

Link to comment
In general, all sentences in a paragraph combine to build the entire thought being communicated. Taking only one sentence from a paragraph threatens to miss an important bit of the entire thought and butcher the writer's meaning.

Agreed. My "Wow" was simply a reflection upon that particular sentence. I was surprised by it, and amused by the way it interacted with the rest of the post. Nothing more.

As I said: Nice backpedal. :blink:

 

You reacted to a specific sentence – and only that sentence – because it was the part of the post that interested you. Got it.

 

So it's okay when you do it, but not okay when I do it?

 

Wow... :unsure::lol::):D

Link to comment
Hmmmmm... Let's all take a few minutes to ponder the question of "Who has hi-jacked this thread".... I'll give you a hint... It starts with a "K" and ends with an "I"... A cookie to anyone who can guess the correct answer.

 

When I see suggestions in this thread that cachers get explicit permission from every store owner in a strip mall, I feel an obligation to give the opposing view, so the OP doesn't make a misinformed decision. I will continue posting my opinions on permission as long and as often as I want, regardless of KBI de-railing and hi-jacking threads because of his disagreement.

Disagreement? :)

 

I read back over the thread just now, and I didn’t see anything at all that I disagreed with – with the exception of a few off topic anti-parkinglot-micro wisecracks like the ones you made, that is.

 

That’s a pretty smooth tactic: Use a couple little gibes to attempt to hijack the thread over to your personal agenda, and then accuse someone else of hijacking the thread. Very subtle. Do you think anyone will notice the contradiction/hypocrisy? Let me know how that works out.

 

(Now that I've revealed the actual hijacker, do I get the cookie?)

 

I will continue posting my opinions on permission as long and as often as I want, regardless of KBI de-railing and hi-jacking threads because of his disagreement.

Apparently you will also continue posting your condescending and contemptuous opinions against certain caches you happen to dislike, regardless of the actual topic of this thread.

Edited by KBI
Link to comment

if y'all don't mind, i'll just address the question.

 

when i am planning to place cache on private property (commercial or otherwise) i look up caches in similar locations and make note of the kind of traffic a cache receives when it is new and the kind of traffic it receives once it gets worn in.

 

if i think it applies, i may take pictures of some similar containers and the wear patterns around them.

 

i put together a nice little write-up letting the landowner know what s/he can expect, and politely ask permission to place the cache. i leave the discussion open as to what kind of requirements the landowner might have, e.g., available hours, where to park.

 

later on when someone asks me pointedly if i have permission for that ammo can on the pretty little island near the wildlife refuge, i can say "yes. i have written permission from the power company that owns the island and also from the department of fish and wildlife."

Link to comment
You reacted to a specific sentence – and only that sentence – because it was the part of the post that interested you. Got it.

Actually, the whole post interested me. If you had bothered to read what I wrote, instead of simply slinging out KBI's, you would have picked up on that. :)

 

when i am planning to place cache on private property (commercial or otherwise) i look up caches in similar locations and make note of the kind of traffic a cache receives when it is new and the kind of traffic it receives once it gets worn in.

 

if i think it applies, i may take pictures of some similar containers and the wear patterns around them.

 

i put together a nice little write-up letting the landowner know what s/he can expect, and politely ask permission to place the cache. i leave the discussion open as to what kind of requirements the landowner might have, e.g., available hours, where to park.

 

later on when someone asks me pointedly if i have permission for that ammo can on the pretty little island near the wildlife refuge, i can say "yes. i have written permission from the power company that owns the island and also from the department of fish and wildlife."

Kudos! I think that is probably the most comprehensive approach to obtaining/maintaining permission that I've seen.

Link to comment
You reacted to a specific sentence – and only that sentence – because it was the part of the post that interested you. Got it.
Actually, the whole post interested me. If you had bothered to read what I wrote, instead of simply slinging out KBI's, you would have picked up on that. :)
Perhaps you could take this side banter to PM (or just drop it). Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Just explaining the game and asking permission is usually enough.

 

Most of the time this comes up not when placing my caches, as I get whatever level of permission I deem adequate before I even bother to mark the coordinates, but when I am hunting caches that have been placed without permission.

 

I was finding a series of 15 new caches a couple of days ago and had to explain the game three times... once to a cop, once to a land manager and once to a restaurant manager.

 

The first that was questioned was a nano on the post of a bronze roadside marker for a historic location. Sheriff's Deputy rolls up while I am looking for it. He wants to know why an old one-legged fat man is caressing his sign post. Not in those words, but the 'Jeez there's a lotta nuts out here' came through. I start to explain the game and his eyes glaze over... "Have fun" he says and off he goes. Public area, cops don't care, as far as I am concerned that's adequate permission.

 

Then I get to #4... GPS says ground zero is right over there... just about right where that guy is working a bull-dozer! 'Well' says I to me, 'this ain't good'. Read the hint - Yep, the cache has gotta be right there where he's working. So I walk over to ground zero, about five feet in front of his big blade. Now, you think the cop thought I was nuts, wonder what the dozer driver thinks when I walk in front of his path and stand there with my GPS! The hint tells me it's in an oak tree, and this is the only oak left standing... in fact it's one of only two trees left in the area! The dozer driver shuts down his machine and quietly asks if he can help me. The underlying message I can read in his face is 'What the HELL do you think you're doing!'. I explain the game, he thinks it sounds cool, gets down from his machine and joins the hunt... and finds it before I do! Now he explains that he is the property manager and the gravedigger and they are expanding the cemetery. A co-worker walks up and they debate leaving the tree so the cache can stay there! How cool is that?! But it was decided that roots and caskets don't mix, so the tree had to go. He told me the cache was welcome to stay and pointed out an area about 60' away where it would be safe. I moved the cache, marked the new coordinates, then went and put a note in #s 5 and 3 with the new coords for 4 so that people coming from either end of the series would see that it had been moved. Cool... property manager says it can stay, that's good. (He knew that there had been a previous cache, an ammo can under a log, not far from where this cache is that had been there for years, and he knew about the one in the church's bell too.) So while this hider hadn't asked for permission he did know that a previous cache and an existing cache were on the property, I suppose he felt that was adequate permission, and I would have too. But now since I asked they have explicit permission.

 

The last was an interesting case of a key holder on a guardrail at a Jack-in-the-box restaurant where permission was granted and then canceled. The manager came out, said that he had been asked by the hider, personally didn't care, but had later asked his corporate folks.... who told him this was a corporate thing, we'd have to remove it till we got their permission. Liability, he says. So I moved it a block up the road to a public park-and-ride lot and sent the owner the new coords. It being an unfenced rural (I'm guessing county-owned) lot I don't expect that explicit permission is needed. I did find it interesting that his corporate people didn't say it couldn't be there, just that it had to have their permission.

 

The last time that I had to ask permission for someone else's hide was denied also... approaching the cache in a roadside garden border of an out-of-business Circuit City I saw a van with property-management signs and a police car, the man and the cop were filling out a report. In such situations I do not avoid the cache, I explain what I am doing and look for it. If the cache does not have permission it needs to be gone. I live in a fairly small town and knew the cop, so we chatted for a minute then I told the property manager that I was here to look for a cache that had been hidden here the night before. He explained that during the night thieves had scaled the building and stolen all of the copper tubing from the roof-top AC system. He asked me to take the cache with me as they did not want folks on the property. In fact I and another cacher with me DNF the cache, so I called the owner (another friend) to find out where it was. We removed it and the cache owner later hid it up the street a ways in a grassy field.

 

Before that I was caching with a friend in Virginia at a closed-for-the-night Toys-R-Us when three police cars roll up. It turned out that the staff was working late stocking the store, an employee leaving for home saw us and notified the manager, who called the cops, who said "Yeah, we have a unit across the street watching them!". The drain spout holding the key holder cache was about fifty feet from the loading dock, so fortunately we had not been over there looking. Also fortunately I had the cache in hand when the cops arrived. Turns out that they had watched me retrieve it before moving in. Here I was, from Alabama, my partner was from Pennsylvania, and we're fooling around near the loading dock of a closed toy store in Virginia at almost midnight... oh yeah, they gave us the full check-out! Having passed muster by explaining the game, showing them some cache listing pages, the car checked out and I have no wants or warrants, the cops let me talk to the store manager. He'd heard me explaining the game to the police, but I went over it again, apologized that the hider had not gotten permission, and asked that the cache be allowed to stay. He said that was fine, it could stay as long as the cache owner would put text in the listing description that cachers were to stay away from the loading dock. Kewl... the cache went from no permission to explicit permission and police awareness just by asking!

 

Further, we explained to the police that we were in town for a caching event and that there would be carloads of folks from all over the place running around town caching all weekend. They called their boss, explained the situation, he said great, no problem, and not another cacher was stopped that weekend! Oh... actually there was; when returning to a parking area from a hike one cacher was warned (not cited) for not wearing hunter orange while caching in the woods outside town. The officer had no problem with the cache, just wanted cachers to be safe while hunting it.

 

Those are but a few of the times I have had to ask permission for someone else's cache. I outlined in an earlier post to this thread how I obtain it for my own caches (basically the same way, but before I hide it, not after!).

 

Not having kept records my best guess is that scenarios like these have played out twenty-five times over the years, making them far less than one percent of the caches I have found, and perhaps twenty of those times I have been given permission for the cache to stay in place.

 

When caching I assume that every hide has the adequate permission level, so I don't try to avoid cops or land managers. After all, the hider told Groundspeak that they had adequate permission, ergo I shouldn't have to worry about it.

 

In the cemetery experience posted above I later found that a cacher a few minutes ahead of me had seen the workers at the cache site and skipped looking for it. Too bad; not only would she have gotten my FTF but she would have saved the cache from destruction, gotten permission and moved the cache to a safe location.

 

Just ask, most folks are pretty cool about allowing it.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...