+legohead40 Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Hi everyone I have been geocaching for 2 months now and placed my first cache the weekend. The reveiwer wanted proof i had asked the land owner of manager of the parks permission where i hid the cache. I told him that there were three caches within 0.5km of mine and that these were listed on the geocaching site thats how i found them. But i thought i better do the right thing due too the area being a nature reserve, so i called the warden in cahrge and he refused me permission to hide it saying that he did not want caches hidden in the park. so how did the other two caches get listed. Quote Link to comment
+DocDiTTo Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 It's quite possible that the other caches hidden in the park were done so before there was a permission requirement, and therefore "grandfahered". It's also possible that they didn't ask permission and the reviewer didn't require them to obtain it at the time of the review. Or, perhaps they obtained permission from someone other than the person you talked to. All sorts of possible situations. You asked, the person said no, so you'll need to find a new location for your cache. That's the way it goes sometimes. Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 I'm guessing that the reviewer is now aware that caches are not allowed in that park, and so when you submitted your cache, he knew that you could not have received permission. I think that its safe to say that the reviewer is under no obligation to check up on existing caches unless someone complains directly to him/her. Quote Link to comment
+wesleykey Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Hi everyone I have been geocaching for 2 months now and placed my first cache the weekend. The reveiwer wanted proof i had asked the land owner of manager of the parks permission where i hid the cache. I told him that there were three caches within 0.5km of mine and that these were listed on the geocaching site thats how i found them. But i thought i better do the right thing due too the area being a nature reserve, so i called the warden in cahrge and he refused me permission to hide it saying that he did not want caches hidden in the park. so how did the other two caches get listed. Land managers change. Guidelines change. Maybe the park mamager was OK with a couple caches, but he did not want one every 15 feet??? Quote Link to comment
Skippermark Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 It's possible that the park only wants the caches already there and doesn't want any new ones. Maybe they feel that more will put too much stress on the land or something. It's hard to say. Quote Link to comment
+flask Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 the most likely scenario is that the first caches there do not have adequate permission. Quote Link to comment
+legohead40 Posted August 6, 2008 Author Share Posted August 6, 2008 the most likely scenario is that the first caches there do not have adequate permission. Yeah your probley right he did say if he found them he would remove them, but did thank me for actually asking permission Quote Link to comment
+TotemLake Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 (edited) I realize you're new at this and you tried to do the right thing, but by not fully reading the guidelines to hide a cache, you may have unintentionially outed other caches that will ultimately be lost as a result of a "Because they are there why can't I?" mentality. Specifically, from Cache Listing Requirements Guidelines updated May 7, 2008 First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be "grandfathered" and allowed to stand as is. Again, I like to believe your action was unintentional, so go forward with this as a lesson learned. -=-=feixed link=-=- Edited August 6, 2008 by TotemLake Quote Link to comment
GOF and Bacall Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Just out of curiosity. Did he say why he didn't want any caches there? Quote Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 ...but did thank me for actually asking permission And that is the first step in getting the Ranger to believe that caches can be placed responsibly. Sometimes it takes a bit of work to change someone's mind. Hiding our activities from land owners doesn't help in the long run. Quote Link to comment
+TheAlabamaRambler Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 You did fine. When I hunt a cache I assume that it has permission and do not ask the landowner if I have permission to hunt it. ALL caches are required to have adequate permission. By extension if there are multiple caches in a park one would assume that the park allowed them. Yes, technically you should seek permission for every hide before placing it. Realistically, if I know that other caches exist on that property then I am going to be less likely to ask and more likely to assume that caching is permitted there. Once I was refused permission, however, and told that the existing caches need to go, I would have filed a Should Be Archived note on them. In fact, once the Reviewer was notified that the existing caches did not have permission and the land owner wanted them removed he should have disabled them until the cache owners proved that they have adequate permission. Life's not fair, you won't always get to do what someone else has done, but in this case you are in the right... I know that I don't want to be busted hunting unpermitted caches and I have no qualms about reporting them when I discover them. Quote Link to comment
+legohead40 Posted August 6, 2008 Author Share Posted August 6, 2008 (edited) Just out of curiosity. Did he say why he didn't want any caches there? yes he said that he was approached a couple of years ago and said no then so could not justify letting me place mine Edited August 6, 2008 by legohead40 Quote Link to comment
+K7CJS Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 How about finding a few of those articles where some parks are encouraging geocaching (more visitors, etc.) and pass them on to the ranger - maybe a little education on the benefits would help sway him. Quote Link to comment
+legohead40 Posted August 6, 2008 Author Share Posted August 6, 2008 (edited) I realize you're new at this and you tried to do the right thing, but by not fully reading the guidelines to hide a cache, you may have unintentionially outed other caches that will ultimately be lost as a result of a "Because they are there why can't I?" mentality. Specifically, from Cache Listing Requirements Guidelines updated May 7, 2008 First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be "grandfathered" and allowed to stand as is. Again, I like to believe your action was unintentional, so go forward with this as a lesson learned. -=-=feixed link=-=- I never ment any mallice towards the other geocachers. I just thought rather than palce my first cache some where i was not sure of. And thought that being that caches where alraedy palced here it was already aknowlaged that caching was taking place in the park. My cache was already in place. It was on the reviewers instruction that i ask permission as he wanted details of who i had asked. The park warden said when i askedif i could place my cache that he had been asked a couple of years ago if caches could be placed and he refused then so could not let me do so. And yes i did feel bad when he said that if he found the others he would remove them but i don't think he will activley seek them out. And yes it is a lesson learned. i guess its human nature to think if they can why cant i, but it was my short fall not reading the guidlines completely Edited August 6, 2008 by legohead40 Quote Link to comment
+ComputerCacheBug Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 I realize you're new at this and you tried to do the right thing, but by not fully reading the guidelines to hide a cache, you may have unintentionially outed other caches that will ultimately be lost as a result of a "Because they are there why can't I?" mentality. Specifically, from Cache Listing Requirements Guidelines updated May 7, 2008 First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be "grandfathered" and allowed to stand as is. Again, I like to believe your action was unintentional, so go forward with this as a lesson learned. -=-=feixed link=-=- And so by outting the others that seem to have not had permission you think he did a bad thing though unintentionally? Sorry, I see it as a good thing that he outted the others. If the Ranger found those caches himself it could make for an even more difficult situation. This whole better to ask forgiveness than permission mentallity is wrong. it takes 1 bad apple to spoil the bunch. But 1 good apple can open the door to more. And by him approaching the land owner although was told no at first may be persuaded later on with perhaps examples of how Cachers can be helpful such as with CiTo events. But it be hard to convince a land owner that we can be helpful when others are willing to do what ever the heck they want without permission. Quote Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 And so by outting the others that seem to have not had permission you think he did a bad thing though unintentionally? Sorry, I see it as a good thing that he outted the others. If the Ranger found those caches himself it could make for an even more difficult situation. This whole better to ask forgiveness than permission mentallity is wrong. it takes 1 bad apple to spoil the bunch. But 1 good apple can open the door to more. And by him approaching the land owner although was told no at first may be persuaded later on with perhaps examples of how Cachers can be helpful such as with CiTo events. But it be hard to convince a land owner that we can be helpful when others are willing to do what ever the heck they want without permission. Exactly. At least for around here, the next step would be to show this ranger how we've worked out contractual agreements with other parks so they can first agree to the placement and then quickly address any sudden changes with a formal line of contact with the cache owner. We also agree that any improperly placed cache would be promptly reported to both the ranger and the cache listing service. Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 One reason for the "no cache is precedent for yours" statement in the guidelines is because you may not know the history associated with the other cache you're pointing to. For example, what if the owner of one of the nearby caches had posted a private note to the reviewer prior to publication, saying that he was aware of the nature preserve and took care to place the cache outside the boundary line? As a reviewer I would take that statement at face value unless I had a map handy which told me otherwise. Quote Link to comment
+Mudfrog Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 (edited) I realize you're new at this and you tried to do the right thing, but by not fully reading the guidelines to hide a cache, you may have unintentionially outed other caches that will ultimately be lost as a result of a "Because they are there why can't I?" mentality. Specifically, from Cache Listing Requirements Guidelines updated May 7, 2008 First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be "grandfathered" and allowed to stand as is. Again, I like to believe your action was unintentional, so go forward with this as a lesson learned. -=-=feixed link=-=- Not sure what lesson was learned since it looks like the OP did the right thing in the first place. He asked permission, then found that the other caches already there were most likely placed without! The way i look at it, the outting (questioniong) of the other caches is fine. If someone does look into it and it's found that the existing caches are ok to be placed where they are, then they'll remain and no harm was done. But if they were placed without permission and the park doesn't want them there, then they need to be taken up by the owners and archived. Edited August 7, 2008 by Mudfrog Quote Link to comment
+TheAlabamaRambler Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 One reason for the "no cache is precedent for yours" statement in the guidelines is because you may not know the history associated with the other cache you're pointing to. For example, what if the owner of one of the nearby caches had posted a private note to the reviewer prior to publication, saying that he was aware of the nature preserve and took care to place the cache outside the boundary line? As a reviewer I would take that statement at face value unless I had a map handy which told me otherwise. In this situation he has reason to believe that there are caches in the park that not only don't have permission but that the Ranger wants removed. File an SBA. It is my understanding that when an SBA is filed the Reviewer determines if it in fact has adequate permission. If it passes muster, no problem. There are lots of possible "what if" scenarios, all of them solvable by an SBA note. Quote Link to comment
+TotemLake Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 I realize you're new at this and you tried to do the right thing, but by not fully reading the guidelines to hide a cache, you may have unintentionially outed other caches that will ultimately be lost as a result of a "Because they are there why can't I?" mentality. Specifically, from Cache Listing Requirements Guidelines updated May 7, 2008 First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be "grandfathered" and allowed to stand as is. Again, I like to believe your action was unintentional, so go forward with this as a lesson learned. -=-=feixed link=-=- Not sure what lesson was learned since it looks like the OP did the right thing in the first place. He asked permission, then found that the other caches already there were most likely placed without! The way i look at it, the outting (questioniong) of the other caches is fine. If someone does look into it and it's found that the existing caches are ok to be placed where they are, then they'll remain and no harm was done. But if they were placed without permission and the park doesn't want them there, then they need to be taken up by the owners and archived. This is in answer to everybody questioning my post. Everybody so far had made assumptions the permission was not in place. It was pure speculation until the OP stated later the Ranger indicated there might be a problem with the existing caches. You didn't know that for a fact, nor did I, nor did the OP until that chat. Here's the problem I see... Land managers change and with that so do attitudes. The previous caches may or may not have had permission but that isn't my place nor yours to discern that. If you think there might be a problem, a note to the reviewer is sufficient to bring it to the correct attention. Like I said in my post, I'm sure it wasn't intentional. I Never accused the OP of intent or of malice. The reality is, as the OP stated after my post, he failed to read the entire guidelines and made assumptions. Quote Link to comment
AZcachemeister Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 I don't see how anything but good can come of this. IF the existing caches are against the current land manager's policies, then perhaps they SHOULD be archived and removed. Now that the OP has opened a dialog with the land manager, with careful reasoning, perhaps the negative attitude can be changed? Why were the previous requests denied? Is the current denial for the same good reason, or just a matter of consistency? Are there some special requirements to be met that could make a cache hide acceptable? If there are indeed 'illegal' hides, but yet no negative consequences, perhaps Geocaching is not quite such a detrimental activity after all? Quote Link to comment
+PhxChem Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 This is in answer to everybody questioning my post. Everybody so far had made assumptions the permission was not in place. It was pure speculation until the OP stated later the Ranger indicated there might be a problem with the existing caches. You didn't know that for a fact, nor did I, nor did the OP until that chat. Here's the problem I see... Land managers change and with that so do attitudes. The previous caches may or may not have had permission but that isn't my place nor yours to discern that. If you think there might be a problem, a note to the reviewer is sufficient to bring it to the correct attention. Like I said in my post, I'm sure it wasn't intentional. I Never accused the OP of intent or of malice. The reality is, as the OP stated after my post, he failed to read the entire guidelines and made assumptions. Even if he had read the entire guidelines, how would that have changed the OP's actions or "outing" of the other caches? He might have called for permission first before he put out the cache, but he probably would still mention the other caches.....just for clarification about the park's policy. Quote Link to comment
+TotemLake Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 This is in answer to everybody questioning my post. Everybody so far had made assumptions the permission was not in place. It was pure speculation until the OP stated later the Ranger indicated there might be a problem with the existing caches. You didn't know that for a fact, nor did I, nor did the OP until that chat. Here's the problem I see... Land managers change and with that so do attitudes. The previous caches may or may not have had permission but that isn't my place nor yours to discern that. If you think there might be a problem, a note to the reviewer is sufficient to bring it to the correct attention. Like I said in my post, I'm sure it wasn't intentional. I Never accused the OP of intent or of malice. The reality is, as the OP stated after my post, he failed to read the entire guidelines and made assumptions. Even if he had read the entire guidelines, how would that have changed the OP's actions or "outing" of the other caches? He might have called for permission first before he put out the cache, but he probably would still mention the other caches.....just for clarification about the park's policy. I don't know about you, but after reading that particular paragraph, I would have thought twice about bringing it to the ranger's attention and would have instead brought it to Groundspeaks attention with the process already in place. But that's just me. Quote Link to comment
+TheAlabamaRambler Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 (edited) Here's the problem I see... Land managers change and with that so do attitudes. The previous caches may or may not have had permission but that isn't my place nor yours to discern that. If you think there might be a problem, a note to the reviewer is sufficient to bring it to the correct attention. That's what an SBA is... a note to the Reviewer asking him to investigate a possible problem, right? Edited August 7, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler Quote Link to comment
+The Hornet Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 At least for around here, the next step would be to show this ranger how we've worked out contractual agreements with other parks so they can first agree to the placement and then quickly address any sudden changes with a formal line of contact with the cache owner. We also agree that any improperly placed cache would be promptly reported to both the ranger and the cache listing service. I see the OP is from Basildon so I'm assuming that's Basildon, Essex. That being the case have you checked the local Landowner Agreement Database. As they are actively involved in Landowner negotiations you might also like to discuss details on the GAGB forum or the GSP UK forum. The people there will have a much better knowledge of the area concerned than here. You will also find the local reviewer very happy to discuss the situation privately. One final option is to contact the reviewer who published the original caches to get his thoughts (it might even have been me ) Quote Link to comment
+TotemLake Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Here's the problem I see... Land managers change and with that so do attitudes. The previous caches may or may not have had permission but that isn't my place nor yours to discern that. If you think there might be a problem, a note to the reviewer is sufficient to bring it to the correct attention. That's what an SBA is... a note to the Reviewer asking him to investigate a possible problem, right? We're both saying the same thing. But from an observational viewpoint when reading the many threads on the reluctance of using the SBA, if a note (or e-mail) is more comfortable than an SBA, then I encourage the use of it. Either way works. Quote Link to comment
+trainlove Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Sentence one of paragraph two of http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx says it exactly. There is no Precedent in placing caches. If something used to be OK that does not mean that automatically that will be OK forever. The previous hider had or didn't have permission. Perhaps the same reviewer that reviewed your cache, or the previous reviewer, let a requirement pass. But so what. The rules NOW are the rules NOW. Quote Link to comment
+TexTiger Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 (edited) There is no Precedent in placing caches. If something used to be OK that does not mean that automatically that will be OK forever. And using the transitive property....Just because it wasn't ok at one point doesn't mean that it will be forbidden forever. This is my gripe on the "528 rule" There should be times when being inside 528 feet is permissable, as long as it's not 10 feet away. 450 feet, sure... I think a more logical number would be 100 yards (300 feet). I know a lot of people that can't even hit a golf ball that far, regardless of the club you give them. Placing a cache 100 yards away seems more like an adequate number...especially since the 528 rule is, per the guidelines, "arbitrary" Edited August 7, 2008 by TexTiger Quote Link to comment
+trainlove Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 (edited) This is my gripe on the "528 rule" There should be times when being inside 528 feet is permissable, as long as it's not 10 feet away. 450 feet, sure... There ARE exceptions granted to the 528 foot rule. They are granted on a as needed basis when a cache is significantly different entity than the other nearby one and so on. That's stated somewhere in the guidelines. The reviewers have some disgression there. 528, though is the perfect number for us non-metric people. When your distance setting in your profile is set to miles the minimum distance in miles is shown as 0.1 miles which is 528 feet. I use 'miles/yards' settings on my GPS for a similar reaason. Magellan is so unprofessional in how they programmed their firmware. I think that if it were possible to have caches closer than 528 feet, then there would be a great degradation of geocaching in the woods. Kind of like the great degradation that occured with the proliferation of LPC and GR caches everywhere. Edited August 7, 2008 by trainlove Quote Link to comment
+TexTiger Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 There ARE exceptions granted to the 528 foot rule. They are granted on a as needed basis when a cache is significantly different entity than the other nearby one and so on. That's stated somewhere in the guidelines. The reviewers have some disgression there. Define "different entity". On a cache I recently placed that has been turned down by the reviewer because it was "only" 455 feet from the next closest one, they stated that a different cache type (ammo can vs micro) was not a reason for an exception. 528, though is the perfect number for us non-metric people. When your distance setting in your profile is set to miles the minimum distance in miles is shown as 0.1 miles which is 528 feet. I do understand the ease of .1 mile being a justifiable distance if for no other reason than the "roundness" of the number. I don't understand how it can be defined as "arbitrary", then have a specific number attached to it. That's a little contradictary. I think that if it were possible to have caches closer than 528 feet, then there would be a great degradation of geocaching in the woods. Kind of like the great degradation that occured with the proliferation of LPC and GR caches everywhere. Again, I'm not advocating a distance of 10 feet for the minimum. But even in wooded areas, 100 yards should be far enough, considering it may not be reachable by "bee-lining" due to overgrowth, etc. TT Quote Link to comment
+trainlove Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 There ARE exceptions granted to the 528 foot rule. They are granted on a as needed basis when a cache is significantly different entity than the other nearby one and so on. That's stated somewhere in the guidelines. The reviewers have some disgression there. Define "different entity". On a cache I recently placed that has been turned down by the reviewer because it was "only" 455 feet from the next closest one, they stated that a different cache type (ammo can vs micro) was not a reason for an exception. The only one I can think of is something like there being an actual raging river between a film can and an ammo box. Perhaps geography and not type of container is the key. I do know that most, if not all, geocachers will try to beeline it from one to another no matter what the trail system looks like, or their topographic info on their GPS or ... I can't tell you how many caches I've found just by looking for geocacher trails in the grass, and brush, and even bare ground. But in actuality it's probably just up to the reviewers not wanting to make an expection in the anticipation of getting hundreds of requests the next day for similar exceptions. But with the 10 meter accuracy of GPS with or without WAAS, I think it's quite impossible for someone to confuse one cache with another even if they were as close as 100 feet. I do know a cache that was placed 10 feet from a puzzle cache. That was accindently overlooked by the reviewer. The location, and approx coords, were just the knudge to get me to figure out the solution to the puzzle. Quote Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 (edited) This is my gripe on the "528 rule" There should be times when being inside 528 feet is permissable, as long as it's not 10 feet away. 450 feet, sure... "arbitrary" Not sure what this has to do with a park rangers allowing or not allowing caches. ah, topic drift. My bad. Edited August 7, 2008 by BlueDeuce Quote Link to comment
Skippermark Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 (edited) Define "different entity". One cache could be in a valley near the base of a cliff. The other could be 1000' up the cliff but accessible only by climbing straight up the cliff. In "2D" the caches may appear to be only 150 feet apart, but when you think 3D and factor in that one requires 1000 feet of climbing (and be rated a 5 terrain), the two will not likely be confused. Edited August 7, 2008 by Skippermark Quote Link to comment
+ReadyOrNot Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 ...but did thank me for actually asking permission And that is the first step in getting the Ranger to believe that caches can be placed responsibly. Sometimes it takes a bit of work to change someone's mind. Hiding our activities from land owners doesn't help in the long run. Ummm. The activity was not hidden from the land owner. legohead40 was well aware of the cache he placed, I assume? Maybe I missed the post where the land was private property? Quote Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 (edited) ...but did thank me for actually asking permission And that is the first step in getting the Ranger to believe that caches can be placed responsibly. Sometimes it takes a bit of work to change someone's mind. Hiding our activities from land owners doesn't help in the long run. Ummm. The activity was not hidden from the land owner. legohead40 was well aware of the cache he placed, I assume? Maybe I missed the post where the land was private property? Well I thought I was clear. Having the land owner discover caches were placed without permission is not the best way to address a no-caches allowed park policy. The free-access approach might work, but I don't think so. Edit: toned it down a bit Edited August 8, 2008 by BlueDeuce Quote Link to comment
+Wacka Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 In my local area, there are several organizations that control many parks and open spaces. One of them with hundreds of caches in the dozens of parks they have was considering a geocaching policy. Our local organization sent people to the monthly board meetings and worked with them every step of the way. The result: All caches have to be within 30 feet of a trail (only involved less than 10 caches being archived or moved). If the rangers have a problem with a cache, they will contact a person in our group named as the liasion for the park and they will resolve the problem. We will be notified of cleanup efforts. A group of about 12-20 cachers from our group filled two stake trucks full of litter (including tires and an oven- they couldn't pull the car up the hill) last year at a cleanup effort. The parks people said that was the best cleanup effort they have ever seen. Our local group has been invited the last two summers to man a booth at a local festival promoting the local parks and open spaces. We will be using our good relations with this group as an example that we can cooperate with the other park authorities in the area. Quote Link to comment
+TotemLake Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 In my local area, there are several organizations that control many parks and open spaces. One of them with hundreds of caches in the dozens of parks they have was considering a geocaching policy. Our local organization sent people to the monthly board meetings and worked with them every step of the way. The result: All caches have to be within 30 feet of a trail (only involved less than 10 caches being archived or moved). If the rangers have a problem with a cache, they will contact a person in our group named as the liasion for the park and they will resolve the problem. We will be notified of cleanup efforts. A group of about 12-20 cachers from our group filled two stake trucks full of litter (including tires and an oven- they couldn't pull the car up the hill) last year at a cleanup effort. The parks people said that was the best cleanup effort they have ever seen. Our local group has been invited the last two summers to man a booth at a local festival promoting the local parks and open spaces. We will be using our good relations with this group as an example that we can cooperate with the other park authorities in the area. Perfect. Great job. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 ...he refused me permission to hide it saying that he did not want caches hidden in the park. so how did the other two caches get listed. With the refusal, you are done. The cache is dead. Pick it up and call it a day. As for the other caches there are a lot of possibilities and as this is a forum, and it's unlikely that any of us are the cache owner we can only speculate. Here are some handy speculations. A) The other warden approved them. 8) The weekend warnden approved them. C) The people who donatd the last 20 acres to the reserve said they wanted the caches there. D) The ranger who works for the warden approved them. E) The volunteer group who picks up litter placed them. I could do this all day. You have to ask the other owners to get a real answer. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 Just out of curiosity. Did he say why he didn't want any caches there? As a related asside. We have a wildlife refuge/santuary/public recreation area. They now ban caches. they allow boating, fishing, hunting, hiking and every activity that caching consists of. Just not caches. Go figure. Quote Link to comment
Skippermark Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 (edited) As a related asside. We have a wildlife refuge/santuary/public recreation area. They now ban caches. they allow boating, fishing, hunting, hiking and every activity that caching consists of. Just not caches. Go figure. Heaven forbid that someone actually walk on the trail. I mean, c'mon. We all know that big, fat mountain bike tires are much more gentle on the terrain than walking. Edited August 8, 2008 by Skippermark Quote Link to comment
+ReadyOrNot Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Just out of curiosity. Did he say why he didn't want any caches there? As a related asside. We have a wildlife refuge/santuary/public recreation area. They now ban caches. they allow boating, fishing, hunting, hiking and every activity that caching consists of. Just not caches. Go figure. I'm sure the people that boat, fish, hunt and hike don't ask permission to do so. Just to point out the obvious (obvious to me at least), the act of acting permission when no explicit permission was needed (public recreation area) got caching banned in that area (with the threat of removing the other caches also).. Please don't place any caches in parks in my area... Quote Link to comment
4wheelin_fool Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Ask for permission to hold yearly CITO events as a bribe. Usually when they say no, it's because they have a misconception of what you are asking. Quote Link to comment
+River Cacher Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 The first thing I do when i ask permission is hand them a Geocaching Brochure with my name and Phone number on it and if they would like time to think about it before giving me permission so they can do research or talk to others that may need to be involved with making the decision. I have published over 190 caches and have yet to be denied on any place I have asked such as City parks, Stateparks, BLM, BOR, Commercial, Private or anywhere They have all said yes or called me back later and said Yes. My biggest shock was at Hells Canyon Dam when I asked for permission the response was it's about time a Geocacher stopped by to place one here. I have had some negative remarks made when I asked at other places but somehow I have said the right things and have been able to put one there. The first time I do get turned down I will go all the way I can to get a different answer if possible. I have several places that have approved them but I have not had enough time yet to get back and place them. If I was to see there was other caches somewhere and they tell me no I would just leave it at that and find somewhere else to place so it will not stir up any issues. Quote Link to comment
+Rev Mike Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 I realize you're new at this and you tried to do the right thing, but by not fully reading the guidelines to hide a cache, you may have unintentionially outed other caches that will ultimately be lost as a result of a "Because they are there why can't I?" mentality. Specifically, from Cache Listing Requirements Guidelines updated May 7, 2008 First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be "grandfathered" and allowed to stand as is. Again, I like to believe your action was unintentional, so go forward with this as a lesson learned. -=-=feixed link=-=- I must say that I fail to understand where you are coming from on this on... Are you seriously trying to tell the OP that he was wrong to ask for permission to hide a cache since it is going to result in the removal of other cache that are not placed with in the rules. The other caches should be "lost" since they were placed without permission in an area that does not allow them. It is foolish to even bring up the concept of "grandfathering" here since this does not apply to a change in the the rules from Groundspeak. When was it ever acceptable to ask a landowner for permission to place a cache and then do so anyway after hearing no? While I can't speak for Groundspeak, I feel I am safe in the assumption that they would never allow a cache, placed in such a fashion, to not be archived just because someone pulled a fast one on the local reviewer. Just because a cache is published does not mean that is is then safe from future scrutiny by virtue of making it through review. That seems to be the stance you have taken. Perhaps YOU have not fully read the guidelines to hide a cache since you reposted the section on "grandfathering" rather than this one which IS relevant... By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived. We also assume that your cache placement complies with all applicable laws. If an obvious legal issue is present, or is brought to our attention, your listing may be immediately archived. The OP did everything right. It is the actions of the people that initally placed the caches despite being told no and your post scolding the OP for doing the right thing because it "ruins other existing caches" that is the reason that some parks don't allow caching in the first place and the reason that we get a bad name. The caches in question should be archived. That is it... there are no gray areas here. The reviewers will gladly activate the caches again if the owners can provide adequate proof of permission for the placements. This says it all: yes he said that he was approached a couple of years ago and said no then so could not justify letting me place mine - Rev Mike Quote Link to comment
+Vinny & Sue Team Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 I realize you're new at this and you tried to do the right thing, but by not fully reading the guidelines to hide a cache, you may have unintentionially outed other caches that will ultimately be lost as a result of a "Because they are there why can't I?" mentality. Specifically, from Cache Listing Requirements Guidelines updated May 7, 2008 First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be "grandfathered" and allowed to stand as is. Again, I like to believe your action was unintentional, so go forward with this as a lesson learned. -=-=feixed link=-=- I must say that I fail to understand where you are coming from on this on... Are you seriously trying to tell the OP that he was wrong to ask for permission to hide a cache since it is going to result in the removal of other cache that are not placed with in the rules. The other caches should be "lost" since they were placed without permission in an area that does not allow them. It is foolish to even bring up the concept of "grandfathering" here since this does not apply to a change in the the rules from Groundspeak. When was it ever acceptable to ask a landowner for permission to place a cache and then do so anyway after hearing no? While I can't speak for Groundspeak, I feel I am safe in the assumption that they would never allow a cache, placed in such a fashion, to not be archived just because someone pulled a fast one on the local reviewer. Just because a cache is published does not mean that is is then safe from future scrutiny by virtue of making it through review. That seems to be the stance you have taken. Perhaps YOU have not fully read the guidelines to hide a cache since you reposted the section on "grandfathering" rather than this one which IS relevant... By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived. We also assume that your cache placement complies with all applicable laws. If an obvious legal issue is present, or is brought to our attention, your listing may be immediately archived. The OP did everything right. It is the actions of the people that initally placed the caches despite being told no and your post scolding the OP for doing the right thing because it "ruins other existing caches" that is the reason that some parks don't allow caching in the first place and the reason that we get a bad name. The caches in question should be archived. That is it... there are no gray areas here. The reviewers will gladly activate the caches again if the owners can provide adequate proof of permission for the placements. This says it all: yes he said that he was approached a couple of years ago and said no then so could not justify letting me place mine - Rev Mike Mike, well said! I agree. Thank you for saying it so well! It would be one thing if the OP had, out of spite, maliciously and deliberately outed some caches which were placed illegally, but the reality seems to be that the OP simply asked for permission, and now a few armchair observers are getting bent out of shape over that fact. Amazing! Quote Link to comment
+Star*Hopper Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 There's another possibility I've not seen mentioned. Friend of mine asked to place a cache in a park - Ranger said no. Already had caches & he didn't want it 'overdone'. The wording he used amounted to, "there's not much room left". Within the next month, he (the Ranger) had placed 2 caches there. Ta-Daaaaaaa!!! ~* Quote Link to comment
+TotemLake Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 (edited) I must say that I fail to understand where you are coming from on this on... Are you seriously trying to tell the OP that he was wrong to ask for permission to hide a cache since it is going to result in the removal of other cache that are not placed with in the rules. - Rev Mike Of course, failing to read my follow up posts to clarify you failed to see where I said the issue should be raised. To add to the rest of your post where you think I failed to read the entire guidelines. I check with the reviewers before placing my caches even before the page is developed. But let's go back to that quote you brought up... By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived. We also assume that your cache placement complies with all applicable laws. If an obvious legal issue is present, or is brought to our attention, your listing may be immediately archived. I believe my primary and follow ups addressed this. To summarize: Take it internally and advise the reviewers. Edited August 12, 2008 by TotemLake Quote Link to comment
+TotemLake Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 (edited) Mike, well said! I agree. Thank you for saying it so well! It would be one thing if the OP had, out of spite, maliciously and deliberately outed some caches which were placed illegally, but the reality seems to be that the OP simply asked for permission, and now a few armchair observers are getting bent out of shape over that fact. Amazing! I'm not sure who you're pointing at but I did not get bent out of shape. Like you and everybody else here, I exercised my right to express an opinion. Doesn't mean you have to agree with it. Edited August 12, 2008 by TotemLake Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 ...Are you seriously trying to tell the OP that he was wrong to ask for permission to hide a cache since it is going to result in the removal of other cache that are not placed with in the rules.... - Rev Mike The other caches are presumed to be there with permission until proven otherwise. The OP hasn't made a cache that shows they should not be there. He's only uncovered some potential and more leg work would be needed to find out the real deal. Quote Link to comment
+Vater_Araignee Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 (edited) legohead40, From what I can tell you ultimately did the right thing. Maybe haphazardly, but still correct. Wile it is true Groundspeak has the right to grandfather what they wish, it does not mean that Groundspeak can legally grandfather a caches physical placement nor would Groundspeak want to. There is absolutely nothing wrong outing a cache to land owners/managers. Things are forgotten, outlooks change, management changes, rules change. Personally if geocaches where no longer allowed in my local recreation area, I would be contacting all cache owners with my address so that 1. they could retrieve their property at their leisure and 2 save the rec some money. As a caretaker I commend you for bringing those other caches to to the land managers attention because I know I would want to know about whats on the property under my control. I know for a fact that some people think they can go placing caches with complete disregard for the law and they try to shame any one that disagrees with them. Ignore them. In short the reviewer was right with their requirement of you and you where right bringing the attention of caches to the land manager. For those of you that counter with "What if those guys asked somebody else and got permission?" Q: If somebody had permission to place a cache on property before you owned it, does that mean that permission grandfathers in? A: Hell no. You might give permission for it to stay, but you also could legally confiscate, destroy or throw away the cache without warning. ~~removed a quote from another thread~~ Edited August 12, 2008 by Vater_Araignee Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.