Wal-Mart Permission

[+The Weasel]

Hi All,

 

I was recently going to put out a generic "skirt lifter" cache at a Wal-mart store but was told by the Admin of that state that I will need to get permission.

 

Although I think it's kind of silly to get permission for a skirt lifter cache, I want to do the right thing and get permission. I live about 2 hours from the store and get up that way about every 2-3 weeks. I was wondering if anybody else has placed a skirt lifter cache at a Wal-Mart store and how they got permission?

 

If I lived in the actual city I would just go to the store and try to find a manager for permission. I did send a e-amil to their corporate office to see if that would work.

 

If anybody has a good contact other that the one I tried and could post it, that would be great!!

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Tim aka The Weasel

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Topic moved from Off Topic since it is geocaching-related.

 

Team GPSaxophone

Off Topic Forum Moderator

[knowschad]

I believe the greeter would be as likely as anyone at Wal-Mart to give you permission.

 

 

 

 

 

Does anybody have any popcorn?

[+sbell111]

It's possible that your local reviewer is requesting more info than is required. I wonder how this issue would shake out if the denial were appealed to TPTB.

[+WebChimp]

Although I think it's kind of silly to get permission for a skirt lifter cache, I want to do the right thing and get permission. I live about 2 hours from the store and get up that way about every 2-3 weeks. I was wondering if anybody else has placed a skirt lifter cache at a Wal-Mart store and how they got permission?

 

In small towns like where I live, we tend to know everyone, or at least know someone who knows the people we don't know.

 

Ask your buddies if they know the manager of the local store, and go see him. Have the cache container with you, be prepared to tell him exactly which lamppost you want to place it in (back side, out of the way is better than right in front of the doors), and have a geocaching brochure with you. Worst he can do is decline to allow it.

 

An Asst. Manager who is a gear head might be your best introduction to him. If he says no, don't take it personal. They get swamped with all sorts of requests for all sorts of odd things, and saying 'no' in a polite way isn't a foreign idea to them.

 

Good luck.

[+WebChimp]

It's possible that your local reviewer is requesting more info than is required. I wonder how this issue would shake out if the denial were appealed to TPTB.

 

Sounds like the reviewer is on track here. Business grounds are private property, and we're supposed to have permission before placing a cache on private property. Can't fault a reviewer for following the guidelines.

[knowschad]

I was recently going to put out a generic "skirt lifter" cache at a Wal-mart store

 

Come to think of it... I forgot to ask "why"? Doesn't the world have too many of these already?

[+briansnat]

It's possible that your local reviewer is requesting more info than is required. I wonder how this issue would shake out if the denial were appealed to TPTB.

 

Being that the guidelines require caches hidden on private property to have permission of the owner, I think we can predict the outcome of an appeal.

[knowschad]

Sounds like the reviewer is on track here. Business grounds are private property, and we're supposed to have adequate permission before placing a cache on private property. Can't fault a reviewer for following the guidelines.

 

Fixed.

 

Not that I'm in favor, mind you...

[+The Weasel]

The thing I find interesting is that when you do a lookup on the keyword Wal-Mart for caches, SEVERAL pop up in many different states.

 

I would HOPE that one of these people who have placed a cache maybe went the same route I'm going with by contacting the corp headquarters. I guess if I have to, I can always call the store and speak to the manager. Maybe I will luck out and they might be a cacher!!

 

I'm just trying to follow the rules, but like I said before, I think a little skirt lifter in a parking lot is not a big deal. But then again in these days and ages, people might get a little jumpy if they see you lifting up a lamp post cover and taking something out and putting it back.

[+Mredria]

I was recently going to put out a generic "skirt lifter" cache at a Wal-mart store

 

Come to think of it... I forgot to ask "why"? Doesn't the world have too many of these already?

 

but the OP didnt ask what we thought of the cache.

[+sbell111]

It's possible that your local reviewer is requesting more info than is required. I wonder how this issue would shake out if the denial were appealed to TPTB.

 

Being that the guidelines require caches hidden on private property to have permission of the owner, I think we can predict the outcome of an appeal.

... especially if they are as unfamiliar with the guidelines and the many, many threads on this very subject as you appear to be.

[+sbell111]

The thing I find interesting is that when you do a lookup on the keyword Wal-Mart for caches, SEVERAL pop up in many different states.

 

I would HOPE that one of these people who have placed a cache maybe went the same route I'm going with by contacting the corp headquarters. I guess if I have to, I can always call the store and speak to the manager. Maybe I will luck out and they might be a cacher!!

 

I'm just trying to follow the rules, but like I said before, I think a little skirt lifter in a parking lot is not a big deal. But then again in these days and ages, people might get a little jumpy if they see you lifting up a lamp post cover and taking something out and putting it back.

I don't think that a random email to the corporate office is going to help you. In order to get permission, you are going to have to actually sit down with the local manager (or whoever actually owns the parking lot as it may not be Wal-Mart). If you cannot make this meeting happen because the spot is not in your local town, perhaps you should hide it locally.

[+Castle Mischief]

The thing I find interesting is that when you do a lookup on the keyword Wal-Mart for caches, SEVERAL pop up in many different states.

 

I would HOPE that one of these people who have placed a cache maybe went the same route I'm going with by contacting the corp headquarters.

 

Huh.

 

This should be interesting.

[+Knight2000]

Come to think of it... I forgot to ask "why"? Doesn't the world have too many of these already?

You are assuming that the skirt lifter is a typical hide. You can make them more interesting...

[Mr.Yuck]

I was recently going to put out a generic "skirt lifter" cache at a Wal-mart store

 

Come to think of it... I forgot to ask "why"? Doesn't the world have too many of these already?

 

but the OP didnt ask what we thought of the cache.

 

But what do you think their chances were that they weren't going to?

 

This can only mean one thing. After all these years, trackinthebox has finally succeeded in having caches outlawed in Wal-Mart parking lots without permission. Props to him, wherever he is.

[knowschad]

Come to think of it... I forgot to ask "why"? Doesn't the world have too many of these already?

You are assuming that the skirt lifter is a typical hide. You can make them more interesting...

 

As you and I both know, heheheh!

 

There was quite a long thread several years ago where somebody actually attempted to get permission from Wal-Mart's corporate offices. I think it would be hard to find in a search, but maybe someone has it bookmarked.

[+briansnat]

It's possible that your local reviewer is requesting more info than is required. I wonder how this issue would shake out if the denial were appealed to TPTB.

 

Being that the guidelines require caches hidden on private property to have permission of the owner, I think we can predict the outcome of an appeal.

... especially if they are as unfamiliar with the guidelines and the many, many threads on this very subject as you appear to be.

 

Now THAT's funny for a number of reasons.

[+sbell111]

It's possible that your local reviewer is requesting more info than is required. I wonder how this issue would shake out if the denial were appealed to TPTB.

Being that the guidelines require caches hidden on private property to have permission of the owner, I think we can predict the outcome of an appeal.

... especially if they are as unfamiliar with the guidelines and the many, many threads on this very subject as you appear to be.

Now THAT's funny for a number of reasons.

Certainly, you must not be familiar with the guidelines or those old threads. Alternatively, one would be forced to believe that you willfully ignore those items for some reason known only to you.

[+The Weasel]

I know that a lot people do not like LPC caches, but I like to put out a wide variety of types. I try to use LPC in areas I know that cachers may need to stop at (hey, who doesn't go on a trip and end up at Wal-Mart for something!! )

 

I also like these ares for wheelchair bound cachers to still have fun. I think from time to time that they do get neglected in cache placments.

 

The reason I started the thread was basically that with all the Wal-Mart caches I have seen, MAYBE somebody have a good contact corp wise. Heck, all my reviewer did was give me the regular corp address in AR to send a letter to?

[knowschad]

I know that a lot people do not like LPC caches, but I like to put out a wide variety of types. I try to use LPC in areas I know that cachers may need to stop at (hey, who doesn't go on a trip and end up at Wal-Mart for something!! )

 

I also like these ares for wheelchair bound cachers to still have fun. I think from time to time that they do get neglected in cache placments.

 

The reason I started the thread was basically that with all the Wal-Mart caches I have seen, MAYBE somebody have a good contact corp wise. Heck, all my reviewer did was give me the regular corp address in AR to send a letter to?

 

All seriousness aside , it sounds to me as though your reviewer has decided to start requiring explicit permission. Whether that was required for previous LPCs in your area is irrelevant. I have heard that some reviewers have also been disallowing caches on electrical equipment, even though there are no guidelines specifically banning them. In my state, the reviewer will not knowlingly approve caches in a cemetary. Again... no specific guideline banning them. In all three of those cases, you could appeal to Groundspeak, but I'm guessing they'd side with your reviewer.

[+briansnat]

It's possible that your local reviewer is requesting more info than is required. I wonder how this issue would shake out if the denial were appealed to TPTB.

Being that the guidelines require caches hidden on private property to have permission of the owner, I think we can predict the outcome of an appeal.

... especially if they are as unfamiliar with the guidelines and the many, many threads on this very subject as you appear to be.

Now THAT's funny for a number of reasons.

Certainly, you must not be familiar with the guidelines or those old threads. Alternatively, one would be forced to believe that you willfully ignore those items for some reason known only to you.

 

At least you know what you are talking about. I'm going to have to buy a clue.

Edited May 27, 2009 by briansnat

[+sbell111]

It's possible that your local reviewer is requesting more info than is required. I wonder how this issue would shake out if the denial were appealed to TPTB.

Being that the guidelines require caches hidden on private property to have permission of the owner, I think we can predict the outcome of an appeal.

... especially if they are as unfamiliar with the guidelines and the many, many threads on this very subject as you appear to be.

Now THAT's funny for a number of reasons.

Certainly, you must not be familiar with the guidelines or those old threads. Alternatively, one would be forced to believe that you willfully ignore those items for some reason known only to you.

 

At least you know what you are talking about.

It's true that I can read and that I don't try to ignore what the guidelines actually say or what reviewers have posted about the issue.

[+Castle Mischief]

I know that a lot people do not like LPC caches, but I like to put out a wide variety of types. I try to use LPC in areas I know that cachers may need to stop at (hey, who doesn't go on a trip and end up at Wal-Mart for something!! )

 

I also like these ares for wheelchair bound cachers to still have fun. I think from time to time that they do get neglected in cache placments.

 

The reason I started the thread was basically that with all the Wal-Mart caches I have seen, MAYBE somebody have a good contact corp wise. Heck, all my reviewer did was give me the regular corp address in AR to send a letter to?

 

All seriousness aside , it sounds to me as though your reviewer has decided to start requiring explicit permission. Whether that was required for previous LPCs in your area is irrelevant. I have heard that some reviewers have also been disallowing caches on electrical equipment, even though there are no guidelines specifically banning them. In my state, the reviewer will not knowingly approve caches in a cemetery. Again... no specific guideline banning them. In all three of those cases, you could appeal to Groundspeak, but I'm guessing they'd side with your reviewer.

 

Could also be that the reviewer has knowledge of issues with other caches that may have been placed in the same parking lot. I heard it said by many a reviewer that they would much rather approve a cache listing than turn it down. Chances are if they are asking for explicit permission there is a good reason.

 

Also- I've read posts from wheelchair pilots that don't necessarily want to have LPC caches placed for them, so I don't know that you're performing a service by placing another LPC in another Wal-Mart parking lot.

[+StarBrand]

We all know that the vast majority of such caches are in place without any kind of permission whatsoever. Just a fact. However, we all check the little box that (in part) states that we have adequate permission for our new hide. The reviewers know all of this too.

 

This is likely a situation that has arisen in some local context that the reviewer is trying to address. Nothing more.

 

I have stated before that it is highly unlikely you will be able to find anybody in the corporate world that: 1 - has the authority to grant meaningful permission or 2 - that is willing to put thier neck out in granting permission or 3 - that will be around long enough to remember that permission. But have fun trying!!

[+hofy67]

There is a series of Target caches in Madison,WI. CommanderUSN states in the notes "Special thanks to Tyler Knutson, property manager, for granting permission to place this cache."

 

Hope this gets you pointed in the right direction.

[Mushtang]

We all know that the vast majority of such caches are in place without any kind of permission whatsoever. Just a fact.

Nope, not a fact at all. Adequate permission does not mean written permission. The cache owner may decide he's got adequate permission to hide a cache in the parking lot based on the Frisbee rule, or the I'm Parking My Car In The Corner Of The Parking Lot To Eat My Lunch In The Shade rule. Whatever the reason, he's thinking that he's got adequate permission.

 

However, we all check the little box that (in part) states that we have adequate permission for our new hide. The reviewers know all of this too.

And in the cache hiders mind he DOES have adequate permission. There's no need to assume that the cache owner is trying to pull a fast one, or that the reviewer is looking the other way at a violation.

[+The Weasel]

I am deff going to try and get permission from somebody, wheter it be corporate or the local level. Makes you wonder how all these other caches at Wally Worlds got approved. Not to say they didn't get permission, but it does raise an eyebrow.

[+StarBrand]

We all know that the vast majority of such caches are in place without any kind of permission whatsoever. Just a fact.

Nope, not a fact at all. Adequate permission does not mean written permission. The cache owner may decide he's got adequate permission to hide a cache in the parking lot based on the Frisbee rule, or the I'm Parking My Car In The Corner Of The Parking Lot To Eat My Lunch In The Shade rule. Whatever the reason, he's thinking that he's got adequate permission.

 

However, we all check the little box that (in part) states that we have adequate permission for our new hide. The reviewers know all of this too.

And in the cache hiders mind he DOES have adequate permission. There's no need to assume that the cache owner is trying to pull a fast one, or that the reviewer is looking the other way at a violation.

....and just what color is the sky in your world??

 

The only "adequate permission" the vast majority of people think they have is the simple fact that they have visted such caches before. I would contend that isn't any kind of permission whatsoever.

[Clan Riffster]

I've read posts from wheelchair pilots that don't necessarily want to have LPC caches placed for them

Exactly. Assuming that, because a person has some physical disability, they would somehow appreciate the poster child of lame hides is kinda sad.

There are so many ways to be creative with a T-1 cache, that don't involve sending your seekers into a 500 acre, blistering blacktop, exhaust laden parking lot dodging soccer moms in SUVs.

[Mushtang]

We all know that the vast majority of such caches are in place without any kind of permission whatsoever. Just a fact.

Nope, not a fact at all. Adequate permission does not mean written permission. The cache owner may decide he's got adequate permission to hide a cache in the parking lot based on the Frisbee rule, or the I'm Parking My Car In The Corner Of The Parking Lot To Eat My Lunch In The Shade rule. Whatever the reason, he's thinking that he's got adequate permission.

However, we all check the little box that (in part) states that we have adequate permission for our new hide. The reviewers know all of this too.

And in the cache hiders mind he DOES have adequate permission. There's no need to assume that the cache owner is trying to pull a fast one, or that the reviewer is looking the other way at a violation.

....and just what color is the sky in your world??

 

The only "adequate permission" the vast majority of people think they have is the simple fact that they have visted such caches before. I would contend that isn't any kind of permission whatsoever.

Currently the sky is gray.

 

So in your world the only way you can hide a cache is if you've got written permission? Or is that only true for LPCs that you don't like?

 

And how many of your caches did you get written permission for? I'm not saying it was required, just curious.

[+StarBrand]

We all know that the vast majority of such caches are in place without any kind of permission whatsoever. Just a fact.

Nope, not a fact at all. Adequate permission does not mean written permission. The cache owner may decide he's got adequate permission to hide a cache in the parking lot based on the Frisbee rule, or the I'm Parking My Car In The Corner Of The Parking Lot To Eat My Lunch In The Shade rule. Whatever the reason, he's thinking that he's got adequate permission.

However, we all check the little box that (in part) states that we have adequate permission for our new hide. The reviewers know all of this too.

And in the cache hiders mind he DOES have adequate permission. There's no need to assume that the cache owner is trying to pull a fast one, or that the reviewer is looking the other way at a violation.

....and just what color is the sky in your world??

 

The only "adequate permission" the vast majority of people think they have is the simple fact that they have visted such caches before. I would contend that isn't any kind of permission whatsoever.

Currently the sky is gray.

 

So in your world the only way you can hide a cache is if you've got written permission? Or is that only true for LPCs that you don't like?

 

And how many of your caches did you get written permission for? I'm not saying it was required, just curious.

I have reviewed my prior posts and do not see any mention of "written permission". Perhaps you are directing your question at another poster??

Edited May 27, 2009 by StarBrand

[+briansnat]

It's possible that your local reviewer is requesting more info than is required. I wonder how this issue would shake out if the denial were appealed to TPTB.

Being that the guidelines require caches hidden on private property to have permission of the owner, I think we can predict the outcome of an appeal.

... especially if they are as unfamiliar with the guidelines and the many, many threads on this very subject as you appear to be.

Now THAT's funny for a number of reasons.

Certainly, you must not be familiar with the guidelines or those old threads. Alternatively, one would be forced to believe that you willfully ignore those items for some reason known only to you.

 

At least you know what you are talking about.

It's true that I can read and that I don't try to ignore what the guidelines actually say or what reviewers have posted about the issue.

 

I guess I'll just have to consult with a reviewer before spouting my nonsense.

[Mushtang]

We all know that the vast majority of such caches are in place without any kind of permission whatsoever. Just a fact.

Nope, not a fact at all. Adequate permission does not mean written permission. The cache owner may decide he's got adequate permission to hide a cache in the parking lot based on the Frisbee rule, or the I'm Parking My Car In The Corner Of The Parking Lot To Eat My Lunch In The Shade rule. Whatever the reason, he's thinking that he's got adequate permission.

However, we all check the little box that (in part) states that we have adequate permission for our new hide. The reviewers know all of this too.

And in the cache hiders mind he DOES have adequate permission. There's no need to assume that the cache owner is trying to pull a fast one, or that the reviewer is looking the other way at a violation.

....and just what color is the sky in your world??

 

The only "adequate permission" the vast majority of people think they have is the simple fact that they have visted such caches before. I would contend that isn't any kind of permission whatsoever.

Currently the sky is gray.

 

So in your world the only way you can hide a cache is if you've got written permission? Or is that only true for LPCs that you don't like?

 

And how many of your caches did you get written permission for? I'm not saying it was required, just curious.

I have reviewed my prior posts and do not see any mention of "written permission". Perhaps you are directing your question at another poster??

You didn't. I was asking if you did.

 

I'll put it a different way. When you hide a cache, what level of permission do you get, and at what point do you consider "adequate" to be met?

[+sbell111]

It's possible that your local reviewer is requesting more info than is required. I wonder how this issue would shake out if the denial were appealed to TPTB.

Being that the guidelines require caches hidden on private property to have permission of the owner, I think we can predict the outcome of an appeal.

... especially if they are as unfamiliar with the guidelines and the many, many threads on this very subject as you appear to be.

Now THAT's funny for a number of reasons.

Certainly, you must not be familiar with the guidelines or those old threads. Alternatively, one would be forced to believe that you willfully ignore those items for some reason known only to you.

At least you know what you are talking about.

It's true that I can read and that I don't try to ignore what the guidelines actually say or what reviewers have posted about the issue.

I guess I'll just have to consult with a reviewer before spouting my nonsense.

Others would consider simply not spouting nonsense (or not misstating the guidelines simply to make their argument work). Edited May 27, 2009 by sbell111

[+Castle Mischief]

I am deff going to try and get permission from somebody, wheter it be corporate or the local level. Makes you wonder how all these other caches at Wally Worlds got approved. Not to say they didn't get permission, but it does raise an eyebrow.

 

Okay, you asked for information and here's all that I can give you. Former Pet Department Employee, Store 434, 1991-1994. They called me "Pet Boy". Good times.

 

Start with whatever manager is on duty at the store. There are usually 4-6 Managers that all work under one Store Manager. Normally only one of them is on duty- you can usually catch more than one if you visit during "school hours". They may direct you to a District Manager- they usually have an office in one of the stores and are usually not in that office. Good luck nailing down a DM, they tend to stay mobile. If you can't get word from any of the Managers, then try the corporate level, but be ready for a Manager, Store Manager, or District Manager to turn you down/remove the cache regardless of anything you have from corporate.

 

That's assuming that Wal-Mart owns/leases/rents the parking lot. Sometimes there is a property owner that is not related to the store and you need to hunt them down. Sometimes the city owns the parking lot. You might have some luck finding out the owner using this website: http://www.emapsplus.com/

 

And please, for the love of Pete, don't name the cache some variation of "Tram-Law". Do it for me.

[+The Weasel]

I am deff going to try and get permission from somebody, wheter it be corporate or the local level. Makes you wonder how all these other caches at Wally Worlds got approved. Not to say they didn't get permission, but it does raise an eyebrow.

 

Okay, you asked for information and here's all that I can give you. Former Pet Department Employee, Store 434, 1991-1994. They called me "Pet Boy". Good times.

 

Start with whatever manager is on duty at the store. There are usually 4-6 Managers that all work under one Store Manager. Normally only one of them is on duty- you can usually catch more than one if you visit during "school hours". They may direct you to a District Manager- they usually have an office in one of the stores and are usually not in that office. Good luck nailing down a DM, they tend to stay mobile. If you can't get word from any of the Managers, then try the corporate level, but be ready for a Manager, Store Manager, or District Manager to turn you down/remove the cache regardless of anything you have from corporate.

 

That's assuming that Wal-Mart owns/leases/rents the parking lot. Sometimes there is a property owner that is not related to the store and you need to hunt them down. Sometimes the city owns the parking lot. You might have some luck finding out the owner using this website: http://www.emapsplus.com/

 

And please, for the love of Pete, don't name the cache some variation of "Tram-Law". Do it for me.

 

Thanks for the advice Castle, I will have to try that route!!

 

It would be nice for these bigger chains where we (GC community) could get ahold of people in the coorporate level to allow/deny caches on their properties. I think somebody mentioned it earlier that it might be tough to get even a regular branch manager to ok a cache w/o the fear of getting in trouble for doing so. Maybe I could also check with people who have Wal-Mart caches and see how they got their approvals

[Mr.Yuck]

We all know that the vast majority of such caches are in place without any kind of permission whatsoever. Just a fact.

Nope, not a fact at all. Adequate permission does not mean written permission. The cache owner may decide he's got adequate permission to hide a cache in the parking lot based on the Frisbee rule, or the I'm Parking My Car In The Corner Of The Parking Lot To Eat My Lunch In The Shade rule. Whatever the reason, he's thinking that he's got adequate permission.

 

 

Acutally, I always thought the frisbee rule would eliminate the Wal-Mart parking lot as a viable cache location. Perhaps we can have the Skateboarding rule, or the Paintball rule.

 

You see, this is why I have trackinthebox to do my dirty work, and get caches banned from Wal-Mart parking lots.

[Mushtang]

We all know that the vast majority of such caches are in place without any kind of permission whatsoever. Just a fact.

Nope, not a fact at all. Adequate permission does not mean written permission. The cache owner may decide he's got adequate permission to hide a cache in the parking lot based on the Frisbee rule, or the I'm Parking My Car In The Corner Of The Parking Lot To Eat My Lunch In The Shade rule. Whatever the reason, he's thinking that he's got adequate permission.

Acutally, I always thought the frisbee rule would eliminate the Wal-Mart parking lot as a viable cache location. Perhaps we can have the Skateboarding rule, or the Paintball rule.

Except skaeboarding is a lot more dangerous and legal issues would keep that from being allowed, and paintball is very messy and would keep that from being allowed. You can geocache and play Frisbee in many parks where you wouldn't be allowed to skateboard or play paintball.

 

You see, this is why I have trackinthebox to do my dirty work, and get caches banned from Wal-Mart parking lots.

And he came so close too.

 

There was another guy a couple of years ago that promised that by even telling Walmart about geocaching he'd have the website shut down. His bluff was called, he went to the local Walmart to get permission in an attempt to do it, and ended up making a friend with the manager and not hiding the cache (I think). He then changed his story and pretended that he never tried to have the web site shut down. It was a good read.

[+Jeep4two]

I was recently going to put out a generic "skirt lifter" cache at a Wal-mart store

 

Come to think of it... I forgot to ask "why"? Doesn't the world have too many of these already?

 

but the OP didnt ask what we thought of the cache.

 

But what do you think their chances were that they weren't going to?

 

This can only mean one thing. After all these years, trackinthebox has finally succeeded in having caches outlawed in Wal-Mart parking lots without permission. Props to him, wherever he is.

 

I read that thread (all the way through). Quite Amusing. . . I'm giong to have to steal one part of TrackInTheBox's material - I hope he doesn't mind. I'm having "Department of Cacheland Security" T-Shirts printed as we speak

[+Too Tall John]

Others would consider simply not spouting nonsense (or not misstating the guidelines simply to make their argument work).

Apparently, this doesn't include you. Your definition of "Adequate Permission" is...

 

Well...

 

It's...

 

INADEQUATE.

 

To quote my thoughts on this from a previous thread:

Adequate may not mean explicit, but the guidelines explicitly say that you need adequate permission. Going to the dictionary: "adequate - as much or as good as necessary for some requirement or purpose." If the purpose is to keep people safe & out of trouble, that sounds like we're back to explicit.

Oh, and to those who were wondering about past threads, there's this one, and this one, and this one where Team GeoBlast investigated getting permission from a Wal-Masrt store manager. I'm sure there's more, those were the 3 oldest that I participated in...

[knowschad]

and this one where Team GeoBlast investigated getting permission from a Wal-Masrt store manager.

 

That was Team GeoBlast? LOL! That was the thread that I mentioned up above. I've since met him (and helped him put on an event) but I had no idea that was his thread! I know what I'll be doing for the next hour... re-reading the thread! Thanks, TTJ!

[Mr.Yuck]

 

There was another guy a couple of years ago that promised that by even telling Walmart about geocaching he'd have the website shut down. His bluff was called, he went to the local Walmart to get permission in an attempt to do it, and ended up making a friend with the manager and not hiding the cache (I think). He then changed his story and pretended that he never tried to have the web site shut down. It was a good read.

 

I don't remember that! I hope you don't mean the Team Geo-Blast thread, as referenced by Too Tall John.

[+JoGPS]

Hi All,

 

I was recently going to put out a generic "skirt lifter" cache at a Wal-mart store but was told by the Admin of that state that I will need to get permission.

 

Although I think it's kind of silly to get permission for a skirt lifter cache, I want to do the right thing and get permission. I live about 2 hours from the store and get up that way about every 2-3 weeks. I was wondering if anybody else has placed a skirt lifter cache at a Wal-Mart store and how they got permission?

 

If I lived in the actual city I would just go to the store and try to find a manager for permission. I did send a e-amil to their corporate office to see if that would work.

 

If anybody has a good contact other that the one I tried and could post it, that would be great!!

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Tim aka The Weasel

 

With my four regular size caches at a local Wal-Mart , permission took seven month’s and was worth it

 

You need to start with the local mangers first and let then carry it to the home office, they are the ones that you need to convince that this is a way cool thing to do.

 

Joe

[+Parabola]

I am deff going to try and get permission from somebody, wheter it be corporate or the local level. Makes you wonder how all these other caches at Wally Worlds got approved. Not to say they didn't get permission, but it does raise an eyebrow.

 

Okay, you asked for information and here's all that I can give you. Former Pet Department Employee, Store 434, 1991-1994. They called me "Pet Boy". Good times.

 

Start with whatever manager is on duty at the store. There are usually 4-6 Managers that all work under one Store Manager. Normally only one of them is on duty- you can usually catch more than one if you visit during "school hours". They may direct you to a District Manager- they usually have an office in one of the stores and are usually not in that office. Good luck nailing down a DM, they tend to stay mobile. If you can't get word from any of the Managers, then try the corporate level, but be ready for a Manager, Store Manager, or District Manager to turn you down/remove the cache regardless of anything you have from corporate.

 

That's assuming that Wal-Mart owns/leases/rents the parking lot. Sometimes there is a property owner that is not related to the store and you need to hunt them down. Sometimes the city owns the parking lot. You might have some luck finding out the owner using this website: http://www.emapsplus.com/

 

And please, for the love of Pete, don't name the cache some variation of "Tram-Law". Do it for me.

 

Thanks for the advice Castle, I will have to try that route!!

 

It would be nice for these bigger chains where we (GC community) could get ahold of people in the coorporate level to allow/deny caches on their properties. I think somebody mentioned it earlier that it might be tough to get even a regular branch manager to ok a cache w/o the fear of getting in trouble for doing so. Maybe I could also check with people who have Wal-Mart caches and see how they got their approvals

 

Hey Weasel, there's one in Wally world parking lot over here by me. (I think you know about's where I'm at ) I don't know who they contacted to get permission and I have my doubt's permission was even gained. It's a neat one though. More than just a skirt lifter. I'm not sure if you've done it yet. But you are on camera the whole time. So you'd think that Wally World would know about it.

[Keystone]

I was wondering if anybody else has placed a skirt lifter cache at a Wal-Mart store and how they got permission?

A material percentage of shopping center caches submitted in my review territory come with a private "Reviewer Note" saying that permission was granted by the store manager. That's true whether it's Wal-Mart, any other big box, a local chain, or a mom & pop store. So, my advice would be to ask the store manager.

 

It always strikes me as odd that those same hiders are generally unwilling to state on their cache page that permission was obtained. The same is true for cemetery caches - I was just thinking about that when I published one today with "secret" permission disclosed to me privately. I know that I am much more relaxed when searching for a cache if I know it was hidden with permission. I encourage you to state this on the cache page.

 

Since a fair number of Wal-Mart caches *are* hidden with permission, for the ones where nothing is stated, I assume that adequate permission has been obtained. Now, if the cache were thirty feet up on the top of the Super Center signpost, that wouldn't be a reasonable assumption to make. For a guardrail or lamp post, however, it would be.

 

My Seminal Essay About Permission is hereby incorporated in this post by this reference, as if fully set forth herein.

[+MickEMT]

I'd suggest calling the store and making an appointment with the manager, and then explaining the sport, what you intend to hide and where, and have a printout or two from the "Always" series of Wal Mart micros.

A copy of the geocachers creed may be useful as well.

Going this route shows that you understand the manager has a lot of other things to do, and makes you look professional. When you show him or her about the "Always" series, let him know that most cachers know that any cache called "Always #--, Whereeveritis" means there is a Walmart there,and that cachers do tend to travel. Trust me, the manager will usually figure out that the cache could mean a few more bucks in the register.

[+BadAndy]

I'd go to the stores Security office to get permission. They are the ones who would be contacted by the police if there were suspicious persons in the parking lot lifting skirts.

 

Just explain to them that you'd like to hide a container under the skirt of one of their light posts. Assure them that the electrical wiring is rarely accessible under the skirt and there is nothing to worry about. Get them to sign a permission slip on Walmart letterhead that you can scan and email to the reviewer.

 

Piece of cake.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I find it impossible to believe that WalMart corporate does not know that geocaching happens in their parking lots.

 

I believe that they have chosen to ignore it.

 

If the issue becomes such a visible one that they have to make a decision it can only be a negative one, for many reasons.

 

If it is your agenda to force them to acknowledge and decide upon this issue then you already know what you are doing and what the end result must be.

 

Some things are better left alone.

[knowschad]

I find it impossible to believe that WalMart corporate does not know that geocaching happens in their parking lots.

 

I believe that they have chosen to ignore it.

 

If the issue becomes such a visible one that they have to make a decision it can only be a negative one, for many reasons.

 

If it is your agenda to force them to acknowledge and decide upon this issue then you already know what you are doing and what the end result must be.

 

Some things are better left alone.

 

Yup. I totally agree with you. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a two-edged sword where geocaching in such places is concerned. If they publically acknowledge knowing that caches exist in their parking lots, then they become liable for anything that happens at one of them. But they can't possibly know about each and every one, so their best policy is to turn their heads and pretend that they don't know about any of them.