Would you try to get permission, or just hope for forgiveness?

[+nericksx]

Across the street from my house is an Elks Lodge and the golf course they used to own. 5 years ago the Elks sold the golf course to a housing developer to build a big ol' neighborhood. The rest of the community went nuts and appealed the development. This spring the original developer signed over the ownership to a DIFFERENT developer to avoid going bankrupt holding on to the land. I don't think there are plans to build in the near future.

 

So across from me is this awesome stretch of hills and trees and a winding creek with little bridges, just begging for some geocaches. Even though the Elks let the manicured lawns go to seed years ago, in the sattelite image you can still see the tees. I actually thinking a multi cache that follows whats left of the cart path or something would be really cool.

 

By now you know the question. I'm pretty sure that if I were to contact the current owner (they are in Minnesota, I think) they wouldn't approve the placing of geocaches due to liability issues. I also think if I approached the Elks they would say that I'd have to contact the land owner. However, it's the Elk's parking lot that it would be easiest to park in and of course they'd be able to see any cachers roaming the property from their club house.

 

Thoughts?

[+bittsen]

Across the street from my house is an Elks Lodge and the golf course they used to own. 5 years ago the Elks sold the golf course to a housing developer to build a big ol' neighborhood. The rest of the community went nuts and appealed the development. This spring the original developer signed over the ownership to a DIFFERENT developer to avoid going bankrupt holding on to the land. I don't think there are plans to build in the near future.

 

So across from me is this awesome stretch of hills and trees and a winding creek with little bridges, just begging for some geocaches. Even though the Elks let the manicured lawns go to seed years ago, in the sattelite image you can still see the tees. I actually thinking a multi cache that follows whats left of the cart path or something would be really cool.

 

By now you know the question. I'm pretty sure that if I were to contact the current owner (they are in Minnesota, I think) they wouldn't approve the placing of geocaches due to liability issues. I also think if I approached the Elks they would say that I'd have to contact the land owner. However, it's the Elk's parking lot that it would be easiest to park in and of course they'd be able to see any cachers roaming the property from their club house.

 

Thoughts?

 

A gray area. Does anyone really own land? What higher authority gave them the right to say that nobody else could use the land? Who owned the land before man claimed the land?

 

I suppose you could look at it that way and ease your conscience.

[+coman123]

Do they allow people to walk in there, and are there any No tresspassing signs

[+nericksx]

Do they allow people to walk in there, and are there any No tresspassing signs

 

That is a good question. I went tromping through one of the fairways this spring trying to get to a geocache (turns out that was SO NOT how to access that cache), and we wandered around the course quite a bit during last year's snow to play and sled, and I did not see any signs and no one approached (or reproached) us.

[+Minimike2]

So, you didn't get caught - ergo you don't need permission of the land owner?

 

Faulty reasoning.

 

They would probably deny approval due to liability reasons. Absolutely irrelevant. Saying NO is their perogative as the land owner - whether they live on the land or in Pago Pago. Their reason for denying permission is not in play here.

[+pinkunicorn]

OT: Finding and placing caches in Sweden is very nice, since we have a blanket right-to-roam (including one night of camping), regardless of who owns the land. Asking the land owner for permission to geocache is simply not an issue. ;-)

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

OT: Finding and placing caches in Sweden is very nice, since we have a blanket right-to-roam (including one night of camping), regardless of who owns the land. Asking the land owner for permission to geocache is simply not an issue. ;-)

 

The more I hear about Sweden and it's approach to the public and laws the more I like the sound of your(?) country.

 

We in the UK also have public footpath access rights across owned land. However some of these areas are marked by government for special conservation purposes - which doesn't make sense since the public can still roam around them freely.

 

Hence you get the situation where irresponsible people ignore the rules, litter, dog foul, ride motorbikes and generally trash the area, but someone who appreciates the local countryside and/or wants to place a cache has to go through a bunch of loopholes.

 

But that's always the way I guess, most of the time the law only adversely affects those who intend to obey it.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Getting permission is always the best approach. Some wold like to pretend they don't need it and go the "hope for forgiveness" route...not good for our activity or for anyone who does get caught in there without permission (and likely not knowing they needed it).

[Mr.Yuck]

Do they allow people to walk in there, and are there any No tresspassing signs

 

That is a good question. I went tromping through one of the fairways this spring trying to get to a geocache (turns out that was SO NOT how to access that cache), and we wandered around the course quite a bit during last year's snow to play and sled, and I did not see any signs and no one approached (or reproached) us.

 

I've seen several privately owned woodlands over the years where the public is allowed for recreational purposes, and can think of at least one such place where I've found a few caches (Binghamton, NY). Can you find out if this is the case with this land? I dunno man, with what you describe, I really think permission sounds like the best way to go for this one.

[+sbell111]

So, you didn't get caught - ergo you don't need permission of the land owner?

 

Faulty reasoning. ...

Actually, I think that your reasoning is faulty.

 

The question here is whether it is OK to recreationally use this undeveloped, non-posted land. I believe that it is. Clearly, a hiker, kite flier, frisbee flinger, or geocacher would not be guilty of trespassing if he enjoyed the use of this piece of property.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

So, you didn't get caught - ergo you don't need permission of the land owner?

 

Faulty reasoning. ...

Actually, I think that your reasoning is faulty.

 

The question here is whether it is OK to recreationally use this undeveloped, non-posted land. I believe that it is. Clearly, a hiker, kite flier, frisbee flinger, or geocacher would not be guilty of trespassing if he enjoyed the use of this piece of property.

 

I don thin soooo! In fact, I am quite sure you are wrong on that point!

Minimike2 is correct. Regardless of where the 'landowner' resides, it is still their property. Just because they are not present, nor are any 'no trespassing' signs or fencing, the burden of placement still falls upon the CO.

You do not see 'no trespassing' signs along railway property, do you (maybe some, if there has been a continuing problem or special concern)? What about school property? What about my 50 acres (domicile)?

 

Just wandering for wandering sake without concern for property rights is bad thinking. Sorry if you don't like it, but that is the situation here. Most anywhere in the U.S. the law sides with the property owner!

 

EDIT: I cannot speak on laws outside of the U.S. I claim ignorance!

Edited November 6, 2009 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+sbell111]

So, you didn't get caught - ergo you don't need permission of the land owner?

 

Faulty reasoning. ...

Actually, I think that your reasoning is faulty.

 

The question here is whether it is OK to recreationally use this undeveloped, non-posted land. I believe that it is. Clearly, a hiker, kite flier, frisbee flinger, or geocacher would not be guilty of trespassing if he enjoyed the use of this piece of property.

 

I don thin soooo! In fact, I am quite sure you are wrong on that point!

Minimike2 is correct. Regardless of where the 'landowner' resides, it is still their property. Just because they are not present, nor are any 'no trespassing' signs or fencing, the burden of placement still falls upon the CO.

You do not see 'no trespassing' signs along railway property, do you (maybe some, if there has been a continuing problem or special concern)? What about school property? What about my 50 acres (domicile)?

 

Just wandering for wandering sake without concern for property rights is bad thinking. Sorry if you don't like it, but that is the situation here. Most anywhere in the U.S. the law sides with the property owner!

 

EDIT: I cannot speak on laws outside of the U.S. I claim ignorance!

Actually, in most jurisdictions, my post is correct. I wrote my post somewhat carefully. Edited November 6, 2009 by sbell111

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

We shall agree to disagree then. right?

[+sbell111]

We shall agree to disagree then. right?

That you are incorrect as to what 'trespassing' means? Sure.

[+Castle Mischief]

So, you didn't get caught - ergo you don't need permission of the land owner?

 

Faulty reasoning. ...

Actually, I think that your reasoning is faulty.

 

The question here is whether it is OK to recreationally use this undeveloped, non-posted land. I believe that it is. Clearly, a hiker, kite flier, frisbee flinger, or geocacher would not be guilty of trespassing if he enjoyed the use of this piece of property.

 

I'd probably check the local trespassing laws before I made that statement. I haven't seen any clear indication that it is okay for a hiker, kite-flyer, etc to be on this land.

 

A gray area. Does anyone really own land?

 

Yes. If you think differently then I'll be at your place next Tuesday to install a tennis court in your front yard.

[+Team Cotati]

It's private property. The guidelines are quite clear on this point.

 

The property has an owner just like every other piece of property.

 

As for the Elk's parking lot is their private property, just because it is easy and convenient to use has no bearing upon whether you can legally park there. They do not need to post no parking or no trespassing signs in order to let you know not to park there. They of course can do so if they'd like but not doing so doesn't give you or anyone else carte blanche access.

 

Would you let uninvited guests park in your driveway?

 

I see these convenient rationalizations all of the time and that is exactly what they are, convenient rationalizations.

[+Rockin Roddy]

We shall agree to disagree then. right?

That you are incorrect as to what 'trespassing' means? Sure.

 

[+sbell111]

So, you didn't get caught - ergo you don't need permission of the land owner?

 

Faulty reasoning. ...

Actually, I think that your reasoning is faulty.

 

The question here is whether it is OK to recreationally use this undeveloped, non-posted land. I believe that it is. Clearly, a hiker, kite flier, frisbee flinger, or geocacher would not be guilty of trespassing if he enjoyed the use of this piece of property.

I'd probably check the local trespassing laws before I made that statement. I haven't seen any clear indication that it is okay for a hiker, kite-flyer, etc to be on this land.

Oregon requires that notice be made before someone is guilty of trespassing. Therefore, a person hiking, kite flying, frisbee flinging, or geocaching is not trespassing if the undeveloped land is not posted.

[+sbell111]

It's private property. The guidelines are quite clear on this point.

 

The property has an owner just like every other piece of property.

 

As for the Elk's parking lot is their private property, just because it is easy and convenient to use has no bearing upon whether you can legally park there. They do not need to post no parking or no trespassing signs in order to let you know not to park there. They of course can do so if they'd like but not doing so doesn't give you or anyone else carte blanche access.

 

Would you let uninvited guests park in your driveway?

 

I see these convenient rationalizations all of the time and that is exactly what they are, convenient rationalizations.

You have, again, misrepresented the guidelines.

[+Rockin Roddy]

It's private property. The guidelines are quite clear on this point.

 

The property has an owner just like every other piece of property.

 

As for the Elk's parking lot is their private property, just because it is easy and convenient to use has no bearing upon whether you can legally park there. They do not need to post no parking or no trespassing signs in order to let you know not to park there. They of course can do so if they'd like but not doing so doesn't give you or anyone else carte blanche access.

 

Would you let uninvited guests park in your driveway?

 

I see these convenient rationalizations all of the time and that is exactly what they are, convenient rationalizations.

 

You are incorrect...they are convenient rationalizations which are bad for our activity.

 

People, for whatever reasons (sometimes too lazy to do the legwork, sometimes because they already know the answer would be no, sometimes they just assume etc), do this very thing all the time and then hope they can just play dumb if/when confronted on it. This is bad for our activity since it surely makes us look bad in the landowner's eyes...and they do tend to have friends...who also have friends... While we too have friends, we are far outnumbered as cachers to non-cachers goes.

[+sbell111]

It's private property. The guidelines are quite clear on this point.

 

The property has an owner just like every other piece of property.

 

As for the Elk's parking lot is their private property, just because it is easy and convenient to use has no bearing upon whether you can legally park there. They do not need to post no parking or no trespassing signs in order to let you know not to park there. They of course can do so if they'd like but not doing so doesn't give you or anyone else carte blanche access.

 

Would you let uninvited guests park in your driveway?

 

I see these convenient rationalizations all of the time and that is exactly what they are, convenient rationalizations.

 

You are incorrect...they are convenient rationalizations which are bad for our activity.

 

People, for whatever reasons (sometimes too lazy to do the legwork, sometimes because they already know the answer would be no, sometimes they just assume etc), do this very thing all the time and then hope they can just play dumb if/when confronted on it. This is bad for our activity since it surely makes us look bad in the landowner's eyes...and they do tend to have friends...who also have friends... While we too have friends, we are far outnumbered as cachers to non-cachers goes.

Why are you arguing with the naked guy? He's on your side.

[+Castle Mischief]

So, you didn't get caught - ergo you don't need permission of the land owner?

 

Faulty reasoning. ...

Actually, I think that your reasoning is faulty.

 

The question here is whether it is OK to recreationally use this undeveloped, non-posted land. I believe that it is. Clearly, a hiker, kite flier, frisbee flinger, or geocacher would not be guilty of trespassing if he enjoyed the use of this piece of property.

I'd probably check the local trespassing laws before I made that statement. I haven't seen any clear indication that it is okay for a hiker, kite-flyer, etc to be on this land.

Oregon requires that notice be made before someone is guilty of trespassing. Therefore, a person hiking, kite flying, frisbee flinging, or geocaching is not trespassing if the undeveloped land is not posted.

 

Not saying you're wrong, but do you have a supporting link?

 

I'd still probably check at the county level before I left an ammo-can under a pile of sticks- something that differs from hiking, frisbee flinging, and kite-flying.

 

There's two parts to this- this issue of walking on the property and then the issue of leaving the cache on the property. Trespassing law would cover the former, but not necessarily the later.

[+sbell111]

So, you didn't get caught - ergo you don't need permission of the land owner?

 

Faulty reasoning. ...

Actually, I think that your reasoning is faulty.

 

The question here is whether it is OK to recreationally use this undeveloped, non-posted land. I believe that it is. Clearly, a hiker, kite flier, frisbee flinger, or geocacher would not be guilty of trespassing if he enjoyed the use of this piece of property.

I'd probably check the local trespassing laws before I made that statement. I haven't seen any clear indication that it is okay for a hiker, kite-flyer, etc to be on this land.

Oregon requires that notice be made before someone is guilty of trespassing. Therefore, a person hiking, kite flying, frisbee flinging, or geocaching is not trespassing if the undeveloped land is not posted.

 

Not saying you're wrong, but do you have a supporting link?

Oregon Revised Statutes, Section 164 Edited November 6, 2009 by sbell111

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

What I am seeing here, may simply be a problem of miscommunication or misinterpretation.

 

One poster refers to Oregon requires that notice be made before someone is guilty of trespassing, whilst many of the other posters refer simply to trespassing, which does not necessarily mean the CRIMINAL offense of trespassing (referring to the bold highlight). There are civil torts dealing with trespass that DO deal with unspecific violations (including kite flying, hiking, frizbee flinging, geocaching and endless other interpretations).

 

In simple terms, there is criminal trespass and civil trespass. Either are trespass!

[+sbell111]

What I am seeing here, may simply be a problem of miscommunication or misinterpretation.

 

One poster refers to Oregon requires that notice be made before someone is guilty of trespassing, whilst many of the other posters refer simply to trespassing, which does not necessarily mean the CRIMINAL offense of trespassing (referring to the bold highlight). There are civil torts dealing with trespass that DO deal with unspecific violations (including kite flying, hiking, frizbee flinging, geocaching and endless other interpretations).

 

In simple terms, there is criminal trespass and civil trespass. Either are trespass!

If you believe that Oregon has civil laws that support your argument, cite them.

[CoyoteRed]

...they wouldn't approve the placing of geocaches due to liability issues.

Google "recreational statutes."

 

Also, when I approached the landowners I don't always hit them with the full geocaching explanation. In this case, I'd probably go with "Hey, until you start construction is it okay to explore that old golf course area on foot?"

[+upearly13]

Across the street from my house is an Elks Lodge and the golf course they used to own. 5 years ago the Elks sold the golf course to a housing developer to build a big ol' neighborhood. The rest of the community went nuts and appealed the development. This spring the original developer signed over the ownership to a DIFFERENT developer to avoid going bankrupt holding on to the land. I don't think there are plans to build in the near future.

 

So across from me is this awesome stretch of hills and trees and a winding creek with little bridges, just begging for some geocaches. Even though the Elks let the manicured lawns go to seed years ago, in the sattelite image you can still see the tees. I actually thinking a multi cache that follows whats left of the cart path or something would be really cool.

 

By now you know the question. I'm pretty sure that if I were to contact the current owner (they are in Minnesota, I think) they wouldn't approve the placing of geocaches due to liability issues. I also think if I approached the Elks they would say that I'd have to contact the land owner. However, it's the Elk's parking lot that it would be easiest to park in and of course they'd be able to see any cachers roaming the property from their club house.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

So I'm Pollanna-- Why don't you contact the new owners, explain what geocaching is and what possible liability they do or don't have, and ASK for persmission? What can they say? No or yes for an awesome hide. You might even get someone new interested in geocaching?

[CoyoteRed]

In simple terms, there is criminal trespass and civil trespass. Either are trespass!

Yes, but what does the law say about entering the property of another without permission? In SC there are certain instances that define trespass without being warned--it's basically what your intent was. However, if you're just passing through, you have to be warned first. Either a verbal warning or a posted sign is your first warning.

 

Different states have different laws concerning trespass. I suggest boning up on the state law in which you cache.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

Not saying you're wrong, but do you have a supporting link?

Oregon Revised Statutes, Section 164

 

For the link hungry crowd: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/164.html

 

I draw your attention to Section 164.805 Offensive littering.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+sbell111]

Not saying you're wrong, but do you have a supporting link?

Oregon Revised Statutes, Section 164

For the link hungry crowd: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/164.html

 

I draw your attention to Section 164.805 Offensive littering.

164.805 Offensive littering. (1) A person commits the crime of offensive littering if the person creates an objectionable stench or degrades the beauty or appearance of property or detracts from the natural cleanliness or safety of property by intentionally:

 

(a.) Discarding or depositing any rubbish, trash, garbage, debris or other refuse upon the land of another without permission of the owner, or upon any public way or in or upon any public transportation facility;

 

(b.) Draining, or causing or permitting to be drained, sewage or the drainage from a cesspool, septic tank, recreational or camping vehicle waste holding tank or other contaminated source, upon the land of another without permission of the owner, or upon any public way; or

 

(c.) Permitting any rubbish, trash, garbage, debris or other refuse to be thrown from a vehicle that the person is operating. This subsection does not apply to a person operating a vehicle transporting passengers for hire subject to regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission or the Department of Transportation or a person operating a school bus described under ORS 801.460.

 

(2) As used in this section:

 

(a.) "Public transportation facility" has the meaning given that term in ORS 164.365.

 

(b.) "Public way" includes, but is not limited to, roads, streets, alleys, lanes, trails, beaches, parks and all recreational facilities operated by the state, a county or a local municipality for use by the general public.

 

(3) Offensive littering is a Class C misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §283; 1975 c.344 §2; 1983 c.338 §897; 1985 c.420 §20; 2007 c.71 §52]

 

That law doesn't appear to describe geocaching.

Edited November 6, 2009 by sbell111

[+Castle Mischief]

Not saying you're wrong, but do you have a supporting link?

Oregon Revised Statutes, Section 164

For the link hungry crowd: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/164.html

 

I draw your attention to Section 164.805 Offensive littering.

164.805 Offensive littering. (1) A person commits the crime of offensive littering if the person creates an objectionable stench or degrades the beauty or appearance of property or detracts from the natural cleanliness or safety of property by intentionally:

 

(a.) Discarding or depositing any rubbish, trash, garbage, debris or other refuse upon the land of another without permission of the owner, or upon any public way or in or upon any public transportation facility;

 

(b.) Draining, or causing or permitting to be drained, sewage or the drainage from a cesspool, septic tank, recreational or camping vehicle waste holding tank or other contaminated source, upon the land of another without permission of the owner, or upon any public way; or

 

(c.) Permitting any rubbish, trash, garbage, debris or other refuse to be thrown from a vehicle that the person is operating. This subsection does not apply to a person operating a vehicle transporting passengers for hire subject to regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission or the Department of Transportation or a person operating a school bus described under ORS 801.460.

 

(2) As used in this section:

 

(a.) "Public transportation facility" has the meaning given that term in ORS 164.365.

 

(b.) "Public way" includes, but is not limited to, roads, streets, alleys, lanes, trails, beaches, parks and all recreational facilities operated by the state, a county or a local municipality for use by the general public.

 

(3) Offensive littering is a Class C misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §283; 1975 c.344 §2; 1983 c.338 §897; 1985 c.420 §20; 2007 c.71 §52]

 

That law doesn't appear to describe geocaching.

 

That would really be up to a court to decide. There are no definitions for "rubbish, trash, garbage, debris or other refuse" provided in the document that I could find.

[+sbell111]

Not saying you're wrong, but do you have a supporting link?

Oregon Revised Statutes, Section 164

For the link hungry crowd: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/164.html

 

I draw your attention to Section 164.805 Offensive littering.

164.805 Offensive littering. (1) A person commits the crime of offensive littering if the person creates an objectionable stench or degrades the beauty or appearance of property or detracts from the natural cleanliness or safety of property by intentionally:

 

(a.) Discarding or depositing any rubbish, trash, garbage, debris or other refuse upon the land of another without permission of the owner, or upon any public way or in or upon any public transportation facility;

 

(b.) Draining, or causing or permitting to be drained, sewage or the drainage from a cesspool, septic tank, recreational or camping vehicle waste holding tank or other contaminated source, upon the land of another without permission of the owner, or upon any public way; or

 

(c.) Permitting any rubbish, trash, garbage, debris or other refuse to be thrown from a vehicle that the person is operating. This subsection does not apply to a person operating a vehicle transporting passengers for hire subject to regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission or the Department of Transportation or a person operating a school bus described under ORS 801.460.

 

(2) As used in this section:

 

(a.) "Public transportation facility" has the meaning given that term in ORS 164.365.

 

(b.) "Public way" includes, but is not limited to, roads, streets, alleys, lanes, trails, beaches, parks and all recreational facilities operated by the state, a county or a local municipality for use by the general public.

 

(3) Offensive littering is a Class C misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §283; 1975 c.344 §2; 1983 c.338 §897; 1985 c.420 §20; 2007 c.71 §52]

 

That law doesn't appear to describe geocaching.

That would really be up to a court to decide. There are no definitions for "rubbish, trash, garbage, debris or other refuse" provided in the document that I could find.

As far as I know, all common definitions for those words suggest that the item is being discarded. That is not the case with geocaches.

 

Still, you are making the case that any and all caches should be considered litter since permission is not listed as a defense against the littering law that you cited.

[+Castle Mischief]

As far as I know, all common definitions for those words suggest that the item is being discarded. That is not the case with geocaches.

 

Still, you are making the case that any and all caches should be considered litter since permission is not listed as a defense against the littering law that you cited.

 

As far as I know, there is no legal precedent regarding the question of "are caches discarded?" Again, I think that ultimately the courts would have to make the call there. We as cachers, within the confines of our own community can preach all we want about how our caches are our private property, but our beliefs don't always translate to legal definitions.

 

I am not making the case that they should be considered litter. I'm not even talking about any and all caches. I'm saying that the laws are interpreted by the courts. What you and I call caches (private property/trash) has little bearing on how they may be perceived by the court.

 

 

Let's put the legal issues aside for a second.

 

Let's consider the longevity of the container and the comfort of the future cache hunters. Let's consider the consequences of the land owner finding out about the cache after the fact. What are some of the potential results of that?

 

Land owner discards the container and its contents.

 

Land owner angrily confronts the next batch of seekers.

 

Land owner angrily confronts the cache hider.

 

Can we agree that these are situations that should be avoided if possible?

Edited November 6, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+Renegade Knight]

A gray area. Does anyone really own land? What higher authority gave them the right to say that nobody else could use the land? Who owned the land before man claimed the land?

 

I suppose you could look at it that way and ease your conscience.

 

If for the past umpteen years people have been walking that course, there is a de-facto public easment on it allowing the casual recreation. There are cases where these easments have been recognized (someone has to do the leg work) and enforced by virtue of adverse posession. Most times they are "just the way it's been for as long as anyone can remember".

 

Since caching is a trival and minor activity and since the folks (may) have been using the land for recretaional activity all these years. I'd place the caches and call it a job well done.

 

If by chance the owner decides that the trail is giving them heart ache and posts the land I can remove the cahe then. That it isn't and they havent.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+Sagefox]

A gray area. Does anyone really own land? What higher authority gave them the right to say that nobody else could use the land? Who owned the land before man claimed the land?

 

"Oh my God! You're from the 60s!" [Terrance Mann - Field Of Dreams]

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

If for the past umpteen years people have been walking that course, there is a de-facto public easment on it allowing the casual recreation.

 

Since caching is a trival and minor activity and since the folks (may) have been using the land for recretaional activity all these years. I'd place the caches and call it a job well done.

 

If by chance the owner decides that the trail is giving them heart ache and posts the land I can remove the cahe then. That it isn't and they havent.

 

You're assuming that, for those years the course wasn't in business, the people walking the course had permission to do so, they too might very well have been trespassing.

 

Call it a poorly done job if you don't make strides to find these things out beforehand!

Edited November 6, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+Renegade Knight]

Do they allow people to walk in there, and are there any No tresspassing signs

 

That is a good question. I went tromping through one of the fairways this spring trying to get to a geocache (turns out that was SO NOT how to access that cache), and we wandered around the course quite a bit during last year's snow to play and sled, and I did not see any signs and no one approached (or reproached) us.

Whoops. GOLF course. Them folks are highly protective of their domain. They normally can't even stand the thought of a bike path adjoining their greens lest the biking, walking, and strolling public riff raff soil their purity with their proximity.

 

That's a big "Not without someone giving you the green light" heads up.

[CoyoteRed]

I am not making the case that they should be considered litter. I'm not even talking about any and all caches. I'm saying that the laws are interpreted by the courts. What you and I call caches (private property/trash) has little bearing on how they may be perceived by the court.

I would think that precedence has already been established in that in some jurisdictions there are separate laws that address the storage of personal property on the lands of another. I think that would say the "law" understands the difference between stuff that one does not intend to reclaim and stuff they do.

 

 

Let's put the legal issues aside for a second.

 

Let's consider the longevity of the container and the comfort of the future cache hunters. Let's consider the consequences of the land owner finding out about the cache after the fact. What are some of the potential results of that?

 

Land owner discards the container and its contents.

 

Land owner angrily confronts the next batch of seekers.

 

Land owner angrily confronts the cache hider.

 

Can we agree that these are situations that should be avoided if possible?

If there later becomes an issue, isn't that is what the cache note is for? "If this container happens to be sitting on private property and you wish it removed, please let us know. We apologize, and will be happy to move it."

 

While I agree there have been many instances of ill advised placements, but in this instance it was originally a place of recreation. With no real reason to prohibit the continued enjoyment--if the developer wants to stay in the good graces of the locals--then I would think this would be a great opportunity for a few caches.

 

I mean, most of the time the issue with landowners isn't the fact there is a metal or plastic box on their, or adjacent, property--it's the fact there are people there. If it's okay for people to be there, then you can be 95% sure it's okay for a cache to be there.

[+Sagefox]

 

If for the past umpteen years people have been walking that course, there is a de-facto public easment on it allowing the casual recreation.

 

Since caching is a trival and minor activity and since the folks (may) have been using the land for recretaional activity all these years. I'd place the caches and call it a job well done.

 

If by chance the owner decides that the trail is giving them heart ache and posts the land I can remove the cahe then. That it isn't and they havent.

 

You're assuming that, for those years the course wasn't in business, the people walking the course had permission to do so, they too might very well have been trespassing.

 

Call it a poorly done job if you don't make strides to find these things out beforehand!

 

I believe RK is referring to Prescriptive Rights whereby public use of private trails and other public uses of private property can give the public a right to continue those uses if perfected though some action, say through a land use development permit or the court system.

 

The California Coastal Commission says the prescriptive rights period is five years. I'm sure this time period varies state by state.

 

Edit for citation: Some Facts About Public Prescriptive Rights

 

(In part) "A right of access acquired through use is, essentially, an easement over real property

that comes into being without the explicit consent of the owner. The acquisition of such

an easement is referred to as an “implied dedication”, the right acquired is also referred

to as a “public prescriptive easement”. This term recognizes that the use must continue

for the length of the “prescriptive period” before a public easement comes into being. In

California the prescriptive period is five (5) years."

Edited November 6, 2009 by Team Sagefox

[+Renegade Knight]

 

If for the past umpteen years people have been walking that course, there is a de-facto public easment on it allowing the casual recreation.

 

Since caching is a trival and minor activity and since the folks (may) have been using the land for recretaional activity all these years. I'd place the caches and call it a job well done.

 

If by chance the owner decides that the trail is giving them heart ache and posts the land I can remove the cahe then. That it isn't and they havent.

 

You're assuming that, for those years the course wasn't in business, the people walking the course had permission to do so, they too might very well have been trespassing...

 

Actually I was a**-u-ming incorrectly that they had some kind of walking course on raw land and missed the GOLF part. Realizing my mistake changed the answer. See my post above.

 

However adverse posession actually is a means of recognzing and open and notorius land use because that's what's real and where the value of the land is. Permission negates it because it can be revoked. Real and actual adverse posession is done without permission. It's a lot more complicated than I can explain in a couple of sentances. It solves real issues and has a place. Where it's not used enough is on de-facto public trails.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

I believe RK is referring to Prescriptive Rights whereby public use of private trails and other public uses of private property can give the public a right to continue those uses if perfected though some action, say through a land use development permit or the court system.

 

The California Coastal Commission says the prescriptive rights period is five years. I'm sure this time period varies state by state.

 

Every state is a bit different but that's the gist. Beach access is one spot where the public right to use a trail comes up and gets defended. Here in Idaho, developers lop off access trails to the hills, mountains and open space regularly and nobody defends it so we lose access even though the trails have been used for generations.

 

Someone has to champion the access rights and in the case of a beach that's easier to find than a single hill in a podunk town.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Just wandering for wandering sake without concern for property rights is bad thinking. Sorry if you don't like it, but that is the situation here. Most anywhere in the U.S. the law sides with the property owner!...

 

Just wandering for wanderings sake is a wonderful and beautiful thing. It's what our ancesters did before someone siezed the open land and claimed it for the king.

 

Fast forward to today. Some countries like the ones that comprise Scandanavia understand this concept and see the value to just go out and visit raw land. The USA tends to err on the side of private property but even here the value of open spaces is being recognized. Further there is a long standing tradition of just going out and useing raw land. There is an informal system of access points and trails all over this country that have been used without permission or need for permission for generations even after the US Government siezed all the land and then gave it back out as private property.

 

Those trails and open areas have value for what they are. There are also means and methods to recognize these de-facto accepted and established land uses as real rights vested in the public. These right can (and sometimes are) recognized without the landowners permission.

 

There is a reason we have the name "sand lot baseball" and it should be allowed, enjoyed, and encouraged here. Caching is just another thing along the same lines.

 

I reject the notion of a world or country where I lose access to anything outside my dinky city lot without explicit permission.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

While I agree there have been many instances of ill advised placements, but in this instance it was originally a place of recreation. With no real reason to prohibit the continued enjoyment--if the developer wants to stay in the good graces of the locals--then I would think this would be a great opportunity for a few caches.

 

A place of recreation, yes. Was it a public place of recreation or was it a private golf course?

[+Renegade Knight]

...For the link hungry crowd: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/164.html

 

I draw your attention to Section 164.805 Offensive littering.

 

This would perhaps apply after the the cache is discarded. Since until then it's personal property and specificly not discarded, the law doesn't apply. It's questionable if a hidden and unobtrusive cache would invoke the offensive part.

[+sbell111]

If for the past umpteen years people have been walking that course, there is a de-facto public easment on it allowing the casual recreation.

 

Since caching is a trival and minor activity and since the folks (may) have been using the land for recretaional activity all these years. I'd place the caches and call it a job well done.

 

If by chance the owner decides that the trail is giving them heart ache and posts the land I can remove the cahe then. That it isn't and they havent.

You're assuming that, for those years the course wasn't in business, the people walking the course had permission to do so, they too might very well have been trespassing.

They weren't trespassing because there has been no notification. Merely being present on owned land without specific permission is not trespassing.

 

Do they allow people to walk in there, and are there any No tresspassing signs

That is a good question. I went tromping through one of the fairways this spring trying to get to a geocache (turns out that was SO NOT how to access that cache), and we wandered around the course quite a bit during last year's snow to play and sled, and I did not see any signs and no one approached (or reproached) us.

Whoops. GOLF course. Them folks are highly protective of their domain. They normally can't even stand the thought of a bike path adjoining their greens lest the biking, walking, and strolling public riff raff soil their purity with their proximity.

 

That's a big "Not without someone giving you the green light" heads up.

Former golf course. Currently the land is sitting idle owned by an out-of-state individual who may build on the land at some point in the future.

[+nericksx]

So I've discovered that I'm just not thick skinned enough to participate on internet forums. I think I was accused of being stupid, lazy, and an inconsiderate trespasser that is ruining geocaching. A couple of you read into the question angles that didn't exist, thereby creating Straw Men that you flamed. What's up with that?

 

So, you didn't get caught - ergo you don't need permission of the land owner?

 

Faulty reasoning.

 

They would probably deny approval due to liability reasons. Absolutely irrelevant. Saying NO is their perogative as the land owner - whether they live on the land or in Pago Pago. Their reason for denying permission is not in play here.

Geeze, Minimike2, I was just answering a question. I thought that was unnecessarily snarky. The reason that I mentioned that they would probably site liability is that I was just guessing at how the conversation with the landowner would go. NOT making an argument that the landowner's reason had to meet my criteria for reason. Please do not put motives in my mouth.

 

OT: Finding and placing caches in Sweden is very nice, since we have a blanket right-to-roam (including one night of camping), regardless of who owns the land. Asking the land owner for permission to geocache is simply not an issue. ;-)

Sweeden sounds awesome. That also sounds way too socialist for our center-right country. As evidenced by how this thread has unwound, in the US, property rights are perceived as divinely granted and inalienable.

 

It's private property. The guidelines are quite clear on this point.

 

The property has an owner just like every other piece of property.

 

As for the Elk's parking lot is their private property, just because it is easy and convenient to use has no bearing upon whether you can legally park there. They do not need to post no parking or no trespassing signs in order to let you know not to park there. They of course can do so if they'd like but not doing so doesn't give you or anyone else carte blanche access.

 

Would you let uninvited guests park in your driveway?

 

I see these convenient rationalizations all of the time and that is exactly what they are, convenient rationalizations.

 

You are incorrect...they are convenient rationalizations which are bad for our activity.

 

People, for whatever reasons (sometimes too lazy to do the legwork, sometimes because they already know the answer would be no, sometimes they just assume etc), do this very thing all the time and then hope they can just play dumb if/when confronted on it. This is bad for our activity since it surely makes us look bad in the landowner's eyes...and they do tend to have friends...who also have friends... While we too have friends, we are far outnumbered as cachers to non-cachers goes.

I mentioned the Elks and their parking lot because in making a mental list of who would need to be contacted, I figured I would need to clear it with the Elks since that's SO where people are going to park, it being the most obvious place to do so. My fault for not saying this explicitly, but Rockin Roddy: why assume the worst about me and my intentions?

 

Team Cotati: I will thank you to not imply that I'm one of those "people". Clearly I'm doing legwork. I've already done research to find out the history of the defunct golf course and who owns it and thought it might be a good idea to bounce the idea off the caching community. That part is turning out to be dubious use of time and energy as a number of the members of the "community" would rather skewer the OP (and each other) than have a constructive conversation.

 

</ END defensive part of the post>

 

Sometime around 9am PST this conversation turned totally fascinating. If I keep going back to site who said what I'm gonna be here all day, so I'm just going to have to start being general. Here's some more history of the land in question:

Don't get some hoity toity image in your head when I mention that this was a golf course. We're talking a 9-hole, one-step-up-from-a-municipal-course course. There's never been any fences or signs or anything else. We had often walked along the cart path to reach the little shopping district on the other side of the course. As long as you gave the golfers right of way, the Elks had no issues. Actually they hosted Cruse-Ins (parked the cars right on the grass!) and fireworks displays (people on blankets right on the fairway!) before they sold it.

 

When I finally "went tromping through the fairway" this spring, the grass has gone to seed years before since it hadn't been used as a golf course since 2004. I think the "community" nature of the use of the space is why the community lobbied so hard to keep the first developer from being allowed to build. In the end, the developer was given permits to build a smaller, less dense development than he had wanted but by then the bottom had fallen out of the housing market and the builder never broke ground. However, in the original sale the City of Hillsboro did buy 5 acres to create a public park and to extend the path that runs along the creek. The city still plans on building the park and path "some time in the future."

 

So while I totally agree in theory with the pro-European model folks (is that fair?) that it's kind of *always* been community space and the developer isn't doing any thing constructive with it right now, and while I totally bristle at the idea of an absentee landlord (who probably doesn't give a crap about the livability of our little community) hoarding a large and glorious piece of real estate, living in the US I have to concede the point to the pro-private property rights folks (snarky as I feel some of them have been). At a bare minimum, I'd have to talk to the Elks. They would be able to witness any cachers out on the former course from the clubhouse and dining room. They would also have to consent to cachers parking in their lot, because I know cachers are gonna park there. I also agree that it's probably in the best interest of the reputation of the geo-community to deal on the level with the Elks and the developer.

 

I am heartened by the observation that the discussion might introduce caching to new people, and that permission might be granted in the name of public relations.

 

Thanks for all the feedback. Now I'm trying decide if it's worth all the effort, to get permission to do a multi on the whole course, or if maybe I can find out which portion the City bought and put a cache there.

Edited November 6, 2009 by nericksx

[+Rockin Roddy]

If for the past umpteen years people have been walking that course, there is a de-facto public easment on it allowing the casual recreation.

 

Since caching is a trival and minor activity and since the folks (may) have been using the land for recretaional activity all these years. I'd place the caches and call it a job well done.

 

If by chance the owner decides that the trail is giving them heart ache and posts the land I can remove the cahe then. That it isn't and they havent.

You're assuming that, for those years the course wasn't in business, the people walking the course had permission to do so, they too might very well have been trespassing.

They weren't trespassing because there has been no notification. Merely being present on owned land without specific permission is not trespassing.

 

Do they allow people to walk in there, and are there any No tresspassing signs

That is a good question. I went tromping through one of the fairways this spring trying to get to a geocache (turns out that was SO NOT how to access that cache), and we wandered around the course quite a bit during last year's snow to play and sled, and I did not see any signs and no one approached (or reproached) us.

Whoops. GOLF course. Them folks are highly protective of their domain. They normally can't even stand the thought of a bike path adjoining their greens lest the biking, walking, and strolling public riff raff soil their purity with their proximity.

 

That's a big "Not without someone giving you the green light" heads up.

Former golf course. Currently the land is sitting idle owned by an out-of-state individual who may build on the land at some point in the future.

 

Wow, did that become a universal law now?

 

Someone owns the property, if you are on it and they don't want you to be (posted or not in many places), even if the owner is from another country, you are trespassing.

 

I truly wish people would act RESPONSIBLY and not give info which very well could be WRONG! Well, really, I wish people would just act responsible enough to ASK if they don't know (which obviously, the OP doesn't).

[+NYPaddleCacher]

So, you didn't get caught - ergo you don't need permission of the land owner?

 

Faulty reasoning. ...

Actually, I think that your reasoning is faulty.

 

The question here is whether it is OK to recreationally use this undeveloped, non-posted land. I believe that it is. Clearly, a hiker, kite flier, frisbee flinger, or geocacher would not be guilty of trespassing if he enjoyed the use of this piece of property.

I'd probably check the local trespassing laws before I made that statement. I haven't seen any clear indication that it is okay for a hiker, kite-flyer, etc to be on this land.

Oregon requires that notice be made before someone is guilty of trespassing. Therefore, a person hiking, kite flying, frisbee flinging, or geocaching is not trespassing if the undeveloped land is not posted.

 

Here's an article about Recreational Access and Owner Liability in the State of New York. There are a couple of relevant sentences found here:

 

"A possible disadvantage to not posting your land is that [b/although the state strongly encourages all recreationists using private lands to first request permission, this is not a legal requirement on open (unfenced), unposted rural lands.[/b]"

 

AND

 

"according to New York law, any person must leave your property upon request, even if it is not posted"

 

Essentially, it looks like New York law is similar to that in Oregon. I would not, however, rely on what's legal in New York or Oregon for any other jurisdiction.

[+Walts Hunting]

I love bittsen's logic. I heard that occassionally as I was putting the cuffs on trespassers and hauling them off to the pokey.

[+Team Cotati]

 

While I agree there have been many instances of ill advised placements, but in this instance it was originally a place of recreation. With no real reason to prohibit the continued enjoyment--if the developer wants to stay in the good graces of the locals--then I would think this would be a great opportunity for a few caches.

 

A place of recreation, yes. Was it a public place of recreation or was it a private golf course?

 

Was.