What Constitutes "Adequate" Permission?

[DarthJustice]

For a while now, I've been wanting to hide my first cache. I do have a very few places so far in mind of locations I'm interested in. I mistakenly believed to do so, you had to have explicit permission. Of course there ARE places where that's required but according to the guidelines page I was just looking at, it says "adequate permission" and not "explicit permission".

 

So, what exactly constitutes "adequate" in these cases for those of you who are experienced hiders? I figure places like private property or someone's house or a business, you would be best off outright asking someone who can give it for permission. Basically anywhere where "getting in trouble" might happen.

 

I guess I'm just wondering, are there places where asking for permission isn't required? Like public parks, would you need to physically ask someone or is the fact it's a public park and a place intended for fun and games enough? Would places like that be in that category?

 

If not, what exactly is it? I guess I'm just a bit confused about this part of the process as I've seen people talk about not necessarily having to get explicit since there's implied (which is mainly what has confused me). I just want to be very clear about this and what I need to do.

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Answering this will be like nailing jelly to a tree... good luck with that!

 

There IS no un-owned property in the United States, some person or entity owns it all.

 

As will surely be beaten unto death in this thread retail parking lots are private property and theoretically require explicit permission, yet it is a rare LPC that has any.

 

Many adopt a sort of 'frisbee rule'... if people can play frisbee there then geocaching is assumed to be allowed.

 

Residential property always requires explicit permission.

 

Some public-use parks require not only permission but permits; some have no stance on geocaching, some ban it altogether.

 

'Adequate' being impossible to define except in a case-by-case basis don't expect to get any kind of blanket answer.

[DarthJustice]

Sounds like just outright asking someone is by far the best direction then lol. Thanks, I'll just go in that direction then.

[GOF and Bacall]

For a better handle on what is what in your area ask the locals. Best to ask a few of them and get a more complete picture. It can't hurt to have explicit permission but on the other hand someone may have done the leg work already.

[+Team Cotati]

For a better handle on what is what in your area ask the locals. Best to ask a few of them and get a more complete picture. It can't hurt to have explicit permission but on the other hand someone may have done the leg work already.

 

And the 'leg work' that this someone might or might not have completed, would that leg work include this someone having obtained explicit permission that it can't hurt to have? I mean, in your opinion, just for discussion purposes, would the leg work include that?

[+uxorious]

For a better handle on what is what in your area ask the locals. Best to ask a few of them and get a more complete picture. It can't hurt to have explicit permission but on the other hand someone may have done the leg work already.

 

And the 'leg work' that this someone might or might not have completed, would that leg work include this someone having obtained explicit permission that it can't hurt to have? I mean, in your opinion, just for discussion purposes, would the leg work include that?

 

It certainly might. Some land managers have developed a Geocache policy, often by working with local Geocache clubs.

 

If the area you hope to hide your cache in is in an area that already has a policy on caches and you follow the policy you are good to go. The leg work has been done.

[GOF and Bacall]

For a better handle on what is what in your area ask the locals. Best to ask a few of them and get a more complete picture. It can't hurt to have explicit permission but on the other hand someone may have done the leg work already.

 

And the 'leg work' that this someone might or might not have completed, would that leg work include this someone having obtained explicit permission that it can't hurt to have? I mean, in your opinion, just for discussion purposes, would the leg work include that?

 

Where did I make that statement? Never mind, I didn't. It is not possible that someone could get explicit permission for a cache that I haven't hidden yet. That is not hard to figure out. It is possible that they can tell me who I need to contact for what area. Or what area requires a permit and where to obtain it. Possibly even tell me what areas are off limits for whatever reason and save me having to find out through however much research it may taken to find that out. Asking my fellow cachers what they know is not a bad place to start.

[+Team Cotati]

For a better handle on what is what in your area ask the locals. Best to ask a few of them and get a more complete picture. It can't hurt to have explicit permission but on the other hand someone may have done the leg work already.

 

And the 'leg work' that this someone might or might not have completed, would that leg work include this someone having obtained explicit permission that it can't hurt to have? I mean, in your opinion, just for discussion purposes, would the leg work include that?

 

It certainly might. Some land managers have developed a Geocache policy, often by working with local Geocache clubs.

 

If the area you hope to hide your cache in is in an area that already has a policy on caches and you follow the policy you are good to go. The leg work has been done.

 

Well it is good to know that written explicit permission exists so that you can proceed with the knowledge that should you ever be challenged by uninformed security staff or some such that there is a documented person to whom you can refer them.

 

I for one have been in situations where knowing this would have been really nice. Hopefully the cache hiders in these situations will be including permission information on the cache page for the benefit of those seeking caches on these lands.

 

Once you have been escorted off land by their private security staff, you tend to be a bit more skittish when contemplating going after a geocache on similar lands in the future.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+brokenoaks]

 

A'wwww yes, let the games begin

[+Rockin Roddy]

My thought is simple, if you don't know either way, ask!!

[+Team Cotati]

My thought is simple, if you don't know either way, ask!!

 

Sounds reasonable to me.

[+niraD]

I guess I'm just wondering, are there places where asking for permission isn't required?

Around here, some parks have geocaching policies that allow caches that meet certain guidelines. Caches that meet those guidelines automatically have permission, and the cache owner doesn't need any additional permission.

 

Other areas have policies that prohibit caches, or that require a separate permit for each cache.

 

Other parks departments don't mind if you hide a cache, but won't take responsibility for anything if park personnel find the cache and throw it out.

[GOF and Bacall]

I guess I'm just wondering, are there places where asking for permission isn't required?

Around here, some parks have geocaching policies that allow caches that meet certain guidelines. Caches that meet those guidelines automatically have permission, and the cache owner doesn't need any additional permission.

 

Other areas have policies that prohibit caches, or that require a separate permit for each cache.

 

Other parks departments don't mind if you hide a cache, but won't take responsibility for anything if park personnel find the cache and throw it out.

Reasonable. At least it is if they aren't actively searching them out just so they can toss 'em.

 

I can imagine the competition they have. "I bagged 4 caches this week." "Hah! I got six this week so you gotta buy the beers again!"

[knowschad]

Shall I toss in the fact that sometimes a land manager/property owner would actually rather not have the responsibility of being asked, and so will say "no" when explicitly asked, yet otherwise look the other way?

 

Shall I toss in the issues that arise when permission has been granted, and the person that gives that permission either doesn't mention it to others, does not have the authority to give it, or simply moves away without passing along the fact that permission was given.

 

Nawww... I think instead I'll just hide and watch for someone else to mention those points.

[+brokenoaks]

Shall I toss in the fact that sometimes a land manager/property owner would actually rather not have the responsibility of being asked, and so will say "no" when explicitly asked, yet otherwise look the other way?

 

Well I was just going to sit on the sidelines and watch this but I have to ask, did you really write what you meant to say? as a land owner I take great offence of someone that would assume I don't want the responsibility for what takes place on my property! I highly advise that no one enter my or anyone's land without the owner's permission. and it's advisable to get it in writing.

[+tozainamboku]

While the term "adequate permission" is oft debated in these forum, it is a legitimate question for someone to ask.

 

There have been several good answers. Clearly if your local public parks have a geocaching policy, that is a good place to start. Often this is simply recognizing that geocaching is an activity that can be played at this park and goes no further. There is often no need to go to anyone for explicit permission. Some parks on the other hand have formal permitting processes where you need a permit to place the cache. Your local reviewer or a local geocaching group can fill you in on policy.

 

Sometimes people will point to the frisbee rule. Would you need to get permission to play frisbee here? While geocaching isn't frisbee, this is often not a bad position to take. If there is no policy in place regarding geocaching, many feel it can be assumed that if this is an area opened for public recreation and play that geocaching is like any other activity that would be allowed there. Of course sometimes some land manager gets the idea that geocachers are going to dig holes or cause environmental damage. In some case, where there has been some damage not related to a geocache, there have been park managers who have found it convenient to blame the geocaches that already exist in their park. Because of this some people feel that getting permission at least puts a face on geocaching for the park manager and this may prevent the blaming of some unrelated problem on geocachers.

 

Finally, if you ask permission you may find that some land owner/managers will be intrigued by the idea of a geocache on their property. But they won't give explicit permission as they may believe that may expose them for liability should a geocacher get hurt while searching for a cache. On the other hand they don't object to having a geocache there that didn't have their explicit permission. Given recreational use laws in many places, these owners really shouldn't worry about liability and may even be better off knowing about the geocache so they can make sure there are no other dangers near the geocache they might be responsible for.

[+sbell111]

Shall I toss in the fact that sometimes a land manager/property owner would actually rather not have the responsibility of being asked, and so will say "no" when explicitly asked, yet otherwise look the other way?

Well I was just going to sit on the sidelines and watch this but I have to ask, did you really write what you meant to say? as a land owner I take great offence of someone that would assume I don't want the responsibility for what takes place on my property! I highly advise that no one enter my or anyone's land without the owner's permission. and it's advisable to get it in writing.

Your position is certainly true regarding yourself, but certainly isn't representative of all land managers. Many managers might not personally mind geocaches on the property, but would not be comfortable having to take an official position on them. They will happily ignore caches placed without permission, but would likely deny explicit permission and certainly would never, ever give written permission. Edited November 23, 2009 by sbell111

[+Team Cotati]

Great cover being provided for those seeking 'permission' for doing that which they know down deep inside is wrong. Perhaps the guidelines have changed wrt the need for permission.

 

Maybe the idea is that if there is a cache on the land, that that indicates a green light for more so no permission beyond that is required.

 

Perhaps if you personally know a cache hider and he tells you that it is ok to place a cache on the property, then it is ok to place the cache?

 

Good job guys. Creative.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+sbell111]

Great cover being provided for those seeking 'permission' for doing that which they know down deep inside is wrong. Perhaps the guidelines have changed wrt the need for permission.

 

Maybe the idea is that if there is a cache on the land, that that indicates a green light for more so no permission beyond that is required.

 

Perhaps if you personally know a cache hider and he tells you that it is ok to place a cache on the property, then it is ok to place the cache?

 

Good job guys. Creative.

Does anyone have a clue what the naked guy meant in the bolded paragraph?

[+StarBrand]

Great cover being provided for those seeking 'permission' for doing that which they know down deep inside is wrong. Perhaps the guidelines have changed wrt the need for permission.

 

Maybe the idea is that if there is a cache on the land, that that indicates a green light for more so no permission beyond that is required.

 

Perhaps if you personally know a cache hider and he tells you that it is ok to place a cache on the property, then it is ok to place the cache?

 

Good job guys. Creative.

Does anyone have a clue what the naked guy meant in the bolded paragraph?

No but it is still fairly early in the morning.....

 

As for the Original Question: Ask where you must ask and follow the existing rules/guidelines where they exist and ask other local cachers to help id which is which.

[Clan Riffster]

Shall I toss in the fact that sometimes a land manager/property owner would actually rather not have the responsibility of being asked

There's a county park system near me that has stated, explicitly, that they do not want to know the details of caches on the properties they manage. They fear that, if they acknowledge them, they'll be held accountable should someone incur an injury hunting for one. Or so they say. Seminole County is even stranger. Their wooded areas are divided into two major groups, parks and wilderness areas, with different management. Parks management says caching is a benign, recreational activity, and they don't need to be notified. Wilderness Area management says caching is invasive, and they require a permit for each cache.

[+StarBrand]

The local Parks and Recreation department likes the idea of Geocaching but don't wish to be bothered by every Geocacher that wants to place a cache. They don't mention this on thier webpage - only the locals know - very important to contact other local cachers.

[knowschad]

Shall I toss in the fact that sometimes a land manager/property owner would actually rather not have the responsibility of being asked, and so will say "no" when explicitly asked, yet otherwise look the other way?

 

Well I was just going to sit on the sidelines and watch this but I have to ask, did you really write what you meant to say? as a land owner I take great offence of someone that would assume I don't want the responsibility for what takes place on my property! I highly advise that no one enter my or anyone's land without the owner's permission. and it's advisable to get it in writing.

Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was in no way defending those arguments. I only intended to say that those arguments have been made here in the past.

[+wimseyguy]

Great cover being provided for those seeking 'permission' for doing that which they know down deep inside is wrong. Perhaps the guidelines have changed wrt the need for permission.

 

Maybe the idea is that if there is a cache on the land, that that indicates a green light for more so no permission beyond that is required.

 

Perhaps if you personally know a cache hider and he tells you that it is ok to place a cache on the property, then it is ok to place the cache?

 

Good job guys. Creative.

Does anyone have a clue what the naked guy meant in the bolded paragraph post he made?

 

Rarely.

 

Back OT-check your local geocaching organization if there is one, or with a local reviewer. Ask what locations have existing policies for cache placements, and if there is anything else you need to know before placing one. It's a good idea to have a few potential locations in mind before asking.

[+Renegade Knight]

What Constitutes "Adequate" Permission?

 

It's like Fair Use. You will never know for sure until it's called into question.

 

I'll give you three examples at varying levels of "potentially called into question" where I'd not hesitate to place a cache.

 

1) The park has a policy that allows casual recreational activites, and no caching policy in specifit. Since caching is a casual recreational activity the policy covers caching. A cacher who hid a cache in that park has adequate permission.

 

2) A park has a caching policy. A cacher follows the policy. The cacher has adequate permission.

 

3) An open use area (meaning open space with no partcular policy) that's been used for casual recreational purposes. It would not be the kind of place a hunter would ask for permission by their own guidance. I'd have no qualms about placing a cache there since by long term use it's open for casual recreation.

 

The key thing is to consider that at any time the cache could be called into question. If you are ready to and willing to face the music with no worries about doing so, then you likely have "adequate permission".

Edited November 23, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+Team Cotati]

See somebody playing frisbee? Go hide a cache.

[+Woodstramp]

Sounds like just outright asking someone is by far the best direction then lol. Thanks, I'll just go in that direction then.

 

That has worked just fine for me. I wanted to clear a way to hide caches on public property in the small town of Ragland, Al. All I did was meet the Chief of police.

 

Same with a cemetery.....talked to the Pastor who has say-so over that property.

 

Same with some private land developer who allows public access to a walking track along a creek.

 

In all these cases all I had to do was explain the concept, show them some sample containers/GPS and give them the www.geocaching.com address to research themselves. Every one of these folks were quite friendly to the idea.

[+Renegade Knight]

Shall I toss in the fact that sometimes a land manager/property owner would actually rather not have the responsibility of being asked, and so will say "no" when explicitly asked, yet otherwise look the other way?

 

Well I was just going to sit on the sidelines and watch this but I have to ask, did you really write what you meant to say? as a land owner I take great offence of someone that would assume I don't want the responsibility for what takes place on my property! I highly advise that no one enter my or anyone's land without the owner's permission. and it's advisable to get it in writing.

 

You didn't grok what they actually said. Some land owners like the idea of plausable deniablity and you learn that from talking with them. However once that's known, then nobody should approach them again lest you actually go against their express wishes. That's different than assuming on their behalf.

 

Edit: Reding the OP's responce, maybe I didn't understand. Regardless I've seen this in action so I don't have a problem with it.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+brokenoaks]

Great cover being provided for those seeking 'permission' for doing that which they know down deep inside is wrong. Perhaps the guidelines have changed wrt the need for permission.

 

Maybe the idea is that if there is a cache on the land, that that indicates a green light for more so no permission beyond that is required.

 

Perhaps if you personally know a cache hider and he tells you that it is ok to place a cache on the property, then it is ok to place the cache?

 

Good job guys. Creative.

Does anyone have a clue what the naked guy meant in the bolded paragraph?

 

It's rather obvious what the naked guy meant. IF YOU ARE NOT SURE IF YOU SHOULD DO IT, DON'T! trying to justify it with semantics won't make it right. it's not difficult to understand. get the permission or find another spot to place a cache.

[+Team Cotati]

Shall I toss in the fact that sometimes a land manager/property owner would actually rather not have the responsibility of being asked, and so will say "no" when explicitly asked, yet otherwise look the other way?

 

Well I was just going to sit on the sidelines and watch this but I have to ask, did you really write what you meant to say? as a land owner I take great offence of someone that would assume I don't want the responsibility for what takes place on my property! I highly advise that no one enter my or anyone's land without the owner's permission. and it's advisable to get it in writing.

Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was in no way defending those arguments. I only intended to say that those arguments have been made here in the past.

 

You are quite correct on that point.

 

Those arguments have been being made for at least the past five years and continue to this day.

 

The more experienced cachers understand that new cachers look to them with a certain amount of respect for their experience and as such, that also carries a degree of responsibility. It is quite obvious that over the years, that the repetition of these ideas and concepts by experienced cachers has created the illusion of more or less blanket permission to hide caches in essentially any manner and location that strikes your fancy.

 

Of course this will be denied and that is to be expected. All I say is, look at the result as you go about geocaching and objectively determine for yourself that if you were the property or land owner/manager and you were not involved in the game of geocaching, how you would feel about some of the inappropriate hides that we see on an ever increasing basis.

 

Have mercy on the first Walmart store manager in Boise, Idaho who, five years ago, told some geocacher that it was ok to put a 35mm film can under a lamp post skirt waaaayyyy over there in the corner of the parking lot. Little did he know that he had just taken an action that would for evermore be interpreted as blanket permission to be repeated at every Walmart across the country.

 

Cracker Barrel Restaurants...........tell me another one.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+Team Cotati]

And here's a radical idea for you:

 

My firm belief that there are locations, that even if permission were somehow granted by the owner/manager, that they ought not be used as geocaching hiding locations for the simple reason that they reflect negatively upon the community and in some instances will draw the undesired attention of security staff at locations such as shopping malls and strip malls and college campuses and hospital grounds and business parks.....

 

Now if you visit a local park and see a guy, perhaps dressed in green work clothes mowing the grass or emptying the trash and you reasonably think that he is an employee of the parks dept. as evidenced by the little patch on his shirt, he tells you that the really neat little game that you just explained to him is ok, "as far as he is concerned", go hide that cache. Another cache hider in the area asks you if you think that it is ok to hide caches there? Of course it is, you got permission from a parks dept. employee after all.

 

Right, tell me another one.

[+Team Cotati]

Great cover being provided for those seeking 'permission' for doing that which they know down deep inside is wrong. Perhaps the guidelines have changed wrt the need for permission.

 

Maybe the idea is that if there is a cache on the land, that that indicates a green light for more so no permission beyond that is required.

 

Perhaps if you personally know a cache hider and he tells you that it is ok to place a cache on the property, then it is ok to place the cache?

 

Good job guys. Creative.

Does anyone have a clue what the naked guy meant in the bolded paragraph?

 

It's rather obvious what the naked guy meant. IF YOU ARE NOT SURE IF YOU SHOULD DO IT, DON'T! trying to justify it with semantics won't make it right. it's not difficult to understand. get the permission or find another spot to place a cache.

 

You think that it is obvious. I think that it obvious. Don't count on that idea going much farther.

[+Renegade Knight]

And here's a radical idea for you:

 

My firm belief that there are locations, that even if permission were somehow granted by the owner/manager, that they ought not be used as geocaching hiding locations for the simple reason that they reflect negatively upon the community and in some instances will draw the undesired attention of security staff at locations such as shopping malls and strip malls and college campuses and hospital grounds and business parks........

 

As a general rule locations under security camers and within the range of security guards are best avoided. I agree here.

[+sbell111]

Great cover being provided for those seeking 'permission' for doing that which they know down deep inside is wrong. Perhaps the guidelines have changed wrt the need for permission.

 

Maybe the idea is that if there is a cache on the land, that that indicates a green light for more so no permission beyond that is required.

 

Perhaps if you personally know a cache hider and he tells you that it is ok to place a cache on the property, then it is ok to place the cache?

 

Good job guys. Creative.

Does anyone have a clue what the naked guy meant in the bolded paragraph?

 

It's rather obvious what the naked guy meant. IF YOU ARE NOT SURE IF YOU SHOULD DO IT, DON'T! trying to justify it with semantics won't make it right. it's not difficult to understand. get the permission or find another spot to place a cache.

 

You think that it is obvious. I think that it obvious. Don't count on that idea going much farther.

Dude, you didn't use sentences or even real words. How could it be obvious?

[+uxorious]

And here's a radical idea for you:

 

My firm belief that there are locations, that even if permission were somehow granted by the owner/manager, that they ought not be used as geocaching hiding locations for the simple reason that they reflect negatively upon the community and in some instances will draw the undesired attention of security staff at locations such as shopping malls and strip malls and college campuses and hospital grounds and business parks.....

 

Now if you visit a local park and see a guy, perhaps dressed in green work clothes mowing the grass or emptying the trash and you reasonably think that he is an employee of the parks dept. as evidenced by the little patch on his shirt, he tells you that the really neat little game that you just explained to him is ok, "as far as he is concerned", go hide that cache. Another cache hider in the area asks you if you think that it is ok to hide caches there? Of course it is, you got permission from a parks dept. employee after all.

 

Right, tell me another one.

 

I don't know how a cache placed with permission granted by the owner/manager of a piece of property could reflect negatively on Geocaching.

 

I have found caches at strip malls, on college campuses and in business parks. Only once did I have a problem, and that was the first day or two the cache was out. The CO had gotten permission, but the people in the office where not made aware of it. The Doctor informed his staff of his permission after it was brought to his attention. That cache is going on a couple years and doing just fine.

 

If you visit a local park and see a guy, perhaps dressed in green work clothes mowing the grass or emptying the trash and you reasonably think that he is an employee of the parks dept. as evidenced by the little patch on his shirt, why would you think he would be the authority to ask for permission? Most people I know would not just ask anybody who happens to work for the place. Most people who take the time to try for permission would seek out someone who could give them that permission.

[knowschad]

If you visit a local park and see a guy, perhaps dressed in green work clothes mowing the grass or emptying the trash and you reasonably think that he is an employee of the parks dept. as evidenced by the little patch on his shirt, why would you think he would be the authority to ask for permission? Most people I know would not just ask anybody who happens to work for the place. Most people who take the time to try for permission would seek out someone who could give them that permission.

Of course you wouldn't!! You'd ask the guy that's still sitting in the pickup.

[+brokenoaks]

If you visit a local park and see a guy, perhaps dressed in green work clothes mowing the grass or emptying the trash and you reasonably think that he is an employee of the parks dept. as evidenced by the little patch on his shirt, why would you think he would be the authority to ask for permission? Most people I know would not just ask anybody who happens to work for the place. Most people who take the time to try for permission would seek out someone who could give them that permission.

Of course you wouldn't!! You'd ask the guy that's still sitting in the pickup.

 

good one Knowschad. I love it! kind of sums up this whole thread

[+Team Cotati]

And here's a radical idea for you:

 

My firm belief that there are locations, that even if permission were somehow granted by the owner/manager, that they ought not be used as geocaching hiding locations for the simple reason that they reflect negatively upon the community and in some instances will draw the undesired attention of security staff at locations such as shopping malls and strip malls and college campuses and hospital grounds and business parks.....

 

Now if you visit a local park and see a guy, perhaps dressed in green work clothes mowing the grass or emptying the trash and you reasonably think that he is an employee of the parks dept. as evidenced by the little patch on his shirt, he tells you that the really neat little game that you just explained to him is ok, "as far as he is concerned", go hide that cache. Another cache hider in the area asks you if you think that it is ok to hide caches there? Of course it is, you got permission from a parks dept. employee after all.

 

Right, tell me another one.

 

I don't know how a cache placed with permission granted by the owner/manager of a piece of property could reflect negatively on Geocaching.

 

I have found caches at strip malls, on college campuses and in business parks. Only once did I have a problem, and that was the first day or two the cache was out. The CO had gotten permission, but the people in the office where not made aware of it. The Doctor informed his staff of his permission after it was brought to his attention. That cache is going on a couple years and doing just fine.

 

If you visit a local park and see a guy, perhaps dressed in green work clothes mowing the grass or emptying the trash and you reasonably think that he is an employee of the parks dept. as evidenced by the little patch on his shirt, why would you think he would be the authority to ask for permission? Most people I know would not just ask anybody who happens to work for the place. Most people who take the time to try for permission would seek out someone who could give them that permission.

 

You might really believe that. My observations and experience tell me that that is not the case.

 

There will of course always be exceptions. Unfortunately exceptions do not really make the rule...except in here.

[Keystone]

Here is a tweaked version of my essay on this subject in 2006. The analysis hasn't changed significantly since then.

I am happy to assist you by outlining how Groundspeak and its volunteer cache reviewers handle the issue of permission for hidden caches. Much of what I am going to say is based on material lifted right out of the reviewer training manual (yes, there really is one, and I'm the poor sap who keeps it up-to-date). An understanding of these basic rules is part of the training protocol for new volunteer cache reviewers.

 

We start with the proposition that the hider of the cache is responsible for obtaining "adequate permission." Note that it says "adequate permission" in the guidelines -- NOT just "permission." We rely upon cache owners to think about this issue and make a determination about what permission is necessary. In submitting a cache report, the geocacher assures the listing service that adequate permission has been obtained, and the listing service assumes that this is the case. Geocaching.com is a listing service, not a guarantor of the proposition that every cache is placed with permission. But sometimes there are reasons why this assumption ought to be questioned. Here are some of them:

 

1. When a landowner / land manager such as a park system or a private land conservancy trust has a published geocaching policy that Groundspeak is aware of, then the volunteer cache reviewer will ask the cache owner about compliance with that policy. Knowing of the policy's existence, it is not appropriate to blindly assume compliance with the policy if no mention is made of this on the cache page. So we will ask whether a required permit has been obtained. We will point out that XYZ park system has banned geocaches, and ask whether the hider obtained permission despite that policy. Sometimes they do.

 

2. When a cache is hidden on land that is obviously private, like someone's back yard, it is unwise to blindly assume permission. Usually permission is stated or implied on the cache page ("this cache is hidden in our front yard -- please, no night caching"). If it isn't, the reviewer may ask about it. The guidelines require permission for caches hidden on private property. There's even a specific sentence about never ignoring a "no trespassing" sign.

 

3. Some locations are so sensitive in nature that it is unwise to assume that permission has been obtained, so specific listing guidelines have been adopted to guard against placements in those areas. Examples include airports, government buildings, school yards, dams and highway bridges. If the reviewer sees a cache in one of these locations, they will challenge the assumption of adequate permission by reference to these specific guidelines.

 

In most other cases -- ranging from suburban parks to shopping centers -- it is up to the cache owner to determine what constitutes "adequate permission." One cache owner might conclude that no formal permission at all is needed for a particular spot, while another will obtain written or oral permission for a different cache location because their instinct tells them that permission is a good idea. If the cache owner arrives at an unwarranted conclusion, the listing service will react to questions about permission. First, if a land owner / land manager requests removal of a cache placed without permission, Groundspeak's policy is to archive the cache unless and until the hider is able to straighten things out and provide an explanation of clear permission. Second, if another geocacher sees a cache location which causes them to have doubts about permission, they are welcome to raise their concern with the cache owner. If that is not productive, the geocacher may contact the website, contact a volunteer reviewer, or place a "needs archived" log on the cache page. The system is thus largely self-policing in this majority of circumstances.

 

I hope that you find this explanation helpful. It is not intended as a complete statement of the listing guidelines and procedures for dealing with permission issues, but rather as a summary. These are my words, and not Groundspeak's. The listing guidelines, and their application to specific fact situations by Groundspeak and its volunteers, always control.

[+Opalblade]

Thanks, this was very useful

 

Here is a tweaked version of my essay on this subject in 2006. The analysis hasn't changed significantly since then.

I am happy to assist you by outlining how Groundspeak and its volunteer cache reviewers handle the issue of permission for hidden caches. Much of what I am going to say is based on material lifted right out of the reviewer training manual (yes, there really is one, and I'm the poor sap who keeps it up-to-date). An understanding of these basic rules is part of the training protocol for new volunteer cache reviewers.

 

We start with the proposition that the hider of the cache is responsible for obtaining "adequate permission." Note that it says "adequate permission" in the guidelines -- NOT just "permission." We rely upon cache owners to think about this issue and make a determination about what permission is necessary. In submitting a cache report, the geocacher assures the listing service that adequate permission has been obtained, and the listing service assumes that this is the case. Geocaching.com is a listing service, not a guarantor of the proposition that every cache is placed with permission. But sometimes there are reasons why this assumption ought to be questioned. Here are some of them:

 

1. When a landowner / land manager such as a park system or a private land conservancy trust has a published geocaching policy that Groundspeak is aware of, then the volunteer cache reviewer will ask the cache owner about compliance with that policy. Knowing of the policy's existence, it is not appropriate to blindly assume compliance with the policy if no mention is made of this on the cache page. So we will ask whether a required permit has been obtained. We will point out that XYZ park system has banned geocaches, and ask whether the hider obtained permission despite that policy. Sometimes they do.

 

2. When a cache is hidden on land that is obviously private, like someone's back yard, it is unwise to blindly assume permission. Usually permission is stated or implied on the cache page ("this cache is hidden in our front yard -- please, no night caching"). If it isn't, the reviewer may ask about it. The guidelines require permission for caches hidden on private property. There's even a specific sentence about never ignoring a "no trespassing" sign.

 

3. Some locations are so sensitive in nature that it is unwise to assume that permission has been obtained, so specific listing guidelines have been adopted to guard against placements in those areas. Examples include airports, government buildings, school yards, dams and highway bridges. If the reviewer sees a cache in one of these locations, they will challenge the assumption of adequate permission by reference to these specific guidelines.

 

In most other cases -- ranging from suburban parks to shopping centers -- it is up to the cache owner to determine what constitutes "adequate permission." One cache owner might conclude that no formal permission at all is needed for a particular spot, while another will obtain written or oral permission for a different cache location because their instinct tells them that permission is a good idea. If the cache owner arrives at an unwarranted conclusion, the listing service will react to questions about permission. First, if a land owner / land manager requests removal of a cache placed without permission, Groundspeak's policy is to archive the cache unless and until the hider is able to straighten things out and provide an explanation of clear permission. Second, if another geocacher sees a cache location which causes them to have doubts about permission, they are welcome to raise their concern with the cache owner. If that is not productive, the geocacher may contact the website, contact a volunteer reviewer, or place a "needs archived" log on the cache page. The system is thus largely self-policing in this majority of circumstances.

 

I hope that you find this explanation helpful. It is not intended as a complete statement of the listing guidelines and procedures for dealing with permission issues, but rather as a summary. These are my words, and not Groundspeak's. The listing guidelines, and their application to specific fact situations by Groundspeak and its volunteers, always control.

[+Team Cotati]

Here is a tweaked version of my essay on this subject in 2006. The analysis hasn't changed significantly since then.

I am happy to assist you by outlining how Groundspeak and its volunteer cache reviewers handle the issue of permission for hidden caches. Much of what I am going to say is based on material lifted right out of the reviewer training manual (yes, there really is one, and I'm the poor sap who keeps it up-to-date). An understanding of these basic rules is part of the training protocol for new volunteer cache reviewers.

 

We start with the proposition that the hider of the cache is responsible for obtaining "adequate permission." Note that it says "adequate permission" in the guidelines -- NOT just "permission." We rely upon cache owners to think about this issue and make a determination about what permission is necessary. In submitting a cache report, the geocacher assures the listing service that adequate permission has been obtained, and the listing service assumes that this is the case. Geocaching.com is a listing service, not a guarantor of the proposition that every cache is placed with permission. But sometimes there are reasons why this assumption ought to be questioned. Here are some of them:

 

1. When a landowner / land manager such as a park system or a private land conservancy trust has a published geocaching policy that Groundspeak is aware of, then the volunteer cache reviewer will ask the cache owner about compliance with that policy. Knowing of the policy's existence, it is not appropriate to blindly assume compliance with the policy if no mention is made of this on the cache page. So we will ask whether a required permit has been obtained. We will point out that XYZ park system has banned geocaches, and ask whether the hider obtained permission despite that policy. Sometimes they do.

 

2. When a cache is hidden on land that is obviously private, like someone's back yard, it is unwise to blindly assume permission. Usually permission is stated or implied on the cache page ("this cache is hidden in our front yard -- please, no night caching"). If it isn't, the reviewer may ask about it. The guidelines require permission for caches hidden on private property. There's even a specific sentence about never ignoring a "no trespassing" sign.

 

3. Some locations are so sensitive in nature that it is unwise to assume that permission has been obtained, so specific listing guidelines have been adopted to guard against placements in those areas. Examples include airports, government buildings, school yards, dams and highway bridges. If the reviewer sees a cache in one of these locations, they will challenge the assumption of adequate permission by reference to these specific guidelines.

 

In most other cases -- ranging from suburban parks to shopping centers -- it is up to the cache owner to determine what constitutes "adequate permission." One cache owner might conclude that no formal permission at all is needed for a particular spot, while another will obtain written or oral permission for a different cache location because their instinct tells them that permission is a good idea. If the cache owner arrives at an unwarranted conclusion, the listing service will react to questions about permission. First, if a land owner / land manager requests removal of a cache placed without permission, Groundspeak's policy is to archive the cache unless and until the hider is able to straighten things out and provide an explanation of clear permission. Second, if another geocacher sees a cache location which causes them to have doubts about permission, they are welcome to raise their concern with the cache owner. If that is not productive, the geocacher may contact the website, contact a volunteer reviewer, or place a "needs archived" log on the cache page. The system is thus largely self-policing in this majority of circumstances.

 

I hope that you find this explanation helpful. It is not intended as a complete statement of the listing guidelines and procedures for dealing with permission issues, but rather as a summary. These are my words, and not Groundspeak's. The listing guidelines, and their application to specific fact situations by Groundspeak and its volunteers, always control.

 

What would be the expected follow up actions as a result of doing this: "place a "needs archived" log on the cache page."?

[+sbell111]

Here is a tweaked version of my essay on this subject in 2006. The analysis hasn't changed significantly since then.

I am happy to assist you by outlining how Groundspeak and its volunteer cache reviewers handle the issue of permission for hidden caches. Much of what I am going to say is based on material lifted right out of the reviewer training manual (yes, there really is one, and I'm the poor sap who keeps it up-to-date). An understanding of these basic rules is part of the training protocol for new volunteer cache reviewers.

 

We start with the proposition that the hider of the cache is responsible for obtaining "adequate permission." Note that it says "adequate permission" in the guidelines -- NOT just "permission." We rely upon cache owners to think about this issue and make a determination about what permission is necessary. In submitting a cache report, the geocacher assures the listing service that adequate permission has been obtained, and the listing service assumes that this is the case. Geocaching.com is a listing service, not a guarantor of the proposition that every cache is placed with permission. But sometimes there are reasons why this assumption ought to be questioned. Here are some of them:

 

1. When a landowner / land manager such as a park system or a private land conservancy trust has a published geocaching policy that Groundspeak is aware of, then the volunteer cache reviewer will ask the cache owner about compliance with that policy. Knowing of the policy's existence, it is not appropriate to blindly assume compliance with the policy if no mention is made of this on the cache page. So we will ask whether a required permit has been obtained. We will point out that XYZ park system has banned geocaches, and ask whether the hider obtained permission despite that policy. Sometimes they do.

 

2. When a cache is hidden on land that is obviously private, like someone's back yard, it is unwise to blindly assume permission. Usually permission is stated or implied on the cache page ("this cache is hidden in our front yard -- please, no night caching"). If it isn't, the reviewer may ask about it. The guidelines require permission for caches hidden on private property. There's even a specific sentence about never ignoring a "no trespassing" sign.

 

3. Some locations are so sensitive in nature that it is unwise to assume that permission has been obtained, so specific listing guidelines have been adopted to guard against placements in those areas. Examples include airports, government buildings, school yards, dams and highway bridges. If the reviewer sees a cache in one of these locations, they will challenge the assumption of adequate permission by reference to these specific guidelines.

 

In most other cases -- ranging from suburban parks to shopping centers -- it is up to the cache owner to determine what constitutes "adequate permission." One cache owner might conclude that no formal permission at all is needed for a particular spot, while another will obtain written or oral permission for a different cache location because their instinct tells them that permission is a good idea. If the cache owner arrives at an unwarranted conclusion, the listing service will react to questions about permission. First, if a land owner / land manager requests removal of a cache placed without permission, Groundspeak's policy is to archive the cache unless and until the hider is able to straighten things out and provide an explanation of clear permission. Second, if another geocacher sees a cache location which causes them to have doubts about permission, they are welcome to raise their concern with the cache owner. If that is not productive, the geocacher may contact the website, contact a volunteer reviewer, or place a "needs archived" log on the cache page. The system is thus largely self-policing in this majority of circumstances.

 

I hope that you find this explanation helpful. It is not intended as a complete statement of the listing guidelines and procedures for dealing with permission issues, but rather as a summary. These are my words, and not Groundspeak's. The listing guidelines, and their application to specific fact situations by Groundspeak and its volunteers, always control.

 

What would be the expected follow up actions as a result of doing this: "place a "needs archived" log on the cache page."?

One would reasonably expect that the reviewer would react to the situation based on the reasons given in the 'needs archived' log. That may mean that the cache is archived immediately and the cache owner should go through the appeals process to have the cache reactivated. It may mean that pertainent questions are asked of the cache owner. It may mean that no action is taken.

[Keystone]

sbell111 sums up the available options quite nicely. A reviewer relies on their experience to judge what's appropriate in each particular case. "When they released me, the police asked me to have this cache removed" would get a different response than "I'm not sure if I came at this cache from the right direction, but I saw a faded "posted" sign on a tree."

 

Here is a form letter I use a lot:

Hello, I was summoned here by the "needs archived" log. I am temporarily disabling this listing.

 

Cache owner, please confirm that you have permission for your cache to be hidden at this location. Please only re-enable your cache if you can add this statement. If you do not have permission, please either obtain permission or archive your listing.

 

Thank you,

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

[knowschad]

"When they released me, the police asked me to have this cache removed" would get a different response than "I'm not sure if I came at this cache from the right direction, but I saw a faded "posted" sign on a tree."

Has anybody ever complimented you on your communication skills? In that area, you rock!

[+Team Cotati]

Which part of the essay do you think best covers the placement of guardrail caches on city, county, state and federal roadways?

[knowschad]

Which part of the essay do you think best covers the placement of guardrail caches on city, county, state and federal roadways?

 

 

In most other cases -- ranging from suburban parks to shopping centers -- it is up to the cache owner to determine what constitutes "adequate permission." One cache owner might conclude that no formal permission at all is needed for a particular spot,

 

[CoyoteRed]

So, what exactly constitutes "adequate" in these cases for those of you who are experienced hiders?

First, "adequate" means that you think you have enough permission to place a cache. This is something the cache owner has to determine. It's okay if you get it wrong at times, but you need to put some thought into it. The cache note (you do put one in, right?) is there for those "oopsie" times.

 

"Explicit permission" is the type of permission of when you ask for and receive positive permission. "Yes, you can place a cache." It might have to be written or even a permit. Good examples of these types are for places that are private and/or restricted in some way. Private residential or business property that is not consistent with recreation. Recreational areas were you have to pay to enter. Etc.

 

"Implicit permission" is where you are invited to recreate or be there for whatever reason. The area is for folks to have fun and there to be used. Good candidates for not asking for permission, but doesn't hurt to do so.

 

"Wink permission" (term not commonly used) is the type of permission where you ask for permission and the authority says, "Well, for legal reasons I can't say 'yes,' but I'm not going to say 'no' either, if-you-know-what-I-mean." These, I've found, are the most common responses you'll get. Less so nowadays that geocaching is becoming more mainstream. This the reason to make rules that say you must get explicit permission, because if you're going to force either a 'yes' or 'no' in these situations it's going to be 'no.'

 

"No permission required:" no such thing. You either have adequate permission or no permission. I do believe there are times where you don't need to seek permission as in the implicit permission examples above, but if you have no permission then the cache shouldn't be placed.

 

Also, be aware there can be multiple authorities over one bit of land. Here in South Carolina, if I wanted to place a cache along the Palmetto Trail and was required to get explicit permission from each authority some of our caches would need permission from Westvaco (a timber company), US Forest Service (part of it is in a National forest,) SC Department of Natural Resources (part of it is in a Wildlife Management Area,) and the Palmetto Conservation Foundation (which maintains the trail.) When I first placed the caches I had contacted an official (very high ranking) with Westvaco who told me that after consulting with company lawyers he couldn't give me explicit permission, "but the land is there for recreation and considering geocaching is recreation... If you know what I mean." (Direct quote as best as I remember it.) However, now the DNR has flexed some muscle trumping Westvaco's authority with getting a law passed limiting geocaching on lands it owns or regulates. Yet, The Palmetto Foundation has set forth a permit scheme with no apparent coordination with the DNR, USFS, or Westvaco. A permission quagmire to say the least.

 

You do need to do your homework. Hope this helps.