Caches placed without permission

[+Cptnodegard]

During a forum thread on a local forum where the topic was multicaches I said something in passing that made the local reviewer see red for no apparent reason. The result was that he said something that to me seemed extremely backwards due to the implications it would have.

 

I work at a museum where there are two caches that are placed without permission in the outdoor area. Via me the administration is now aware of them and have no issue with them being there, so it doesn't matter in the slightest and I'm glad they're there. The topic in said forum thread was what the 0.1 mile rule applied to, only caches or also steps in a multicache. I wrote that if it applied to steps in a multicache, the caches at the museum would have to be removed because I'm planning a multicache on the musem that would take people on a tour of the museum park. This is a cache that both has permission (of course) and will likely be done in cooperation with the museum (add some swag from the gift shop, maybe hide the cache in a building etc). I didn't believe the rules would mean that was necessary and wrote it as an example of a situation which would then be very annoying if the rules were "that bad" (which they aren't, don't comment on multicache rules as that's NOT the point here). However, the cache reviewer almost seemed angry that I had suggested removing a cache to place my own, regardless of the fact that the two were placed without permission and regardless of the fact that it was a hypotethical scenario. According to him, if no-one has an issue with them being there, that is the same as permission being given. If I had asked the owner to remove the current caches to place my own sanctioned cache, it would have been rejected by him as the reviewer.

 

I find this extremely peculiar because of the implications it has. Basically this means that if I own a forest or some sort of land and plan to place a cache on the property I own, someone else can place a cache there without my permission and thereby block me from utilizing my own land to place caches. This sounds outright dumb to me as it half way encourages placing caches without permission. I don't pwn any land and would frankly prefer to have other people place caches so I don't have the expense of placing them and can log them myself, so this is all hypotethical.

 

I know that a single reviewer saying something doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things, I just wanted to see what other people thought of this.

[+Touchstone]

The crux of the matter from my detached point of view of this issue would appear to be the following:

 

I work at a museum...

 

In what capacity do you work at the Museum? An employee? A Volunteer?

 

You clearly stated that the Administrator of the Museum, who has the actual authority to grant permission, has already stated that they have no issue with the existing caches on the Museum property.

 

From what you've stated, it sounds as if you are using your influence, by virtue of your capacity at the Museum, to get a couple of Listings Archived to make room for yours?

 

That doesn't sound like you're playing in the sand box too fairly to me.

 

In your second paragraph you state:

 

if I own a forest....

 

Likewise, if you owned the Museum (or were in a position to grant permission....which it sounds as if you're not), then there would be no doubt that you have the right to do with your land as you please (assuming all local laws apply).

[GOF and Bacall]

If you fight for it you may get the offending caches removed. Or at least archived. However, I doubt you will make any friends. You can be a great guy and say "Hey, I got permission for your cache." or you can be a jerk and say "Move your cache 'cause I gots permission and you don't!" Up to you.

[+palmetto]

If a land owner or property manager requests that caches placed on their lands be archived, they will be - whether or not those caches initially had permission.

 

If they then grant permission for new caches, those caches will be published.

[4wheelin_fool]

There is 3 levels of permission: adequate, blanket, and explicit.

 

All caches require "adequate" which only means that the area is open to all, and nobody would have any issues with it being there.

 

Blanket permission would mean that the land managers know, and allow caches, but do not have any info about any particular cache.

 

Explicit means that the land manager knows intimate details about the hide, and exactly where it is. They also may have the cachers phone number, or other contact info.

 

You could remove the adequate permission caches, ( muggle ) and replace with a explicit permission cache, but you will get no friends that way, and there is a very good chance your cache would get muggled. I would not muggle it, but would probably ignore it.

[CoyoteRed]

What happened to the idea that if you're looking to place a cache and an existing cache was too close, you could ask the other owner to move his cache? (Yeah, I know it was bogus then just as it is bogus now. Most take offense to moving their cache for whatever reason--unless it's a really good one.)

 

Otherwise I agree with the others in that using your influence with the museum to have established caches removed in order to place your own is a little cheesy. This is a lot different that the museum asking the cache be removed in order for them to place their own caches.

[+Chokecherry]

Here's my thought on it. If it were me and I discovered some caches and then got those caches permission to be there instead calling it my territory I would approach the current cache owners and help them update their descriptions with information important about the museum etc.

 

I know a couple places where caches would be nice and discovered there were caches already there. So basically my feeling is good for those people and if they need any help with them they can let me know and I'll help them out. I don't need to mark my territory and bully them out.

[+va griz]

the administration is now aware of them and have no issue with them being there

 

They may have been placed without permission but you have now verified that they are there with permission. Unless you get the administration to revoke the permission* I don't see why they would be archived.

 

*You may well be able to force that issue, but my 2 cents worth: I agree with the reviewer, working behind the scenes to get someone elses cache archived is underhanded.

[+buttaskotch]

Somehow I am not seeing what the past few responders see. I don't see where Cptnodegard says he would not get the other caches removed and that he likes them there.

 

IMO Cptnodegard is asking if its ok that the reviewer has said that if he got the caches archived that the new caches would be "rejected by him as the reviewer."

That act would seem like retailation to me rather than being judicious as a reviewer.

 

Is is to ok get the other caches archived because of the initial no permission granted, yes. Is it the right thing to do now that the administrators know about it, maybe not. Nothing Cptnodegard has said in my opinion would be in violation of playing the game "his way"

[+brslk]

Somehow I am not seeing what the past few responders see. I don't see where Cptnodegard says he would not get the other caches removed and that he likes them there.

 

IMO Cptnodegard is asking if its ok that the reviewer has said that if he got the caches archived that the new caches would be "rejected by him as the reviewer."

That act would seem like retailation to me rather than being judicious as a reviewer.

 

Is is to ok get the other caches archived because of the initial no permission granted, yes. Is it the right thing to do now that the administrators know about it, maybe not. Nothing Cptnodegard has said in my opinion would be in violation of playing the game "his way"

 

That's what I saw also. And then people read into things.

[Keystone]

I just had something similar to this happen in my review territory. An organization wanted to hide a cache at their building, and due to a proximity conflict they asked for an existing cache to be archived. It had been there for several years, at least "tolerated" if not "permitted."

 

Once the existing cache was archived, I published the new one.

 

Since then, some local geocachers have chosen to place their "bogus" puzzle cache coordinates and virtual first stages of multicaches right on the same property. I published those, too. The map is now pretty cluttered with icons.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

...However, the cache reviewer almost seemed angry that I had suggested removing a cache to place my own, regardless of the fact that the two were placed without permission and regardless of the fact that it was a hypotethical scenario. According to him, if no-one has an issue with them being there, that is the same as permission being given. If I had asked the owner to remove the current caches to place my own sanctioned cache, it would have been rejected by him as the reviewer...

Got that in writing? Send it to Groundspeak, along with the WHOLE story, which we often don't get here.

[+brslk]

This whole idea could and should be left to die. It does not foster friendly feelings amongst anyone.

 

I have no desire to make a person move their cache.

I have no desire to have it removed even if I could.

I have no desire to be the guy that does that.

Most importantly, I have no desire to make a friend or enemy of a reviewer.

 

The world is large and there are plenty of places to place caches.

 

Sure... your favorite spot might be gone but hey... it might have been their favorite spot also.

 

or maybe they just had a micro to put in a spruce tree...

 

such is life.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Reach out to the cache owners of the two existing caches and work with them to make them part of your multi-cache tour?

[+Vater_Araignee]

Somehow I am not seeing what the past few responders see. I don't see where Cptnodegard says he would not get the other caches removed and that he likes them there.

 

IMO Cptnodegard is asking if its ok that the reviewer has said that if he got the caches archived that the new caches would be "rejected by him as the reviewer."

That act would seem like retailation to me rather than being judicious as a reviewer.

 

Is is to ok get the other caches archived because of the initial no permission granted, yes. Is it the right thing to do now that the administrators know about it, maybe not. Nothing Cptnodegard has said in my opinion would be in violation of playing the game "his way"

 

That's what I saw also. And then people read into things.

Same here.

"likely be done in cooperation with the museum" I thought that stuck out, to bad people choose to ignore so they can self justify their opinions.

 

I don't know if the caches could be included as legs of a multi and get listed as one but they can be set up as part of a multi and be listed as an unknown cache. I have seen unknowns listed as multies so who knows.

[Hazelette]

I'm planning a multicache on the museum that would take people on a tour of the museum park. This is a cache that both has permission (of course) and will likely be done in cooperation with the museum (add some swag from the gift shop, maybe hide the cache in a building etc).

I'm probably too new to jump into this debate, but one thing stood out to me. "...be done in cooperation with the museum (add some swag from the gift shop, maybe hide the cache in a building etc)." If this were the case, it would be the museums cache, with cptnodegard as the caretaker/facilitator/coordinator/maintenance-man.

 

Looking at this from a newbie perspective, where its more an issue of what is fair vs what is standard practice... It is museum's right to use their own grounds as they see fit, to promote themselves, and to change their policy for amnesty on the existing unauthorized caches. The museum would be treated unjustly by the reviewer if he were to refuse the new cache, and I can't imagine he (reviewer) would be able to justify him actions.

 

Now, if this is not done in conjunction with the museum management, then that opens up many other viewpoints (most of which have already been mentioned.)

Edited May 17, 2010 by Hazelette

[+Cptnodegard]

A surprising amount of people seem to be unable to read properly, but I'm glad the last few posters are. As I said, this is a hypotethical scenario because the rules don't make it necessary to have the other caches removed. The scenario was only viable if the absolutely worst case scenario was true that no multicache step could be within 0.1 miles of the existing caches, because they are placed at the two most "exhibit heavy" areas of the outdoor museum and would then have blocked all and every possibility of making a multicache there. The purpose of the cache in the first place is to make the museum a nice place to visit for geocachers by providing a cache that is fun to find and has a LOT of swag for children (this is the cache that will be used: http://andreasodegard.com/wp-content/uploa...che-teaser.jpg), compared to the other two that are traditional nano caches and more of a grown up filler cache. Even if the worst case scenario would have been the case I would have dropped the idea of amulticache and instead made it a regular cache somewhere outside the 0.1 mile radius so the point here is NOT this particular case, but the implications that this example brings.

 

First off, premission. I think it's NOT the same to have permission in the first place as it is to not have the cache removed afterwards. In this particular case, both caches are placed on museum exhibits directly; one with a nail on something that holds an object, the other with a magnet directly on another. In the case of those two it's ok that geocachers grope them, climb them to look etc but that wouldn't have been the case with other exhibits nearby. One of them is also an exhibit that might be moved for maintanance or other reasons. If the cache owner had asked permission he would likely have been told to put them somewhere else at least in the case of one of the caches, but now that they are there no-one is going to force him to move them because the issues are minor. As I said, the point here is the principle, not the specific case. No one cares if they are there and I'm glad they are as those caches are what got me into geocaching- I don't have anything against the cache owner which is great and Iæm only interestied in discussing the principle. The same situation might arise if you placed a cache somewhere and the land owner would rather have had you place it somewhere else or not at all, but now that it's there it's not worth being "the bad guy" to force someone to remove it. Hence, giving permission is not the same as "asking for forgiveness", the latter is just easier.

 

The second point was what this mean for people with private property. Even though the reviewer in this case probably isn't right and others wouldn't deny posting a cache after having others removed/moved, it does raise the point about making enemies this way. Personally, as I've stated, I prefer finding caches rather than placing them so unless there were very special circumstances I wouldn't care if someone placed a cache on my property, but I imagine this would raise issues with others.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Cptnodegard

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The funny part of all this will come when the two existing caches get archived, the museum gets on board to host the caches, donates stuff from their store to put in the new caches... and they get denied for being commercial caches, so there will be no cache there at all!

[+Cptnodegard]

I've already checked with the reviewer on that note and he had no problem with that part of it. After all we're talking about the outdoor part of a free, public government run museum. There is no commercial gain other than to show the museum, which is no different than caches put out by state parks or things like that.

[+entogeek]

Not even going to wade in on the permission thing here. But if the existing caches are too close for the stages of your multi, then instead of physical multi stages, include them as Answer to a Question. That way you can still have your tour. This happened to me when I went to hide a cache. Turns out it was too close to a stage of a multi. But the stage was a virtual (count the number of windows on a building). The reviewer suggested, and the CO was kind enough to change the stage to Answer to a Question and my cache was published.

[knowschad]

If you fight for it you may get the offending caches removed. Or at least archived. However, I doubt you will make any friends. You can be a great guy and say "Hey, I got permission for your cache." or you can be a jerk and say "Move your cache 'cause I gots permission and you don't!" Up to you.

The reply is all that really needs to be said. Any issues of permission, proximity, etc. are moot. Your reputation in your local caching community needs to be considered above all else.

[+brslk]

If you fight for it you may get the offending caches removed. Or at least archived. However, I doubt you will make any friends. You can be a great guy and say "Hey, I got permission for your cache." or you can be a jerk and say "Move your cache 'cause I gots permission and you don't!" Up to you.

The reply is all that really needs to be said. Any issues of permission, proximity, etc. are moot. Your reputation in your local caching community needs to be considered above all else.

I agree with this strongly. I may not attend my local fellow caching peoples meet and greets but someday I might. I would hate to be ostracized by my local cachers.

 

I would also hate to pee people off and have them avoid or even misplace my caches.

 

(I do not avoid local meet and greets because I do not like the people. I am anti-social.)

 

I don't hate people, I just feel better when they aren't around.

[+va griz]

I guess I can't read properly.

 

On the one hand you say you have found a way to place the cache and still be clear of the existing caches. (Nice container by the way)

 

On the other you seem to have gone to a lot of effort and justification to find a hypothetical way to get those existing caches archived.

 

If it's the former you have my support and admiration.

[+Cptnodegard]

To clearify further; when the orignal thread on the other forum was started, one of the questions were whether the 0.1 rule also applied to ANY step in a multicache- not just physical, but any step whatsoever. The scenario I posted with having caches removed was only valid in the worst case scenario from my uninformed point of view that no multicache step would be allowed within 0.1 miles of other caches, because that would have made it physically impossible to do a multicache at the museum because the caches are placed within 0.1 miles of most of the major outdoor exhibits. There's no way in hell I ever WANTED the other caches removed, it was just one possible solution if the rules were as bad as i feared (which they of course aren't) and the real point of this was the reviewer's reaction and what it means on a general basis in terms of similar situations, especially in terms of "blocking" cache placement by the land owner by placing "illagel" caches on the area.

[knowschad]

To clearify further; when the orignal thread on the other forum was started, one of the questions were whether the 0.1 rule also applied to ANY step in a multicache- not just physical, but any step whatsoever. The scenario I posted with having caches removed was only valid in the worst case scenario from my uninformed point of view that no multicache step would be allowed within 0.1 miles of other caches, because that would have made it physically impossible to do a multicache at the museum because the caches are placed within 0.1 miles of most of the major outdoor exhibits. There's no way in hell I ever WANTED the other caches removed, it was just one possible solution if the rules were as bad as i feared (which they of course aren't) and the real point of this was the reviewer's reaction and what it means on a general basis in terms of similar situations, especially in terms of "blocking" cache placement by the land owner by placing "illagel" caches on the area.

 

So, you do know understand that it is only physical stages of a multicache that you would need to concern yourself with, right? Question-to-answer stages are not included in the proximity guidelines.

[+sbell111]

... First off, premission. I think it's NOT the same to have permission in the first place as it is to not have the cache removed afterwards. In this particular case, both caches are placed on museum exhibits directly; one with a nail on something that holds an object, the other with a magnet directly on another. In the case of those two it's ok that geocachers grope them, climb them to look etc but that wouldn't have been the case with other exhibits nearby. One of them is also an exhibit that might be moved for maintanance or other reasons. If the cache owner had asked permission he would likely have been told to put them somewhere else at least in the case of one of the caches, but now that they are there no-one is going to force him to move them because the issues are minor. As I said, the point here is the principle, not the specific case. No one cares if they are there and I'm glad they are as those caches are what got me into geocaching- I don't have anything against the cache owner which is great and Iæm only interestied in discussing the principle. The same situation might arise if you placed a cache somewhere and the land owner would rather have had you place it somewhere else or not at all, but now that it's there it's not worth being "the bad guy" to force someone to remove it. Hence, giving permission is not the same as "asking for forgiveness", the latter is just easier. ...

Regardless of whether the cache owners asked permission, the land manager knows about the caches and is not requesting their removal. In other words, the land manager is permitting them to remain. Those caches have now received permission from the land manager.

[+Cptnodegard]

To clearify further; when the orignal thread on the other forum was started, one of the questions were whether the 0.1 rule also applied to ANY step in a multicache- not just physical, but any step whatsoever. The scenario I posted with having caches removed was only valid in the worst case scenario from my uninformed point of view that no multicache step would be allowed within 0.1 miles of other caches, because that would have made it physically impossible to do a multicache at the museum because the caches are placed within 0.1 miles of most of the major outdoor exhibits. There's no way in hell I ever WANTED the other caches removed, it was just one possible solution if the rules were as bad as i feared (which they of course aren't) and the real point of this was the reviewer's reaction and what it means on a general basis in terms of similar situations, especially in terms of "blocking" cache placement by the land owner by placing "illagel" caches on the area.

 

So, you do know understand that it is only physical stages of a multicache that you would need to concern yourself with, right? Question-to-answer stages are not included in the proximity guidelines.

 

yeah I know that now. Someone thought it wasn't back in said thread, hence I was unsure.

[Andronicus]

If you fight for it you may get the offending caches removed. Or at least archived. However, I doubt you will make any friends. You can be a great guy and say "Hey, I got permission for your cache." or you can be a jerk and say "Move your cache 'cause I gots permission and you don't!" Up to you.

The reply is all that really needs to be said. Any issues of permission, proximity, etc. are moot. Your reputation in your local caching community needs to be considered above all else.

 

The following is what could happen if you don't consider how other cachers will interpret your actions.

 

Cpt Nodegard shows up at his first caching event very exited.

 

Local cacher: Hi. I haven't seen you around before, I'm bob aka cacherbob. Who are you.

Cpt nodegard: Hi, I am Joe, aka Cpt nodegard.

Local cacher (Bob): Oh...Cpt nodegard...nice to meet you...Um...I have to go ...um... to the ...um... bathroom. See you around...

 

Cpt nodegard notices that Bob dosen't go to the bathroom. He sees him over wispering to all the other local cachers. Cpt nodegard ends up sitting by himself, while no one will talk to him.

[+OienLabs]

I don't think Cptnodegard is a bad guy.

He has just been a little bit unlucky expressing himself.

Can happen to anyone when exited.

 

I have done so once or twice myself. Maybe it is sound?

 

Come age come experience.

 

And I am about to become experienced (I think/hope).

[+briansnat]

If they know about the cache and tolerate it then the cache is there with permission, albeit tacit. Once they request that it be archived for any reason, including placement of their own cache, then permission has been revoked.

[+Cptnodegard]

I give up. I've tried to explain the point of the thread being a discussion of something on a general basis and NOT IN ANY WAY A SPECIFIC INSTANCE. The "story" i posted was a hypotethical scenario and not in any way something that would happen. Yet some people (not all, some of those posting have actually understood my point) keep posting things that has absolutely nothing to do with the point whatsoever.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Cptnodegard

[+Chokecherry]

You gave no indication that this was a hypothetical situation.

[+Cptnodegard]

You gave no indication that this was a hypothetical situation.

 

I feel at loss for words here, I have a hard time deciding if this post was meant as sarcasm or something like that, or if you're just, well, dense. Here are quotes from three seperate posts I've made in this forum, which supports the latter:

 

However, the cache reviewer almost seemed angry that I had suggested removing a cache to place my own, regardless of the fact that the two were placed without permission and regardless of the fact that it was a hypotethical scenario.

 

A surprising amount of people seem to be unable to read properly, but I'm glad the last few posters are. As I said, this is a hypotethical scenario because the rules don't make it necessary to have the other caches removed.

 

To clearify further; when the orignal thread on the other forum was started, one of the questions were whether the 0.1 rule also applied to ANY step in a multicache- not just physical, but any step whatsoever. The scenario I posted with having caches removed was only valid in the worst case scenario from my uninformed point of view that no multicache step would be allowed within 0.1 miles of other caches

 

I'm not trying to be rude, I genuinely don't understand how someone can post what you just did with those three examples in the same thread

Edited May 18, 2010 by Cptnodegard

[+OienLabs]

However, the cache reviewer almost seemed angry that I had suggested removing a cache to place my own, regardless of the fact that the two were placed without permission and regardless of the fact that it was a hypotethical scenario.

 

Sorry. I tried to defend you. I regret that. You are a youngster that needs to talk to your father.

 

[+dbrierley]

It's good that the museum is open to the idea of allowing geocaches on its property. If it has not done so already, it may be helpful for the museum to post a policy for use of its outdoor areas, mentioning geocaching and letterboxing. The Nature Conservancy's state chapters set policies for the preserves; here are examples that explicitly mention geocaching:

 

Maine

New Hampshire

Wisconsin

 

The Maine and New Hampshire chapters allow caches on a case-by-case basis with prior permission; the Maine chapter requests removal of unauthorized caches. The Wisconsin chapter bans physical geocaches.

 

It would be interesting to know if the museum has noticed any benefits since the existing caches were placed; the benefits, if any, should be weighed against the potential risk to the exhibits. While the museum has been fortunate because existing caches have not compromised the exhibits, the museum's luck may run out at some point. Geocaches are placed in all sorts of places; as an example, one appears to have been found in a bank's sculpture, causing a bomb scare: GCRGJV If the museum goes with a prior-approval policy, it can make sure caches don't threaten exhibits; a cache owner with written approval can send a copy to the reviewer when listing a cache.

 

As a land manager, the museum is free to change its policy at any time; it is up to cache owners to be aware of the land manager's requirements. Museum management may or may not choose to "grandfather" existing caches.

[Andronicus]

I give up. I've tried to explain the point of the thread being a discussion of something on a general basis and NOT IN ANY WAY A SPECIFIC INSTANCE. The "story" i posted was a hypotethical scenario and not in any way something that would happen. Yet some people (not all, some of those posting have actually understood my point) keep posting things that has absolutely nothing to do with the point whatsoever.

Well, I posted my little screen play based on your hypothetical scenario. If the museum were to request the current caches be archived, then they had you setup a cache using your user name, people would think that you are to blame, and that you are a jerk. Weather or not that is true is realy irrelevent when you (hypotheticaly) endup sitting by yourself at the cachers monthly beer and pizza.

[+hukilaulau]

A surprising amount of people seem to be unable to read properly,

 

Caches placed without permission, Removing them to make room for your own that aren't

 

The above title was the first thing people read. There's nothing there about an angry reviewer being spiteful. Maybe you should have thought about what you were really trying to say before you clicked on send. I think that's what some folks are trying to tell you. (Yes, I did get it, but it took a couple of readings cuz of that title.)