Remove requirement of "get permission" from EarthCaches

[+DeRock & The Psychic Cacher]

You may not be aware yet of a new feedback feature here on geocaching.com. You can find the link to it on the left side of any non-forum page on the site.

 

Yesterday a new idea was submitted concerning the permission requirements for EarthCaches. You may want to visit and express your opinion: Feedback link

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan Mi

[+Lostby7]

The response from the Lily-pad on this one was not what I expected. I'll be watching this one closely. I'm OK either way but I can tell you getting permission for a virtual spot on public property can and has been a difficult task for me on occasion.

[+t4e]

FEEDBACK its been around since the june 29 update

[+Manville Possum]

The response from the Lily-pad on this one was not what I expected. I'll be watching this one closely. I'm OK either way but I can tell you getting permission for a virtual spot on public property can and has been a difficult task for me on occasion.

Same here.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I brought this subject up some time last year. therefore I will not give my opinion now.

If you really want to know how I and others think about the subject, just click on the link to feed back provided by DeRock!

Go Jeremy!

Edited August 14, 2010 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[+geodarts]

As I posted on the feedback page, I have come to appreciate the permission requirement. With some, earthcaches I have developed, permission has been pretty automatic. With others it has been much more involved. The ones I developed on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon took four to five months, in part because the park was unfamiliar with them and wanted to be sure they were doing it right.

 

I recently placed an earthcache on NPS managed land that already had several earthcaches approved. But because of a change of administration,they were unaware of the program. One agency official wrote that he had problems with traditional caches, but earthcaching was "cool and educational." I think that this type of discussion is valuable, and it never would have occurred without the permission requirement.

 

The requirement has some practical value. It assures that the locations and tasks are appropriate. Just because a cache is "virtual" does not mean that it could not impact sensitive areas. Just because land is public does not mean it's accessible, nor should all land be accessible without regard to it's nature. Permission helps ensure that the listing conforms to the park in ways that the review process could not do without reviewers knowing the specific area. And without permission many parks might implement a more formal permit systems to protect the area, which is still another level of bureaucracy.

 

But more importantly, it has brought parks into the process as partners. Some parks feature earthcaching in part because they have a real stake in it through the permission process. My understanding is the the NPS was brought into the earthcaching program because of the permission requirement - would we lose that important participation if it were removed?

 

I have one pending now on NPS land where their geologists are reviewing the submission and my contact person has told me about how exciting it is for them to be a part of it. They regard me as one of their volunteers. This kind of relationship is important. In one recent case, a cacher reported that it led to the park approving traditional caching. In my area, that is going to take a long time, but working with park officials and inviting them into the game puts us in a stronger position.

 

Quite frankly, I wish the requirement for express permission was extended to more forms of traditional caching. If cachers had to document permission before placing traditional caches on private property (such as lamp skirts in the parking lot of malls) we might have fewer incidents with the bomb squad.

Edited August 14, 2010 by mulvaney

[+ArtieD]

I agree with Jeremy...why should I have to get permission to mark a set of waypoints that any Tom, Dick and Harry can do any day of the week without permission?

Edited August 14, 2010 by Arthur & Trillian

[+geodarts]

I agree with Jeremy...why should I have to get permission to mark a set of waypoints that any Tom, Dick and Harry can do any day of the week without permission?

 

Perhaps because you are inviting people to a location that may or may not be in a sensitive area, may or may not be off trail, where the public may or may be allowed, listing it as part of a defined and organized public activity, as part of a commercial business's web site (Groundspeak), and asking people to do specific tasks once they are there. A park would be well within its rights to require a permit in that situation, as some parks have.

 

I think some of the earthcaches I have placed have been better because a particular park was involved. I am certainly glad that some parks have chosen to feature earthcaching, which I think is largely a result of the permission process that brought in the NPS as partners. And I believe earthcaching is better for it in a number of ways.

 

But certainly if Groundspeak, the GSA and the various partners decided that it was no longer needed we would see a lot more earthcaches. Whether that is good or bad is another debate. And whether Groundspeak would stand by its decision and continue to list earthcaches if a park decided to ban earthcaching is also perhaps subject to debate. I am curious whether they would stick to principles and say that earthcaching does not need permission.

 

If Jeremy said that they would continue to list earthcaches in that situation because earthcaching does not need permission, then I would agree with previous posts: go Jeremy! Otherwise it's just theoretical.

Edited August 15, 2010 by mulvaney

[+Packanack]

I recently recieved a magazine that contained an article suggesting a visit to a particular Rail Trail, complete with pictures, and trail head coordinates and parking places and a map. I dare say the magazine did not need permission to write that article, to invite people to that trail. We are overstating the obvious, permission for speaking about a location in a publicly accessible place is surplus.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I recently recieved a magazine that contained an article suggesting a visit to a particular Rail Trail, complete with pictures, and trail head coordinates and parking places and a map. I dare say the magazine did not need permission to write that article, to invite people to that trail. We are overstating the obvious, permission for speaking about a location in a publicly accessible place is surplus.

 

Amen.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I recently recieved a magazine that contained an article suggesting a visit to a particular Rail Trail, complete with pictures, and trail head coordinates and parking places and a map. I dare say the magazine did not need permission to write that article, to invite people to that trail. We are overstating the obvious, permission for speaking about a location in a publicly accessible place is surplus.

Well said. Please go to the link in the original post and state your opinion. With earthcaches, Groundspeak listens.

[+geodarts]

I recently recieved a magazine that contained an article suggesting a visit to a particular Rail Trail, complete with pictures, and trail head coordinates and parking places and a map. I dare say the magazine did not need permission to write that article, to invite people to that trail. We are overstating the obvious, permission for speaking about a location in a publicly accessible place is surplus.

 

Why do you assume an earthcache will be in a publicly accessible place?

 

Traditional geocaches are supposed to have adequate permission and be in publicly accessible places, yet I have seen my share that are behind no trespassing signs,;n the other side of signs prohibiting people because of dangerous conditions, on NPS land that is not open to traditional caching; on land behind erosion control signs; off trail in locations where parks require geocaches to be placed within three feet of an established trail; off trail in locations were parks ask people not to go off trail because of the danger of spreading Sudden Oak Death; not to mention the ubiquitous cache in a lamp skirt of a parking lot that attracts the attention of a bomb squad. In some parks, earthcahes are among the few caches that conform to the park guidelines, simply because you have to get express permission.

 

So I have had irate property owners wonder what I am doing in a particular area and friends have been threatened with bodily harm. Now our local reviewers are very conscientious. They take their responsibility very seriously. But they simply do not know if a cache is placed on or off a trail, if it is on private property on land that intersects with open space, or there is a no trespassing sign. I doubt that earthcache reviewers would be any more familiar with a local area.

 

For me, working with park officials and park geologists has resulted in better earthcaches. I have been able to track down the responsible official and get permission with every cache I have proposed. It ensures that both the placement and task are appropriate. It seems better to get permission sooner rather to have earthcaching singled out as causing a particular problem. And it seems better to have parks on board as partners in an educational project, highlighted on their web site, rather than just doing it on the siy.

 

If this requirement were removed, I would expect a proliferation of earthcaches for the sake of having an earthcache. Based on what I have seen with traditional caching, I would also expect to see at least some of the earthcaches be placed in sensitive spots or in areas that are not appropriate under a park's guidelines. A park might react to this by instituting a more restrictive permit system, which is within their legal rights, or they could decide that they do not want any earthcaches listed on a commercial web site.

 

Again, in the event of a problem. would Groundspeak continue to insist that earthcaches needed no permission and continue to list them on their service? If not, then Jeremy's position is a philosophical exercise rather than a practical matter

 

Unless earthcaching is redefined, the final answer to this might be in the hands of the GSA and the extent that the NPS or other partners consider it important for their participation. If the GSA believes that permission is no longer relevant, I would have no problem with it. If they do decide that permission is important, I will understand the reasons for this. So it will be interesting to see what happens.

Edited August 16, 2010 by mulvaney

[+Packanack]

I make no such assumption, and I say no such thing. I specifically limited my statement to open public lands. I will not parse words. Personally, I think all private land caches should have express permission. If there are sensitive areas, then I would assume that closer scrutiny is paid to access and the like. That would apply to all, not just cachers. Cachers are a microscopically small segment of the outdoor user group. Yesterday on my two cache trip, I saw 2 cachers in the parking lot and 14 bikers, 6 hikers, three dog walkers.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Packanack

[+narcissa]

I'd like to hear GSA's reasoning for having tighter permission rules than other geocaches. I don't think it would be unreasonable to have the same "adequate" permission guideline that applies to all other caches, but I suspect there are details behind the guidelines that we don't know.

 

Reasonably, yes, marking a location on publicly accessible land without placing an object there should not be an issue, but we know from past experiences that many land managers do not act rationally about geocaching. Parks and other agencies that have restrictions on geocaches might not understand what an Earthcache is, and it is difficult to educate people who aren't willing to listen. It could raise hackles if Earthcaches were suddenly placed on their grounds without their permission.

[+geodarts]

I make no such assumption, and I say no such thing. I specifically limited my statement to open public lands. I will not parse words.

 

I don't parse words but I was curious because "public land" does not mean it's "publicly accessible." It's one thing to tell people about a trail, it's another thing to place an earthcache on public lands that may or may not be on a trail, where there may be restrictions about going off trail, which may or may not involve entering areas that are geologically or archeologically sensitive.

 

Sadly, I have seen many caches that ignore restrictions that are on both public and private land. An earthcache could placed in a sensitive area or requires tasks that are not appropriate to the area. I have heard that even some approved earthcaches led to problems at sites. But it's probably better if an agency has the opportunity to make that determination before a cache is approved rather than after the fact. Public land managers might be in the best situation to determine if there is an issue affecting earthcache placement than a reviewer. It does not seem unreasonable to me.

 

So I still don't understand the assumption that a cache placed on public land is "in a publicly accessible place" where no permission is needed. I might agree if all caches were appropriately placed. But if public land can be restricted then how do you determine that an earthcache is appropriate?

 

Perhaps as an alternative to permission, if that is such a problem, an agency could be informed that an earthcache had been placed on their land so that any problems could be addressed early on into the process. Some land managers are not aware of earthcaches and there is not a stash note to explain it should a problem occur at a site. Without that - without knowledge of where earthcaches have been developed and a contact person - earthcaching might be disfavored by certain parks for understandable reasons. It just seems more polite to ask first.

Edited August 16, 2010 by mulvaney

[+lachupa]

...Traditional geocaches are supposed to have adequate permission and be in publicly accessible places, yet I have seen my share that are behind no trespassing signs,;n the other side of signs prohibiting people because of dangerous conditions, on NPS land that is not open to traditional caching; on land behind erosion control signs; off trail in locations where parks require geocaches to be placed within three feet of an established trail; off trail in locations were parks ask people not to go off trail because of the danger of spreading Sudden Oak Death; not to mention the ubiquitous cache in a lamp skirt of a parking lot that attracts the attention of a bomb squad. In some parks, earthcahes are among the few caches that conform to the park guidelines, simply because you have to get express permission.

 

 

It seems to me like this would be a simple fix, if you are doing an earthcache and it looks like the requirements require you to violate park rules of any kind then back out, and mark it on the earthcache listing.

 

I don't think the intention here is to see how many pictures we can upload of people standing behind the sign that says "danger do not go beyond this boundry".

 

self policing would work here as long as people were not so completely hung up on the numbers that they were just determined to brave flood water to bygum get that smilie

[+geodarts]

I wish I could be more confident about sell-policing. In my area I have not gotten either hiders or finders to pay attention to agency guidelines designed to slow Sudden Oak Death; most cachers are not aware of state park policies regarding location based activity (or do not follow them as either hiders or finders); some are not aware of park boundaries; some do not read erosion control signs; others do not want to act as cache police.

 

When a cache was placed on property posted with no trespassing signs, I could not make either the owner or the reviewer interested until a cacher eventually had a run in with the irate property owner. Self policing only goes so far.

 

One road-cut earthcache I visited had a task that required you to go behind erosion control fencing. It may have been temporary, it may be a long-term situation. From the logs, it was apparent that some people ignored the fencing, others took their best guess based on the location that was accessible. I suggested that the earthcache developer change the wording for the site but did not take the issue further. Perhaps I should have but as far as I know, no one has done that and the wording remained the same.

 

So one one hand, why not simply throw earthcaching into the mix and assume that there has been adequate permission? I am careful with earthcaches and I cannot imagine any problems rising if I did not have express permission.

 

On the other hand, I have heard that park officials identified problems at a few approved earth cache locations -- and such things are easier to resolve if there has been either express permission or notification (a virtual stash note) that allows managers to be aware of the activity. I doubt that it is a major problem given earthcaching as a whole. But I don't think anyone has any idea about how many earthcaches had to be changed during the permission process or how many problems have developed once a cache has been published. So it is a possibility that might make me concerned if I were a land manager.

 

Despite the direction of this thead, my major concern is not with the possibility of problems, but with the way that permission allows public land managers to be part of this game -- making them aware of the activity, allowing park geologists to review a submission and offer advice, featuring earthcaches on their web site, giving them reason to work with the geocaching community (which might have a postiive effect on their decisions regarding traditional caching). Perhaps I am being optimistic based on my limited experience, but as far as I can tell, the process has been good for the earthcaching program. The question for me is not if you could otherwise publish waymarks on a trail, but whether the game is better if parks are involved as active partners in the process.

 

I am a little surprised by where I have ended up on this given my anarchist roots, but I could understand any decision the GSA might make or any decision that might have to be made to keep the NPS or earthcaching partners in the game. So until then it's an interesting philosophical question.

Edited August 16, 2010 by mulvaney

[South Surrey Scavengers]

I agree with Jeremy...why should I have to get permission to mark a set of waypoints that any Tom, Dick and Harry can do any day of the week without permission?

I have "placed" 18 earthcaches although I have not done so in quite a while now. Most of these were done prior to the requirement for getting permission from the public agency. Yes in the beginning (for the first month or so) you could place them without the public agency approval. When the regulations changed and I spent so much time trying to figure out who to get approval from whether its a provincial park or crown land I gave up placing Earthcaches.

 

I didnt agree with the policy of getting approval to simply list GPS coordinates on a website where there was nothing physical left behind. Of course Groundspeak is entitled to have rules like that if they wish as it is there website. As for the requirement by the GSA again it is their perogative to invoke the rule if they wish. I disagree with it but it is their right to do so. I think it hurts the level of participation in the sport but on the other hand it might help ensure the quality of Earthcaches.

 

Think about this: If you started your own website why couldnt you list the GPS coordinates of really any location on earth? Isn't that already happening? But in the end its Groundspeaks and GSA's decision as to what they want to allow for their game.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Correct me if I'm wrong. The present requirement is for written permission where required. I have verbal permission, but was unable to get express written permission from the state park. After the run-around I got, I will not ask written permission. Impossible for me to get. I assume that the verbal is aceptable. It willbe on maintained trails within the state park.

Of course, it was in the forum, but I was told that bushwhacking was not permitted to get to a EarthCache location. I can understand the reasoning, and accept that (even if it eliminated a very tough but interesting question).

I certainly would never put one on private property without express writted permission. I assume that that is required!

It seems to me that the permission issue has become easier. When I first looked, express written permission was required for every EarthCache (though it is obvious that many did not have it). The requirement now seems to be 'where required'. I assume that to be for ones on private land, or that would require bushwhacking.

[+geodarts]

I am happy because I just got agency approval for a new earthcache submission. It could not have worked better. My NPS contact told me how excited she is about earthcaching, had the submission reviewed by both a park geologist and the trail director who made some good suggestions, and offered to explore if she could promote earthcaches on their web site. Even if permission is dropped as a formal requirement, I will probably continue to contact park officials -- particularly the NPS managers I have worked with -- because their contributions have made for better earthcaches.

 

Harry Dolphin points out that permission may vary depending on the agency. The guidelines read, "All EarthCache sites developed must have prior approval of the landowners before submission (depending on local country laws and customs). When applicable you must have written approval with the appropriate owner or land-managing agency. The name and contact details of the person from who you received approval MUST be given at time of submission in the “Note to Reviewer”. The developed text should be sent to the landholder/manager for approval."

 

As of my last submission, Geoaware verified that I had to submit written permission for NPS managed land. For the earthcaches I submitted in local state or regional parks I just provided contact information (if I recall correctly). The regional park where I have an earthcache allows any caching within 250 feet of a trail and the state parks allow caching within three feet of an established trail. It was easy in both of those instances to obtain email permission and I might have sent that along. I really have no idea, but somewhere in the back of my head, I heard that earthcaches done from public roads or by driving through areas (such as the Virgin River Gorge in Arizona) have not needed formal permission.

Edited August 17, 2010 by mulvaney