Why do we need "...have prior approval of the landowners..."

[tubeex1995]

Why do we need to get permition from the land owner. If you are in the midle of nowhere what do you write?

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

When it comes to private property you and all of your ECers would be guilty of trespassing without permission. I know it can be a pain to track down an owner, but visiting neighbors or a trip to the courthouse will help.

Now when it comes to public property, we are with you. Permission should be unnecessary. As a matter of fact, on the "feedback" forum, there is a topic that addresses the problem. Even Jeremy himself has questioned the need for permission to visit public places and hopefully he will change this unnecessary guideline.

[tubeex1995]

When it comes to private property you and all of your ECers would be guilty of trespassing without permission. I know it can be a pain to track down an owner, but visiting neighbors or a trip to the courthouse will help.

Now when it comes to public property, we are with you. Permission should be unnecessary. As a matter of fact, on the "feedback" forum, there is a topic that addresses the problem. Even Jeremy himself has questioned the need for permission to visit public places and hopefully he will change this unnecessary guideline.

 

 

Ok thank you!!!

[+Manville Possum]

When it comes to private property you and all of your ECers would be guilty of trespassing without permission. I know it can be a pain to track down an owner, but visiting neighbors or a trip to the courthouse will help.

Now when it comes to public property, we are with you. Permission should be unnecessary. As a matter of fact, on the "feedback" forum, there is a topic that addresses the problem. Even Jeremy himself has questioned the need for permission to visit public places and hopefully he will change this unnecessary guideline.

I am with you on this one also KK. I kept getting this "cache impact" and need to have your EC approved by the land manager stuff to place an EC on a viewing deck that the State paid lot's of $ for so people can view the area that is the topic of my EC. It took a little over a year to track the PTB down to get the approval. Then later I find out that there is a Waymark there also, the waymarker did not need permission. I belive that Jeremy will change this in the future, hopefully.

[+geodarts]

When it comes to private property you and all of your ECers would be guilty of trespassing without permission. I know it can be a pain to track down an owner, but visiting neighbors or a trip to the courthouse will help.

Now when it comes to public property, we are with you. Permission should be unnecessary. As a matter of fact, on the "feedback" forum, there is a topic that addresses the problem. Even Jeremy himself has questioned the need for permission to visit public places and hopefully he will change this unnecessary guideline.

 

To answer part the OP's question, it the site is on public property, such that permission will be required under the current guidelines, you need to write to the agency responsible for the area. There may be some locations, like road cut views, where permission may not be a factor. But if it is on private property in the middle of nowhere, then as you point out, it may be necessary to track down property records. Some of the information might be online, depending on the area, but it could be difficult even if you find the information - very few people I have met who own land in the middle of nowhere would want people entering it without their express knowledge or personal permission.

 

Not every part of public land is open to public access, but there is already a thread for the discussion of permission on public land, so I will leave the debate on "why" to that. However, I note that the current feedback site does not seem to address this issue, since the feedback forum was switched from Get Satisfaction. The Groundspeak feedback site may be limited in any event since the decision seemingly would have to be made with the earthcaching partners. From my understanding, this would include not only the Geological Society but agencies like the National Park Service that have been brought into the eartchcaching program. So it does deserve fuller discussion on its own thread in this forum.

Edited September 20, 2010 by mulvaney

[+PartOfTheProblem]

Ok, so I'm still confused on this point then.

 

I did not read the rule on earthcache.org as requiring pre-approval of all earthcaches in all situations. The rule says:

 

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.

 

Ok, so obviously if I'm on private property, I can' t invite others there without the landowner's consent. That's pretty basic. But if I'm on publicly owned land, that is open to the public, and I'm not otherwise violating any regulations on how the public land may be used, then my use would be in accordance with "local country laws and customs".

 

As far as having approval of the land-managing agency, I'm required to get that "when applicable". I assumed that meant I have to do it if the agency (or local law) says I have to. So if the local national forest says: "No earthcaches without our permission", then cool, I have to get permission. The requirement would then be "applicable"

 

But if there are no specific agency rules, and our use of the public land is otherwise in accordance with existing rules, why would you even need to ask before placing an earthcache?

 

I don't get the intrepretation that says I have to go ask them before I place it. That doesn't seem to be what the earthcache.com's submission guidelines say.

 

I've been planning to set one up that falls into exactly this situation...

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Ok, so I'm still confused on this point then.

 

I did not read the rule on earthcache.org as requiring pre-approval of all earthcaches in all situations. The rule says:

 

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.

 

Ok, so obviously if I'm on private property, I can' t invite others there without the landowner's consent. That's pretty basic. But if I'm on publicly owned land, that is open to the public, and I'm not otherwise violating any regulations on how the public land may be used, then my use would be in accordance with "local country laws and customs".

 

As far as having approval of the land-managing agency, I'm required to get that "when applicable". I assumed that meant I have to do it if the agency (or local law) says I have to. So if the local national forest says: "No earthcaches without our permission", then cool, I have to get permission. The requirement would then be "applicable"

 

But if there are no specific agency rules, and our use of the public land is otherwise in accordance with existing rules, why would you even need to ask before placing an earthcache?

 

I don't get the intrepretation that says I have to go ask them before I place it. That doesn't seem to be what the earthcache.com's submission guidelines say.

 

I've been planning to set one up that falls into exactly this situation...

 

Generally speaking, the guidelines have been interpreted as you need to seek permission before attempting to publish an EC if it is on public land in the US.

Marge and I recently stopped by the Ranger Headquarters in one of the National Forests in North Carolina to seek permission for an EC. We we told and shown a bulletin that states, "Permission is not required for virtual and earthcaches within National Forests in North Carolina". We requested a copy of the bulletin, but the Ranger office did not have a copy machine.

I guess this is an example of, ""local country laws and customs" where here permission is not needed!

We will test this interpretation soon with the submission of an EC in a National Forest in North Carolina!

Actually, in order to "place" an EC, all you need is some accurate coordinates and photos.

[+StealthRT]

Ok, so I'm still confused on this point then.

 

I did not read the rule on earthcache.org as requiring pre-approval of all earthcaches in all situations. The rule says:

 

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.

 

Ok, so obviously if I'm on private property, I can' t invite others there without the landowner's consent. That's pretty basic. But if I'm on publicly owned land, that is open to the public, and I'm not otherwise violating any regulations on how the public land may be used, then my use would be in accordance with "local country laws and customs".

 

As far as having approval of the land-managing agency, I'm required to get that "when applicable". I assumed that meant I have to do it if the agency (or local law) says I have to. So if the local national forest says: "No earthcaches without our permission", then cool, I have to get permission. The requirement would then be "applicable"

 

But if there are no specific agency rules, and our use of the public land is otherwise in accordance with existing rules, why would you even need to ask before placing an earthcache?

 

I don't get the intrepretation that says I have to go ask them before I place it. That doesn't seem to be what the earthcache.com's submission guidelines say.

 

I've been planning to set one up that falls into exactly this situation...

 

Generally speaking, the guidelines have been interpreted as you need to seek permission before attempting to publish an EC if it is on public land in the US.

Marge and I recently stopped by the Ranger Headquarters in one of the National Forests in North Carolina to seek permission for an EC. We we told and shown a bulletin that states, "Permission is not required for virtual and earthcaches within National Forests in North Carolina". We requested a copy of the bulletin, but the Ranger office did not have a copy machine.

I guess this is an example of, ""local country laws and customs" where here permission is not needed!

We will test this interpretation soon with the submission of an EC in a National Forest in North Carolina!

Actually, in order to "place" an EC, all you need is some accurate coordinates and photos.

I'd love to hear how that goes. I hope well.

[+geodarts]

I guess this is an example of, ""local country laws and customs" where here permission is not needed!

We will test this interpretation soon with the submission of an EC in a National Forest in North Carolina!

 

Don't you have permission in this situation in light of the National Forest policy? One of the regional park systems allow geocaching within 250 of a trail -- a park official simply quoted this policy when I asked for permission for an earthcache. Our state parks have written guidelines allowing any form of caching within three feet of an established trail, so I think they have given blanket permission as well as long as it conforms to their policy.

 

National Parks in the United States are a different matter. Written permission is required. Their policies direct NPS staff to "work with web site managers to remove, or refrain from posting, any caches in national park areas that have not been approved by the NPS." In general, the NPS recognizes that virtuals and earthcaches can be designed to avoid "unacceptable impacts" but still require approval of park managers.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I guess this is an example of, ""local country laws and customs" where here permission is not needed!

We will test this interpretation soon with the submission of an EC in a National Forest in North Carolina!

 

Don't you have permission in this situation in light of the National Forest policy? One of the regional park systems allow geocaching within 250 of a trail -- a park official simply quoted this policy when I asked for permission for an earthcache. Our state parks have written guidelines allowing any form of caching within three feet of an established trail, so I think they have given blanket permission as well as long as it conforms to their policy.

 

National Parks in the United States are a different matter. Written permission is required. Their policies direct NPS staff to "work with web site managers to remove, or refrain from posting, any caches in national park areas that have not been approved by the NPS." In general, the NPS recognizes that virtuals and earthcaches can be designed to avoid "unacceptable impacts" but still require approval of park managers.

 

Yes, I was told there is a 'blanket permission" for ECs.

 

Guess what? I just received a copy of the pertinent bulletin pertaining to geocaching in North Carolina National Forests. Here is the policy (copied from the notice):

 

The following are required for leaving a cache:

* You must obtain prior approval before placing a cache. To do this, contact the local Ranger District

Office and tell them:

1) Your contact information (name, address,

email, and phone); 2) A description of the cache and contents; 3) The coordinates of the proposed cache

Location (Lat/Long’s or UTM’s); 4) The date the cache will be placed, and when it will be removed.

* Forest service personnel will verify the proposed

site is appropriate for placing a geocache and approve its placement.

 

Advertising locations (publishing Earthcaches) for “virtual” caches such as geologic features,

scenic views or existing structures do not require prior permission.

 

I might note that this policy pertains to only North Carolina National Forests!

[+Manville Possum]

I guess this is an example of, ""local country laws and customs" where here permission is not needed!

We will test this interpretation soon with the submission of an EC in a National Forest in North Carolina!

 

Don't you have permission in this situation in light of the National Forest policy? One of the regional park systems allow geocaching within 250 of a trail -- a park official simply quoted this policy when I asked for permission for an earthcache. Our state parks have written guidelines allowing any form of caching within three feet of an established trail, so I think they have given blanket permission as well as long as it conforms to their policy.

 

National Parks in the United States are a different matter. Written permission is required. Their policies direct NPS staff to "work with web site managers to remove, or refrain from posting, any caches in national park areas that have not been approved by the NPS." In general, the NPS recognizes that virtuals and earthcaches can be designed to avoid "unacceptable impacts" but still require approval of park managers.

 

Yes, I was told there is a 'blanket permission" for ECs.

 

Guess what? I just received a copy of the pertinent bulletin pertaining to geocaching in North Carolina National Forests. Here is the policy (copied from the notice):

 

The following are required for leaving a cache:

* You must obtain prior approval before placing a cache. To do this, contact the local Ranger District

Office and tell them:

1) Your contact information (name, address,

email, and phone); 2) A description of the cache and contents; 3) The coordinates of the proposed cache

Location (Lat/Long’s or UTM’s); 4) The date the cache will be placed, and when it will be removed.

* Forest service personnel will verify the proposed

site is appropriate for placing a geocache and approve its placement.

 

Advertising locations (publishing Earthcaches) for “virtual” caches such as geologic features,

scenic views or existing structures do not require prior permission.

 

I might note that this policy pertains to only North Carolina National Forests!

I was granted permission to place a "virtual" (EarthCache) cache in a State Park in Tennessee, where other types of caches are currantly banned. With the possibality of virtual caches being reinstated, measures need to be taken before we are over-run with them like it was before they were banned from GC. I am a PM, but strongly oppose PMO caches in National and State Parks, that are only PMO to keep basic members from viewing them.

[+narcissa]

 

I was granted permission to place a "virtual" (EarthCache) cache in a State Park in Tennessee, where other types of caches are currantly banned. With the possibality of virtual caches being reinstated, measures need to be taken before we are over-run with them like it was before they were banned from GC. I am a PM, but strongly oppose PMO caches in National and State Parks, that are only PMO to keep basic members from viewing them.

 

I think Geocaching.com should refuse to publish virtual geocaches in places that ban physical geocaches, in order to avoid virtual geocaches being used as an excuse to ban physical ones. This is one of the biggest concerns people have about virtuals.

[+geodarts]

I think Geocaching.com should refuse to publish virtual geocaches in places that ban physical geocaches, in order to avoid virtual geocaches being used as an excuse to ban physical ones. This is one of the biggest concerns people have about virtuals.

 

Of course, this would mean that earthcaches -- as a form of a virtual cache -- would also not be listed. Earthcaches and the existing virtuals have brought this game into areas where traditional caching is not allowed. And although the NPS policies for location-based activity (which specifically equate earthcaching with virtuals) leave the door open for other forms of caching and letterboxing, I suspect in most national parks it will be a long wait.

 

It is hard to imagine traditional caches being approved within my lifetime in places like Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, Bryce, or Zion. Park officials in places like this do not need an excuse to ban traditionals, indeed it took some doing to even bring earthcaches into some of these areas. But earthcaches and other forms of virtuals brought me to sites that I never would have discovered on my own and taught me much about the land.

 

Certainly, in the area where I live, which has large portions of the land under NPS jurisdiction, banning virtuals did not encourage the agency to change its policy. Instead, just about the time new virtuals were banned, they came in and removed most of the grandfathered traditionals from the park lands. When they approved my last earthcache, they made it clear that they still consider traditional caches to be a form of littering and something that causes a negative environmental impact. But earthcaches have brought them into the game, established relationships, and built some degree of trust. Perhaps that can lead to more. I would hope that other forms of virtuals could do the same thing.

 

In at least one situation, a park allowed traditional caching after people seeking approval for earthcaches established a dialogue. But if a manager wants to ban traditionals, they need not point to new virtual caches as a reason. Again, they have been banning traditionals even without new virtuals as a factor. If they wanted to justify their policy by pointing to other location-based games, they need only to cite earthcaching, virtuals listed on other sites, Waymarking, or other games (such as gowalla) as ways that location-based activity can be incorporated into a park.

 

My state's park system has taken a rational approach. They have given blanket approval to all forms of geocaching under certtain conditions, but designated certain sensitive areas as being open only to virtuals (they specifically cite to Waymarking). So it is possible for parks to make distinctions and permit traditionals in places where it iis appropriate while recognizing the role that virtuals play.

 

So I would go the other way and use virtuals and earthcaches as a way to build relationships with the parks and bring them into the game.

Edited September 29, 2010 by mulvaney