Private Property

[+Ecylram]

Starting a new thread to cover the discussion on private property that broke out in the "New World Record" thread...

 

"If you place a cache on private land, you must ask permission before hiding your cache". But since that statement is not part of the guidelines, it is not enforced.

In all fairness, I don't believe placing it in the guidelines would cause a significant change.

 

To me, it appears that most cachers don't have much interest in reporting caches that don't meet the guidelines.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Ecylram

[+Packanack]

I can not believe that any cacher would place a cache on someone else's privately owned property without express authorization. To do otherwise is a tresspass. Am I making a great leap of faith when seeking a cache on a privately owned property where entry license is extended to the public.

[GOF and Bacall]

I can not believe that any cacher would place a cache on someone else's privately owned property without express authorization. To do otherwise is a tresspass. Am I making a great leap of faith when seeking a cache on a privately owned property where entry license is extended to the public.

 

Do you really think all those skirt lifters have permission?

[+redsox_mark]

Details of this are country specific. But I think in general, Private Property need not mean going there is Trespassing. A parking lot may be private property, but perfectly valid to go there to do your shopping. If it is valid to hide a cache there without permission is a different question.

 

In the UK, most of the land is privately owned. We have a system of rights of way; many caches are placed on these; so again in a place which you can legally access without trespassing. That doesn't necessarily give you permission to hide a cache there.

 

So in general I would make a distinction between

 

1, Private Property which has defined legal public access, and

2. Other types of Private Property.

 

Ideally there is explicit owner permission in both cases; though for case 1 I don't think this is always the case.

For case 2, I agree explicit permission is important.

[+Ecylram]

Do you really think all those skirt lifters have permission?

If I had to guess, I'd bet that there are at least 30 caches within a couple miles of our home that don't have permission. (There's a lot of parking lots in the area). I, like most, don't get too worked up about as they are public access areas where the "no harm, no foul" philosophy fits.

 

But...I do take exception to caches placed behind "No Trespassing" signs and placements where the private property gets damaged by searchers.

 

I suspect that many CO's are concerned by any push to limit private property placements.

[Mr.Yuck]

Details of this are country specific. But I think in general, Private Property need not mean going there is Trespassing. A parking lot may be private property, but perfectly valid to go there to do your shopping. If it is valid to hide a cache there without permission is a different question.

 

In the UK, most of the land is privately owned. We have a system of rights of way; many caches are placed on these; so again in a place which you can legally access without trespassing. That doesn't necessarily give you permission to hide a cache there.

 

So in general I would make a distinction between

 

1, Private Property which has defined legal public access, and

2. Other types of Private Property.

 

Ideally there is explicit owner permission in both cases; though for case 1 I don't think this is always the case.

For case 2, I agree explicit permission is important.

 

Which is exactly where this thread will go, like all other permission threads before it. The guidelines state "adequate permission". Now if the OP is referring to the most common violation of private property, the lampskirt micro in the store parking lot and/or the micro out back by the store loading dock next to the dumpster, then I'm afraid this thread will drone on for days with hundreds of replies.

 

Between those who will pontificate until they're blue in the face that no permission for such hides is "adequate permission", and those who feel if the parking lot is open to the public, then it's OK to place a cache there, good luck with that.

 

EDIT: I see the OP addressed this while I was (slowly) typing this reply.

 

Now what red_sox mark refers to as "case 2", I'd say yeah, no brainer.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Mr.Yuck

[+Castle Mischief]

Queue guideline quoting and one sentence replies to guideline quoting in 3... 2... 1...

[GOF and Bacall]

Sure, why not.

 

Here ya go.

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.

[GOF and Bacall]

You'll note that there is no definition of "adequate permission".

[GOF and Bacall]

Hey Castle Mischief. Did those fit the bill?

[+J the Goat]

I can not believe that any cacher would place a cache on someone else's privately owned property without express authorization. To do otherwise is a tresspass. Am I making a great leap of faith when seeking a cache on a privately owned property where entry license is extended to the public.

 

Do you really think all those skirt lifters have permission?

 

Ni!

 

Anyone remember the "Mall Security" guy that everyone claimed was a tro..... almost said it.

 

I highly doubt that most of these stores would give you permission to go poking around their parking lots where all their customers are parked. Just what they need is to have customers complaining about suspicious looking people poking around their cars at all hours of the day. And they gave permission for it? Nope, I'd be willing bet that a majority of these places would get rid of the caches under their lamp skirts if they knew they were there.

[+Ecylram]

Ni!

 

Anyone remember the "Mall Security" guy that everyone claimed was a tro..... almost said it.

 

I highly doubt that most of these stores would give you permission to go poking around their parking lots where all their customers are parked. Just what they need is to have customers complaining about suspicious looking people poking around their cars at all hours of the day. And they gave permission for it? Nope, I'd be willing bet that a majority of these places would get rid of the caches under their lamp skirts if they knew they were there.

And would that be a bad thing?

[+sbell111]

I can not believe that any cacher would place a cache on someone else's privately owned property without express authorization. To do otherwise is a tresspass. Am I making a great leap of faith when seeking a cache on a privately owned property where entry license is extended to the public.

Do you really think all those skirt lifters have permission?

Ni!

 

Anyone remember the "Mall Security" guy that everyone claimed was a tro..... almost said it.

 

I highly doubt that most of these stores would give you permission to go poking around their parking lots where all their customers are parked. Just what they need is to have customers complaining about suspicious looking people poking around their cars at all hours of the day. And they gave permission for it?

Many have given such permission.

Nope, I'd be willing bet that a majority of these places would get rid of the caches under their lamp skirts if they knew they were there.

Do you honestly believe that the larger retailers such as WalMart are not aware of geocaching or that some caches are hidden in their parking lots?

[+keehotee]

Details of this are country specific. But I think in general, Private Property need not mean going there is Trespassing. A parking lot may be private property, but perfectly valid to go there to do your shopping. If it is valid to hide a cache there without permission is a different question.

 

In the UK, most of the land is privately owned. We have a system of rights of way; many caches are placed on these; so again in a place which you can legally access without trespassing. That doesn't necessarily give you permission to hide a cache there.

 

So in general I would make a distinction between

 

1, Private Property which has defined legal public access, and

2. Other types of Private Property.

 

Ideally there is explicit owner permission in both cases; though for case 1 I don't think this is always the case.

For case 2, I agree explicit permission is important.

 

A couple of things to add that may or may not be England specific.

 

1. A Right of Way only means that you have the right to "pass and repass" - on foot, or on horseback, or in a car - depending on what sort of way it is. It gives no recreational rights whatsoever. Not even picnicking The vast majority of RoWs are also across private land over which the public have no other right of access

 

2. In England trespass is a civil tort - not a criminal offence. And to successfully bring a case against you, the landowner would probably have to prove a material loss as a result of your being there. Standing on somebody's private property to open a loc'n'loc is not necessarily trespass.

[+sbell111]

Trespassing laws have nothing to do with a container left on a piece of property. People have been given effective consent to be in parking lots, so they cannot be found guilty of trespassing unless they are first told to leave and refuse to do so, in my opinion.

[mtbikernate]

It's easy enough to avoid LPC's. A quick look at satellite imagery will confirm the location in the middle of a parking lot. I don't worry about those.

 

The ones I question are of a different nature.

 

1. How many "power trails" out in the country do you figure were placed on the farmer's fencerow with permission? What about the ones inside the highway right-of-way? It's still technically private property, but there's a gray area.

2. The ones placed along public trails that only exist because a private landowner granted the city/county/state some right of way through their property for the trail. Also a big gray area. Who do you ask for permission? Is there implied permission? How far off the public trail are you permitted to go?

3. I am working on a cache on University property. It was described to me as public-private land. There are already a half dozen caches in those woods, but I asked anyway. I was thanked for asking, but the impression I got was that the folks who manage the area were unaware of the existing caches (including the two placed within the past year).

[+geodarts]

Do you honestly believe that the larger retailers such as WalMart are not aware of geocaching or that some caches are hidden in their parking lots?

 

Regardless of whether a large retailer is in some sense aware of geocaching, it comes down to the individual store. There have been more than one bomb scare at Wall Marts and other large retailers. According to one report: the local police stated, "Had the geocacher who hid the cache contacted Wal-Mart for permission before placing the cache the 14 officers, two bomb trucks, a bomb trailer, a fire truck and a medical unit would not have been dispatched." This article mentions two bomb scares involving caches at two Wal Marts within two days of each other. There are many more.

 

Many people consider parking lots and other private property to be public access where permission is not required. In my state, for first amendment purposes, which would probably not extend to leaving objects on property, there are some areas (such as malls) that are regarded as quasi-public, similar to a town square. There is other property, such as a parking lot of an individual store, that remain private for all purposes. In either event, the owner retains rights to control, regulate, and grant/revoke permission for access.

 

I do not know how you can obtain "adequate permission" for a cache on any type of private property without getting express permission. Just because you can go to a particular place for a specific purpose does not mean you can leave something and invite others to go there to find it.

 

I agree that criminal trespassing is usually not an issue in my state unless you refuse to leave because you believe that you have right to be caching wherever you want. But if I owned a store with a large parking lot or landscaping, I would want to know a geocache has been placed there. I would want to know why people are poking around lamp posts, walking around where my customers have parked their cars, fiddling with the plants, looking on electrical boxes, or what those things hanging from gas lines might be. I have certainly run into security guys, store employees, and other people who have wanted to know these things when I have been there searching for a cache.

Edited October 28, 2010 by mulvaney

[+narcissa]

I can not believe that any cacher would place a cache on someone else's privately owned property without express authorization. To do otherwise is a tresspass. Am I making a great leap of faith when seeking a cache on a privately owned property where entry license is extended to the public.

 

A cache owner near me placed a cache in somebody's yard without permission. When cachers complained that they had been accosted by the angry property owner, his response was "He must be trying to hide something." Um, no, he just doesn't want strangers creeping around his yard. Same guy made a few other pretty serious blunders, like hiding a cache within a few feet of the front entrance to an elementary school. Some people just don't think things out.

[+Ecylram]

Regardless of whether a large retailer is in some sense aware of geocaching, it comes down to the individual store. There have been more than one bomb scare at Wall Marts and other large retailers. According to one report: the local police stated, "Had the geocacher who hid the cache contacted Wal-Mart for permission before placing the cache the 14 officers, two bomb trucks, a bomb trailer, a fire truck and a medical unit would not have been dispatched."

This is why I don't like it when caches are placed in high traffic areas, such as an entrance to a grocery store or a Starbucks drive-thru.

 

If you're going to do a LPC, please chose a lower traffic location such as a far corner or side of a store. Give the Cachers a chance to protect your cache from inquisitive bystanders.

 

Side note:

 

Disagree with the quote in the article. Permission from Wal-mart probably wouldn't have changed the outcome. Concerned citizen calls police, police investigate, police blow up, embarrassing story in paper. The police are not going to waste time inquiring about permissions for the placement of a suspicious object. Even if they check, odds are the person contacted didn't get the memo, attend the meeting, or remembered the permission.

 

How many stories have we seen that ended with...Police found out that permission was granted and the object was returned safe and sound to its location? None, that I'm aware of.

[+J the Goat]

Ni!

 

Anyone remember the "Mall Security" guy that everyone claimed was a tro..... almost said it.

 

I highly doubt that most of these stores would give you permission to go poking around their parking lots where all their customers are parked. Just what they need is to have customers complaining about suspicious looking people poking around their cars at all hours of the day. And they gave permission for it? Nope, I'd be willing bet that a majority of these places would get rid of the caches under their lamp skirts if they knew they were there.

And would that be a bad thing?

 

Nope. I think it's a good thing.

 

As far as the large chain stores knowing that they have them in the lots, I'm sure that many of the chains are aware that their parking lots are used in this manner. That doesn't mean they don't want to eliminate the practice. As was stated above, usually it's store specific, and unless there's a company wide policy (was it cracker barrel?) then the knowledge may not be with the manager of the specific store in question.

 

Just because permission has been granted on some occasions doesn't mean that'll be the norm. Those who asked for the permission have done it the right way. Those who haven't, haven't. That's pretty simple.

[+Scooter Rider]

Well never assume any thing here is the law on trespassing for the state of Ohio

Criminal trespass

 

They can very some what from state to state. Google you state to be sure.

[+SwineFlew]

I have reported a cache that was on Rail Road property. All the other caches, I dont let it bother me.

 

A really good friend (non-cacher) of mine from PA got a hold of me last night and ask me about a cache on a hospital property where she works. She was surprised when I told her the cache owner got permission to place it there. She was upset that one of her employee was caching on the job and wrack the company's vehicle because he have to make a U-turn in the parking lot and hits a telephone pole. She was mad enough to get the cache shut down. I gave her all the info she needed to do it. She also said its not safe there and the cache page said it was.

[+Ecylram]

Well never assume any thing here is the law on trespassing for the state of Ohio

Criminal trespass

 

They can very some what from state to state. Google you state to be sure.

Good advice regarding checking the law. However, I don't see anything particularly unusual about the Ohio code.

[+Castle Mischief]

Hey Castle Mischief. Did those fit the bill?

 

You nailed it.

[+sbell111]

As far as the large chain stores knowing that they have them in the lots, I'm sure that many of the chains are aware that their parking lots are used in this manner. That doesn't mean they don't want to eliminate the practice.

That doesn't mean that they DO want to eliminate the practice, either. Having caches on property can be actually good for such a store. Also, not having to give express permission gives the store (and local store manager) a bit of cover if there is a problem.

 

A really good friend (non-cacher) of mine from PA got a hold of me last night and ask me about a cache on a hospital property where she works. She was surprised when I told her the cache owner got permission to place it there. She was upset that one of her employee was caching on the job and wrack the company's vehicle because he have to make a U-turn in the parking lot and hits a telephone pole. She was mad enough to get the cache shut down. I gave her all the info she needed to do it. She also said its not safe there and the cache page said it was.

I don't understand. If the cache had permission, what's the problem? The fact that one of their employees caches during work hours and apparently cannot properly operate a vehicle doesn't hint to a problem with the cache. Edited October 28, 2010 by sbell111

[+Scooter Rider]

Well never assume any thing here is the law on trespassing for the state of Ohio

Criminal trespass

 

They can very some what from state to state. Google you state to be sure.

Good advice regarding checking the law. However, I don't see anything particularly unusual about the Ohio code.

 

Probable nothing unusual but they can very and I wasn't about to assume for other states.

I just looked up the law for my home state .

[+geodarts]

Having caches on property can be actually good for such a store. Not having to give express permission gives the store (and local store manager) a bit of cover if there is a problem.

 

So we are doing the stores a favor when we walk around people's parked cars and peer into lamp skirts and disturb the landscaping without the owner's knowledge? And stores like it when the bomb squad gets called out? Okay, but I do not know how this constitutes adequate permission.

Edited October 28, 2010 by mulvaney

[+Ecylram]

Probable nothing unusual but they can very and I wasn't about to assume for other states.

I just looked up the law for my home state .

The state that blows me away is New York. Some excerpts:

 

Geocaches may not be placed directly on mountain summits or right at an overlook.

No caches may be placed above the tree line.

All caches must be clearly marked "GEOCACHE".

All caches must be labeled with the cache owners real name and address as per NYS DEC Part 190.w.1.

 

New York State Parks:

Caches may be placed on State Parks managed by New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. A geocaching permit is required and may be obtained from the park office. Please indicate your permit number on the cache page.

 

And, of course, the famous "No Climbing Trees" rule in NYC.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Ecylram

[+sbell111]

Having caches on property can be actually good for such a store. Not having to give express permission gives the store (and local store manager) a bit of cover if there is a problem.

 

So we are doing the stores a favor when we walk around people's parked cars and peer into lamp skirts and disturb the landscaping without the owner's knowledge? And stores like it when the bomb squad gets called out? Okay, but I do not know how this constitutes adequate permission.

yawn

[+sbell111]

Probable nothing unusual but they can very and I wasn't about to assume for other states.

I just looked up the law for my home state .

The state that blows me away is New York. Some excerpts:

 

Geocaches may not be placed directly on mountain summits or right at an overlook.

No caches may be placed above the tree line.

All caches must be clearly marked "GEOCACHE".

All caches must be labeled with the cache owners real name and address as per NYS DEC Part 190.w.1.

 

New York State Parks:

Caches may be placed on State Parks managed by New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. A geocaching permit is required and may be obtained from the park office. Please indicate your permit number on the cache page.

 

And, of course, the famous "No Climbing Trees" rule in NYC.

Ummm, we were discussing tresspass laws. There are lots of other laws and regs that stipulate where caches cannot be placed.

[+J the Goat]

Having caches on property can be actually good for such a store. Not having to give express permission gives the store (and local store manager) a bit of cover if there is a problem.

 

So we are doing the stores a favor when we walk around people's parked cars and peer into lamp skirts and disturb the landscaping without the owner's knowledge? And stores like it when the bomb squad gets called out? Okay, but I do not know how this constitutes adequate permission.

yawn

 

Yawning at a counterpoint?

[+Scooter Rider]

Probable nothing unusual but they can very and I wasn't about to assume for other states.

I just looked up the law for my home state .

The state that blows me away is New York. Some excerpts:

 

Geocaches may not be placed directly on mountain summits or right at an overlook.

No caches may be placed above the tree line.

All caches must be clearly marked "GEOCACHE".

All caches must be labeled with the cache owners real name and address as per NYS DEC Part 190.w.1.

 

New York State Parks:

Caches may be placed on State Parks managed by New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. A geocaching permit is required and may be obtained from the park office. Please indicate your permit number on the cache page.

 

And, of course, the famous "No Climbing Trees" rule in NYC.

Ummm, we were discussing tresspass laws. There are lots of other laws and regs that stipulate where caches cannot be placed.

 

And this is why you should not assume any thing until you check things out in your neck of the woods.

[+redsox_mark]

Putting the legalities aside...

 

As a CO, I get adequate permission of course.

 

As a finder, I don't assume (or care, to be honest) what if any permission was given, as long as it is taking me somewhere where I can legally be.

 

Now if you take me to a place with big no trespassing signs, or to someone's front garden/yard, I don't like that; unless you have made it very clear in the cache description (e.g. the cache is on the owners property).

 

The only time I've been confronted by land owners is when I accidentally went off course en route to a cache (e.g. missing a right of way marker). I've done that a few times, and I hate it! I now try really hard to make sure I am on a right of way. Oh and once where the cache was just off the right of way.....

[+sbell111]

Having caches on property can be actually good for such a store. Not having to give express permission gives the store (and local store manager) a bit of cover if there is a problem.

 

So we are doing the stores a favor when we walk around people's parked cars and peer into lamp skirts and disturb the landscaping without the owner's knowledge? And stores like it when the bomb squad gets called out? Okay, but I do not know how this constitutes adequate permission.

yawn

 

Yawning at a counterpoint?

Given that he ignored my point and only responded to my post to hit his talking points once more, yes.

[+J the Goat]

Having caches on property can be actually good for such a store. Not having to give express permission gives the store (and local store manager) a bit of cover if there is a problem.

 

So we are doing the stores a favor when we walk around people's parked cars and peer into lamp skirts and disturb the landscaping without the owner's knowledge? And stores like it when the bomb squad gets called out? Okay, but I do not know how this constitutes adequate permission.

yawn

 

Yawning at a counterpoint?

Given that he ignored my point and only responded to my post to hit his talking points once more, yes.

 

So I'll bite. How is a pill bottle under a lamp skirt good for the store?

 

Edit to make me actually sound educated.

And again.

Edited October 28, 2010 by J The Goat

[+Ecylram]

So I'll bite. How does a pill bottle under a lamp skirt be good for the store?

First thought: Brings traffic to the store, some of which will stop and spend money. I've actually done this.

 

Second thought: //blank//

[GOF and Bacall]

So I'll bite. How does a pill bottle under a lamp skirt be good for the store?

First thought: Brings traffic to the store, some of which will stop and spend money. I've actually done this.

 

Second thought: //blank//

 

Because Walmart needs the handful of folks stopping by to log a cache to generate their sales.

[+Ecylram]

So I'll bite. How does a pill bottle under a lamp skirt be good for the store?

First thought: Brings traffic to the store, some of which will stop and spend money. I've actually done this.

 

Second thought: //blank//

 

Because Walmart needs the handful of folks stopping by to log a cache to generate their sales.

Hey...their sales were A LOT lower before geocaching.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Ecylram

[+J the Goat]

So I'll bite. How does a pill bottle under a lamp skirt be good for the store?

First thought: Brings traffic to the store, some of which will stop and spend money. I've actually done this.

 

Second thought: //blank//

 

I really think this is an insignificant number of people though. At a chain store like Walmart or Blockbuster, you probably aren't going to go in and get something you wouldn't have another time anyway. Gas stations? Same thing. PnGs seem, to me at least, mostly just that. Either you're going from cache to cache and not worrying about whether or not you need more cheerios and toilet paper, or you're stopping for gas and decide to check your GPS to see if anything is nearby.

[+geodarts]

Given that he ignored my point and only responded to my post to hit his talking points once more, yes.

 

Then I am not sure what your point was: that some stores do not actively seek to remove caches, that they like having caches on their property, and may prefer not to give express permission so that they have cover? That was the basis of my response.

 

I have no problems with the fact that some stores may like having caches being placed there. But whether stores want "a bit of cover if there is a problem" is another question. If it were my property, I would want to know what people are doing on it before there is a problem.

 

The permission debate seems to come down to two different approaches: whether we can leave caches on private property that has public access because it is not expressly forbidden or whether adequate permission requires something more. Most stores that I have seen protect their rights by granting permission to access their property only for limited purposes relevant to the operation of their business. And even areas that are (in my state) defined as "quasi public" generally have rules regarding notification and time, place, or manner for first amendment purposes.

 

But the quote in the tag line from Emerson did remind me of another one of his thoughts: we are respectable only as we respect. So I would error on the side of respect.

[+Chokecherry]

If it's not noted on a cache page that permission was given for a cache on private property I likely won't go after it. Usually (but not always) it's noted if it's on private property. Luckily we have a lot of people here diligent about getting permission from the people they have to for public and private hides. Because we're not heavily populated here there are lots of plots of land used for hunting or farming that butt right up against public lands or intermingle with public lands. Or lands owned by private corporations that butt up against any of number places.

 

For one of the caches I intend to place I spent the summer working on finding out who owned the land and working on the permission thing. For another one (albeit on public land) I also got permission.

 

Knowing that private land owners were I am are not exactly keen on trespassing and are not afraid to use their right to bear arms or press criminal charges in the case of the corporate lands I think it's the least a cache hider can to do is to assure their cache is either not on private property or get express permission for it to be there so that the finders don't stumble into a trap.

 

And yeah it takes time and effort and research but it's the right thing to do.

[+wigglesworth]

I like to be confident when searching for a cache that I can state categorically that I have permission to be here because of the Groundspeak guidelines which are part of our game.

If challenged by a muggle or even the land owner I explain that permission has been granted for the cache.

[+Packanack]

Simple fact,without express permission there is no license to place a cache on private property. A co page note of permission should be a requirement for listing a private property cache.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Trespassing laws have nothing to do with a container left on a piece of property. People have been given effective consent to be in parking lots, so they cannot be found guilty of trespassing unless they are first told to leave and refuse to do so, in my opinion.

Is it not correct that visitors are permitted in parking lots for the purpose of doing business with the business and any other activity requires permission?

 

Not picking on Wal-Mart but using them as an example representative of the larger private property issue:

 

Keep in mind that for the most part Wal-Mart leases these buildings from a property management company and it is THEIR rules which determine usage - in leased facilities Wal-Mart could not give you permission if they wanted to unless they had permission from the property owner!

 

Here's an example of a management company determining what cannot be done in a Wal-Mart parking lot.

 

Try soliciting without express permission. Or parking and selling your car in a parking lot. Or playing Frisbee. Or flying model airplanes. Or skateboarding. Or parking your car for the weekend while you go off fishing with friends. You may get away with it but that doesn't mean that it is allowed; mall security may well run you off and if you do take the time to find the person with the power to give permission she probably will not. In fact it is mall security's job in part to send anyone packing who is not there to conduct business with the establishment.

 

Wal-Mart used to give blanket permission for travelers in self-contained motor homes to overnight for one night in their parking lots. Now it's up to each store manager, and campers must register with and get the permission of the duty manager before doing so.

 

The concept that parking lots are somehow free-access public-use is a fallacy.

 

Skirt Lifters? Perhaps a minute fraction have 'adequate' permission if any at all. Adequate permission in such locations usually means that no one has told the Reviewer that caches can't be hidden there, thus the cacher's attestation (checkbox) on the cache listing submission that the hide has adequate permission is accepted.

 

It only took me a few months of geocaching to figure out what I call geocaching's 'dirty little secret'... that most caches have no permission at all.

 

I have no doubt that a cacher with a mad on and no regard for how he is perceived by the geocaching community could get more than half of the caches in his area archived in a matter of days if he were so mean as to try, just by contacting land owners and asking "Does this cache have your permission to be hidden here?". Frankly I am surprised (but happy) that this hasn't happened.

[+sbell111]

So I'll bite. How does a pill bottle under a lamp skirt be good for the store?

First thought: Brings traffic to the store, some of which will stop and spend money. I've actually done this.

 

Second thought: //blank//

I really think this is an insignificant number of people though.

There is no such thing as an insignificant number of extra customers. Every additional purchase bolsters the bottom line. This is true if I buy a coke after a long day of caching, or if I buy a roll of camo duct tape, or if I pick up that gallon of milk that I only just remembered that I needed.

At a chain store like Walmart or Blockbuster, you probably aren't going to go in and get something you wouldn't have another time anyway. Gas stations? Same thing.

That's kind of true, but it's also completely wrong.

 

Would I have bought my post-caching coke from WalMart? Nope. I would have hit a drive through for one or just skipped it.

 

Would I have bought my camo duct tape there? Nope. I probably would have gotten it from REI, Dicks, or Target.

 

Would I have bought the gallon of milk there? Nope. I would have stopped at the grocery.

 

The fact that there is a cache in the parking lot does two things for WalMart. First, it gives me a reason to stop there. Once I've stopped, perhaps I will go in and buy something that I need. Second, it makes me feel a little better about WalMart. They aren't just a evil corporate giant. They also give me a little warm fuzzy because I know that they have a small connection to a hobby that I enjoy.

PnGs seem, to me at least, mostly just that. Either you're going from cache to cache and not worrying about whether or not you need more cheerios and toilet paper, or you're stopping for gas and decide to check your GPS to see if anything is nearby.

Others, however, may feel differently, right?

[+sbell111]

Trespassing laws have nothing to do with a container left on a piece of property. People have been given effective consent to be in parking lots, so they cannot be found guilty of trespassing unless they are first told to leave and refuse to do so, in my opinion.

Is it not correct that visitors are permitted in parking lots for the purpose of doing business with the business and any other activity requires permission? ...

Nothing in your post contradicted the post that you quoted. Edited October 29, 2010 by sbell111

[+Too Tall John]

I highly doubt that most of these stores would give you permission to go poking around their parking lots where all their customers are parked. Just what they need is to have customers complaining about suspicious looking people poking around their cars at all hours of the day. And they gave permission for it?

Many have given such permission.

Oh? Really? You do, of course, realize how foolish a statement like this looks to someone who hasn't been following threads like these for years, right? Where's your proof?

 

As one who's been through this pony show more than once with you, I'll save them the trouble: The only two examples I can recall of explicit permission being given at a Big Box Store were:

• The cacher asked the guy who was pushing carts. After 10 years working for Wal-Mart in a management position, I am familiar enough with their policies to say that the Home Office wouldn't even say the store manager has the ability to offer permission for such a hide, never mind the stock boy.
  
• The property in question was a "park" that the store had developed. (I put park in quotes because I suspect the only reason the store bothered was because the EPA or similar organization required them to put in a wetlands buffer at their parking lot.)
  

According to the corporate lawyers, giving permission for organized activities on a store's property opens the store up to having to allow other organized activities on the same property. If they let one activity, union organizers can then sue for the right to try and organize a union while on the property. This is why the Girl Scouts & Salvation Army have to jump through hoops now to be on the property, and why they are outside, at least (I forget the official distance, we'll say) 15 feet from the front doors. Beyond liability, beyond the threat of bomb scares, this is the reason that you won't get permission from the Home Office, the only entity that can truly offer real permission, to hide a geocache there.

 

Having caches on property can be actually good for such a store. Not having to give express permission gives the store (and local store manager) a bit of cover if there is a problem.

So we are doing the stores a favor when we walk around people's parked cars and peer into lamp skirts and disturb the landscaping without the owner's knowledge? And stores like it when the bomb squad gets called out? Okay, but I do not know how this constitutes adequate permission.

yawn

Yawning at a counterpoint?

Given that he ignored my point and only responded to my post to hit his talking points once more, yes.

He ignored nothing. You stated, without any facts to back you up, that placing a cache in a store's parking lot was good for the store. He countered with concrete reasons why it is bad for the store. If all you can respond with is a yawn, maybe you should go to bed instead of posting useless comments to this thread.

 

Edit: &^*&@%#$ quotes

Edited October 29, 2010 by Too Tall John

[+addisonbr]

There is no such thing as an insignificant number of extra customers.

My guess is that for most businesses, the trade-off is:

 

Some possibility of extra business, as a few dozen geocachers come to the parking lot every year

-vs-

Some possibility of definite customers getting creeped out, and/or some possibility of the occasional bomb scare

 

I totally hear what you're saying about every possible customer potentially adding to the bottom line, but in my opinion it comes with a cost that many (I'm guessing) businesses would choose not to pay if they knew they were paying it.

[+Too Tall John]

So I'll bite. How does a pill bottle under a lamp skirt be good for the store?

First thought: Brings traffic to the store, some of which will stop and spend money. I've actually done this.

 

Second thought: //blank//

I really think this is an insignificant number of people though.

There is no such thing as an insignificant number of extra customers. Every additional purchase bolsters the bottom line. This is true if I buy a coke after a long day of caching, or if I buy a roll of camo duct tape, or if I pick up that gallon of milk that I only just remembered that I needed.

At a chain store like Walmart or Blockbuster, you probably aren't going to go in and get something you wouldn't have another time anyway. Gas stations? Same thing.

That's kind of true, but it's also completely wrong.

 

Would I have bought my post-caching coke from WalMart? Nope. I would have hit a drive through for one or just skipped it.

 

Would I have bought my camo duct tape there? Nope. I probably would have gotten it from REI, Dicks, or Target.

 

Would I have bought the gallon of milk there? Nope. I would have stopped at the grocery.

 

The fact that there is a cache in the parking lot does two things for WalMart. First, it gives me a reason to stop there. Once I've stopped, perhaps I will go in and buy something that I need. Second, it makes me feel a little better about WalMart. They aren't just a evil corporate giant. They also give me a little warm fuzzy because I know that they have a small connection to a hobby that I enjoy.

PnGs seem, to me at least, mostly just that. Either you're going from cache to cache and not worrying about whether or not you need more cheerios and toilet paper, or you're stopping for gas and decide to check your GPS to see if anything is nearby.

Others, however, may feel differently, right?

I have to say, sbell111 is onto something here. This is exactly the argument I suggested Team Geoblast use when he started a thread in which he was going to pursue explicit permission from Wal-Mart to hide a cache. Unfortunately, their reasons why not (see my previous post) will outweigh their reasons to say yes.

[+Castle Mischief]

According to one report: the local police stated, "Had the geocacher who hid the cache contacted Wal-Mart for permission before placing the cache the 14 officers, two bomb trucks, a bomb trailer, a fire truck and a medical unit would not have been dispatched."

 

Directing this to the statement itself, not to 'mulvaney': Pfffft. Yeah right. More likely any of the management would have denied any knowledge of the cache and the bomb squad would have been called in anyway "just in case".